Sheri Coleman, sons Garett and Gavin murdered 5-5-09, Columbia, IL. Pt9

[Wrinkles]

In continuation with the above message...more from the civil suit.

>>Starting on page 35 (under Count I)

4. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant, Christopher Coleman, was an individual living in Monroe County Illinois and owned and held multiple assests in Monroe County and other jurisdictions known soley to the Defendant.

5. At all times herein mentioned, the Defendant, Christopher Coleman, was guilty of causing the death of Plaintiff's daughter, grandchildren, and Plaintiff's sister and nephews.

6. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's conduct which caused the deaths of Plaintiffs' decedents, the Plaintiffs'decedents died and their next of kin have been permanently deprived of their love, companionship, society, support, guidance, and have incurred and become liable for large sums of money in burial expenses, all to their damage in a substantial amount.

Starting on page 37 (under Count II)

5. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant, Christopher Coleman is guilty of causing the deaths of the Plaintiffs' decedents by one or more of the following negligent acts or omissions:

a.) Negligently and carelessly failing to provide plaintiffs'decedents a safe place to live.

b.) Negligently and carelessly failing to protect plaintiffs'decedents from a dangerous condition when Defendant knew or should have known of the dangerous condition.

c.) Negligently and carelessly failing to protect plaintiffs'decedents from an unreasonable risk of harm which Plaintiffs' decedents would neither discover nor appreciate and thus would be unable to seek protection.

6. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligent acts, omissions and carelessness of the Defendant as aforesaid, Plaintiffs' decedents died and their next of kin have been permanently deprived of their love, companionship, society, support, guidance, and have incurred and become liable for large sums of money in burial expenses, all to their damage in a substantial amount.<<

If I am reading this correctly, Sheri's family is saying a) CC caused the deaths directly OR b) CC was negligent in protecting them from a danger about which he knew.

 

[Kimster]

Thank you for answering some questions I had in my mind about Sheri's belongings. I thought it most interesting that the suit requires CC to return Sheri's belongings! There was a blogger on a news site a few weeks ago that suggested the kids' clothes were already being given away early on. If they were giving her things away, I wonder how in the world they can get them back? Perhaps a public appeal would cause some of those who recieved the items to alert the attorneys?

 

[who knew?]

6. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's conduct which caused the deaths of Plaintiffs' decedents, the Plaintiffs'decedents died and their next of kin have been permanently deprived of their love, companionship, society, support, guidance, and have incurred and become liable for large sums of money in burial expenses, all to their damage in a substantial amount.

So we know the "collection" at the visitation was NOT for burial expenses. It looks like the RC family was more concerned about CC's defense than the burial of their DIL and grandsons.

Thanks for your hard work Wrinkles.

 

[who knew?]

Thank you for answering some questions I had in my mind about Sheri's belongings. I thought it most interesting that the suit requires CC to return Sheri's belongings! There was a blogger on a news site a few weeks ago that suggested the kids' clothes were already being given away early on. If they were giving her things away, I wonder how in the world they can get them back? Perhaps a public appeal would cause some of those who recieved the items to alert the attorneys?

Per Wrinkles: 22C. That in the event CHRISTOPHER COLEMAN has sold, gifted, or otherwise disposed of any item of personal property taken from the Residence that he be ordered to promptly provide information and an accounting with respect to each item sold, gifted or otherwise disposed of.

Sounds to me like the Coleman's just need to make an accounting of the items - not return them???

 

[Kimster]

Per Wrinkles: 22C. That in the event CHRISTOPHER COLEMAN has sold, gifted, or otherwise disposed of any item of personal property taken from the Residence that he be ordered to promptly provide information and an accounting with respect to each item sold, gifted or otherwise disposed of.

Sounds to me like the Coleman's just need to make an accounting of the items - not return them???

My assumption is that they want the information in order to collect the money owed on what he already disposed of, but I could be wrong on that.

 

[MCDRAW]

So we know the "collection" at the visitation was NOT for burial expenses. It looks like the RC family was more concerned about CC's defense than the burial of their DIL and grandsons.

Thanks for your hard work Wrinkles.

You would think the Coleman's would at least offer to help bury their Grandchildren.

 

[PrintGal]

Is it not strange that the religious family of CC would be even more mercenary and self-serving than the As? Guess they were not in any denial at all and went into protect CC mode immediately.

 

[Kimster]

After the murders, Chris Coleman's father's church collected money to help pay for the funerals. But Jack Carey, an attorney representing her family, wants an accounting of the collections gathered at the May 9 wake and funeral at Grace Church Ministries in Chester. Carey says he was contacted by a donor who was concerned about where the money was going. Another donor stopped payment on a check made to the same fund out of simiar concerns.

"We were chagrined at this revelation of this fund and understand it is a sizable amount," Carey said to The Belleville News-Democrat. "I just wonder where that money went and whether it is being used to benefit Christopher Coleman." <snipped>

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/22/crimesider/entry5103246.shtml

 

[MCDRAW]

Is it not strange that the religious family of CC would be even more mercenary and self-serving than the As? Guess they were not in any denial at all and went into protect CC mode immediately.

I understand the Coleman family loves Chris. He will always be their little boy. I understand denial, surely they couldn't have raised a killer. I also understand the need to protect. I am not a Grandmother so I can't know for certain but I think I would love my Grandchildren just as much as my son. That's where the water gets real murky for me. Denial is a defense mechanism. I understand that they may not can accept the fact that their son is a killer right now, if ever. Don't think I am taking up for them because I do not believe they have behaved the way the Lord would want them too. I just understand that they really may believe he is innocent. What's murky for me is the fact that they gave their Grandchildren's things away, haven't helped in their burial, not spoken out about them or for them. How can they be so calloused, when it comes to Garrett and Gavin?

 

[Vegas Bride]

Has there been headstones placed yet? I am just wondering what type of wording was done on them. Also wondering if anyone of the C's has been to visit the graves since the burial.

VB

 

[Kimster]

http://www.bnd.com/breaking_news/story/817282.html

"We talked amongst ourselves and decided to have the inquest," Gummersheimer said. " ... It's a kind of a check and balance for my office."

The inquest is set for 10 a.m. July 10 at the Monroe County Courthouse in Waterloo.

Gummersheimer earlier had said she would sign off on the death certificates without holding the inquest, but she said after discussions with Illinois State Police, Columbia Police Department and Monroe County State's Attorney Kris Reitz decided to hold the court hearing.

At an inquest, six jurors and one alternate hear testimony to decide the cause and manner of death. Gummersheimer will pick the jurors from regular jury pool, she said.

<snipped>

 

[Wrinkles]

Howdy Who Knew,

Per item 6 in Count I on p. 36 of the civil trial document:

>>6. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's conduct which caused the deaths of Plaintiffs' decedents, the Plaintiffs' decedents died and their next of kin have been permanently deprived of their love, companionship, society, support, guidance, and have incurred and become liable for large sums of money in burial expenses, all to their damage in a substantial amount.<<

You wrote:

So we know the "collection" at the visitation was NOT for burial expenses. It looks like the RC family was more concerned about CC's defense than the burial of their DIL and grandsons. ...

I don't think we can look at item #6 and assume that CC and/or his family did not take responsibility for the costs of the Chester viewing, funeral and burial, although the use of the Grace Church building was probably gratis. The mortuary in Chester (if that is where it was located) and the cemetery would have been separate and additional costs. On the other hand, how much responsibility is someone taking if they solicit contributions to a bereavement fund, IF that occurred -- and I think we have heard that it did? For what purpose would those contributions be used?

If contributions were used to pay the mortuary, viewing, and funeral bills for which CC was liable, then that saved CC money that he could then use for his defense.

As per this line:
>>and have incurred and become liable for large sums of money in burial expenses, all to their damage in a substantial amount.<<

I think this might be referring to the costs to transport Sheri and the children to the Chicago area for a service, the costs for the mortuary services and funeral home there, AND ... it might be in reference to a possible "future liability" that they have considered (or may have even prepaid). That liability might be one for exhuming Sheri and the children, transporting them to the Chicago area again, purchasing plots in the Chicago area, and giving them a proper burial service in the presence of Sheri's family. I have considered that the latter scenario might already have been foreseen and arranged with the Funeral home in Chicago, perhaps even prepaid.

 

[johnrodz]

Howdy Who Knew,


That liability might be one for exhuming Sheri and the children, transporting them to the Chicago area again, purchasing plots in the Chicago area, and giving them a proper burial service in the presence of Sheri's family. I have considered that the latter scenario might already have been foreseen and arranged with the Funeral home in Chicago, perhaps even prepaid.

I have been thinking about this for a long time. I find it hard to disturb their resting places, but at the same time I feel they deserve to be closer to loving family members who will visit their grave site. The more I think about it I hope they do move them so they can finaly rest in peace around those who love them and farther away from the monster that put them there.

JMO

 

[Wrinkles]

Greetings McDraw,

I understand the Coleman family loves Chris. He will always be their little boy. I understand denial, surely they couldn't have raised a killer. I also understand the need to protect. I am not a Grandmother so I can't know for certain but I think I would love my Grandchildren just as much as my son. <snipped for brevity> What's murky for me is the fact that they gave their Grandchildren's things away, haven't helped in their burial, not spoken out about them or for them. How can they be so calloused, when it comes to Garrett and Gavin?

Well, again, and no apologists for the RC family but for the sake of trying to get to some truth, I am not sure that we can assume that they haven't helped in their burial. We do know that the viewing was at the Grace Church, I "think" (don't know) that is where the private funeral was held. So in that respect they had the means and opportunity to provide a lovely building towards this end. We also do not know if they chipped in towards the funeral and burial costs.

As for giving their grandchildren's things away, I can imagine one of my children, if grieving the loss of one of their children, at some point saying to me, "Mom...I cannot do it, I don't have the strength. I have made a decision on what I want to keep, can you help me with something. My children would have wanted their belongings to go to less fortunate children -- could you handle this for me?" i.e. my guess is that CC was asked what he wanted, he told them, they did what he wanted. Of course, my experience is that many parents just cannot move so quickly on disposing of their children's belongings -- but everyone grieves differently.

You wrote:
>>but I think I would love my Grandchildren just as much as my son.<<

I/we have 3 beautiful grandchildren, actually 4 -- no, 7-9 (we've adopted some grandparentless kids into our pack, to love/treat them.) I love my daughter and my son (and the parents of the adopteds), but I/we may even love my grandchildren more or maybe, I should say, in a different way. The children are minors, we expect their adult parents to "cover them" -- love, train, and protect them. Neither my husband or I would feel out of order to speak up if we felt any child being short changed (and we have).

I hear people say, "You love your kids unconditionally." Love and approval are two different things. Also, eventually, the question of "Who are my kids" comes to mind.

Matthew 12:48 "But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?" ... 12:50 "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."

The opposite would have to be true, in my mind. Killing my daughter-in-law and grandchildren would not be doing the will of my Father.

 

[Wrinkles]

Wow...coroner's inquest...

I'm very curious why.

Read an article here. Interesting

Can anyone illuminate why the inquest? Got any thoughts? Maybe to get more information out there? Are these inquests something that the public can attend?

Edited: From that above mentioned article:
"All information and testimony at the inquest is recorded and/or transcribed by a certified court reporter. The inquest is open to the public and may not be closed pursuant to any requests to do so. Anyone may attend."

 

[who knew?]

I hope we will have some locals who can attend - anyone?

 

[Wrinkles]

Additional from the article:

>>The Coroner will summon to the inquest the individuals who have pertinent information concerning the incident. This often includes, but is not limited to, the person who found the deceased, witnesses to the incident, those involved, police officers and investigators, and in some instances, a direct relative. Individuals summoned will present testimony to the jury. Any professional reports (autopsy, toxicology, x-ray and laboratory reports) will be presented at that time. These reports are not released to the public until the inquest procedures are concluded.<<

Wow Who Knew, wouldn't it be great if our Waterloo Sleuther could attend, and some others?

From this article:
>>The inquest is set for 10 a.m. July 10 at the Monroe County Courthouse in Waterloo.<<

 

[TallCoolOne]

Wow...coroner's inquest...

I'm very curious why.

Read an article here. Interesting

Can anyone illuminate why the inquest? Got any thoughts? Maybe to get more information out there? Are these inquests something that the public can attend?

Edited: From that above mentioned article:
"All information and testimony at the inquest is recorded and/or transcribed by a certified court reporter. The inquest is open to the public and may not be closed pursuant to any requests to do so. Anyone may attend."

Well, is it possible that they want to get some of the details of death out there in the hopes that CC will plead the case out? I mean, once the more damaging details are out in the open, it might help force his hand, even possibly cause his family to give him a 'push' so to speak? Otherwise, I have no idea, but I don't see why not either.

 

[who knew?]

I am hoping, Wrinkles! I'd love to go, but there is no way. I'm not sure I understand why they're having the inquest now unless it is to make sure all bases are covered.

 

[Wrinkles]

Holy smokes...

Just rereading this:
>>The Coroner will summon to the inquest the individuals who have pertinent information concerning the incident. This often includes, but is not limited to, the person who found the deceased, witnesses to the incident, those involved, police officers and investigators, and in some instances, a direct relative. <<

Might they call in CC to be that direct relative, to hear everything, to get on the stand and say again how his wife was alive at 5:45AM (his words, it was actually 5:43AM per the surveillance video). Might they want him "hearing the reports" and "seeing the photos" -- "getting it" to the point of confession and in order to help save everyone in Illiniois the waste he will cause them?

Thoughts anyone?