GUILTY Bali - Sheila von Wiese Mack, 62, found dead in suitcase, 12 Aug 2014 #3

[Kamille]

yes, I think investigators messed up and she should have gotten 1st degree...
Check out how she sets-up still another friend, Andrew Hammack:
"...The evidence the court ruled was improperly withheld was a third statement given to the police by Andrew Hammack, a friend of Noura Jackson, whom she identified as a suspect in the murder and whom police considered a possible suspect initially.

Hammack told police in the statement that he was using the drug ecstasy the night of the murder and that he left his phone in the car of a friend that night...

...Hammack’s testimony on the point was crucial because he claimed Noura Jackson called him and told him she was at the house during the time when the murder happened and that she wanted him to meet her there and walk into the house with her....

Why, oh why, won't Hammack roll under the bus, like a good boy for Noura, and go into the house with her?

And how about all those lying relatives? And yet the mothers of a few of her friends believe they knew her well enough to believe she didn't do it and are likely the same people still supporting her today. Really? Most kids are on their best behavior and very manipulative around their friends's parents, especially when they are the drop out of school, drug taking partying type. I guess those women's children were notthe ones testifying to the lies she was telling. Any person who thinks they know someone else's kid better than the parent does is delusional IMO. And any parent who is in denial about what their kid is doing and is capable of is in danger IMO.

MOO


MOO

 

[Orange Tabby]

Looks like a couple of claims filed against the estate? One from a bank (condo was carrying a mortgage?) and another from an L. Howard?

I suppose the estate was left open due to the pending lawsuit since it was obviously the "Estate of James L Mack" who was pursuing the suit after his death?

MOO

Lisa Howard's approved class 7 claim is the thing I found most interesting. It took me a while to learn the nature of the claim but I have now found the court history between her and James L. Mack here, a case information summary:

https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com...=&caseno=&PLtype=2&sname=James+L.+Mack&CDate=

I had previously thought an ex-wife of James Mack was the person behind the Oak Park police report dated Apr. 19, 2004, complaining about Sheila von Wiese Mack. I don't think that any more.

 

[gracehatter]

Lisa Howard's approved class 7 claim is the thing I found most interesting. It took me a while to learn the nature of the claim but I have now found the court history between her and James L. Mack here, a case information summary:

https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com...=&caseno=&PLtype=2&sname=James+L.+Mack&CDate=

I had previously thought an ex-wife of James Mack was the person behind the Oak Park police report dated Apr. 19, 2004, complaining about Sheila von Wiese Mack. I don't think that any more.

I thought it was a sister of said child for some reason?? Don't ask me why! Tabby, wonderful work...yup, I wondered who Lisa was too! That would account for the odd amount which puzzled me.

 

[gracehatter]

I suppose the estate was left open due to the pending lawsuit since it was obviously the "Estate of James L Mack" who was pursuing the suit after his death?

MOO

Yup, which is why it stays open until June of 2011.

 

[Quester]

Could someone summarize/explain/offer significance of the new info please? TIA

[I got lost in the legal mumbo-jumbo. I did note how long it had gone on though - around 10 years. Wow!]

 

[gracehatter]

What I'm suggesting is that when JM created that will he had about $150,000 in assets listed in that trust. Is that correct? I'm lost about all this trust stuff. So the Linden Ave house was not part of this trust? Basically he drew up a will that allotted the condo in Hyde Park to only his minor daughter and the Linden Ave house to his wife? And he only had a bank account in his name only with about $1800 in it that also went to HM?
That condo was sold the year after his death. So does that mean those funds are still in trust for HM?

So what I'm saying is that he may not have known how a settlement would be divided and that by creating the will as he did, he set HM up to receive anything he received after his death as well. Which
may not have been his intention and may be what SWM was able to successfully argue? Her brother was the executor so he would likely know the intent?

I just don't think he ever intended for HM to get all that money is my point.

MOO

My natives are restless for dinner so I'll have to come back much later. What was JM's intent at the time? He had no idea it would amount to this so my best guess is that at the signing of the "wills" (SVM signed hers at the same time, remember, also including a trust) he wanted to make sure his 10 year old daughter was provided for. He made that clear.

 

[Kamille]

Could someone summarize/explain/offer significance of the new info please? TIA

[I got lost in the legal mumbo-jumbo. I did note how long it had gone on though - around 10 years. Wow!]

It appears that JM has another child not previously identified. Chances are that this is the son that was listed in the police report. He was ordered to pay child support (the case started in 1993 so he may be just a tad older than HM). His mother, LH, made a claim against the estate. Her judgement was either $129.71 or $12971.00. Hard to figure out. But it appears as though it is the lower amount by the way other amounts are entered.

So that was yet another reason for JM to stipulate that only HM be provided for in his will it appears.

I wonder if HM knows about this other half brother?

MOO

 

[Kamille]

And I'd also hazard a guess that it was SWM who encouraged JM to set things up this way and to have the funds from the settlement! after his death, be filtered through this trust to avoid any claims on that money as well from this woman?

MOO

 

[FormerOakParker]

Could someone summarize/explain/offer significance of the new info please? TIA

[I got lost in the legal mumbo-jumbo. I did note how long it had gone on though - around 10 years. Wow!]

Me too! Got an error message when clicking the link:
"The LexisNexis® CourtLink® web site you are trying to reach is currently unavailable. Please try again shortly.

If you continue having problems, please contact LexisNexis
Customer Support, day or night: 1-888-311-1966"

 

[FormerOakParker]

It appears that JM has another child not previously identified. Chances are that this is the son that was listed in the police report. He was ordered to pay child support (the case started in 1993 so he may be just a tad older than HM). His mother, LH, made a claim against the estate. Her judgement was either $129.71 or $12971.00. Hard to figure out. But it appears as though it is the lower amount by the way other amounts are entered.

So that was yet another reason for JM to stipulate that only HM be provided for in his will it appears.

I wonder if HM knows about this other half brother?

MOO

Not to bash JM, but I get the impression that he was quite a womanizer, which may have doomed his 1st marriage with Beatrice, mother of 1st 5 of HM's half siblings. Depending on this child's date of birth, womanizing may have doomed the second marriage to Kaye as well.

 

[Curious Me]

Me too! Got an error message when clicking the link:
"The LexisNexis® CourtLink® web site you are trying to reach is currently unavailable. Please try again shortly.

If you continue having problems, please contact LexisNexis
Customer Support, day or night: 1-888-311-1966"

I'm having the same problem. Can't see it. How can I get that link to work?
Anyways, I appreciate the conversation about this new info, and I think I'm getting an understanding, but I have questions. It's quite interesting.

I hope JM did right by this other child. Was he denying his being the father? Was he paying child support and trying to get out of it? Wasn't he married to the boy's mother? Did JM maybe feel duped by the mother?

Was he what we now call a "baby's daddy"? :groucho:

That old 911 call was about the boy going there for visitation?

 

[Orange Tabby]

I'm having the same problem. Can't see it. How can I get that link to work?
Anyways, I appreciate the conversation about this new info, and I think I'm getting an understanding, but I have questions. It's quite interesting.

I hope JM did right by this other child. Was he denying his being the father? Was he paying child support and trying to get out of it? Wasn't he married to the boy's mother? Did JM maybe feel duped by the mother?

Was he what we now call a "baby's daddy"?

That old 911 call was about the boy going there for visitation?

Hi Curious Me. I'm sorry you and at least a few others can't access the link in one of my recent posts.

Try this docket search page to find the deets I linked to. Specify "domestic relations/child support" in the "Division Name" drop list, and enter the name of Heather's deceased father as defendant (not plaintiff).

http://www.cookcountyclerkofcourt.org/?section=CASEINFOPage&CASEINFOPage=2400

A few other little points:

1. We call it "baby daddy" here in Chicago. We don't mess around with pesky possessives when getting down to the nitty gritty!

2. I am confident that the woman who filed a police report (she did not call 911, but visited the police station to make her complaint), is LH; and yes this is the incident alleging SvWM interfered with visitation. It is chronologically the very first of the 86 reports released by Oak Park Police.

3. I can find no evidence JM was ever married to this child's mother. I think it's the lack of having been married that lead her to the next point on this list.

4. The mother filed a petition to establish parentage, so it does seem that at some point the proceedings -- legal and otherwise -- failed to be remotely congenial.

5. If a man of his age at the time felt "duped" by the situation, then I would feel pity for his cognitive faculties.

 

[gracehatter]

What I'm suggesting is that when JM created that will he had about $150,000 in assets listed in that trust. Is that correct? I'm lost about all this trust stuff. So the Linden Ave house was not part of this trust? Basically he drew up a will that allotted the condo in Hyde Park to only his minor daughter and the Linden Ave house to his wife? And he only had a bank account in his name only with about $1800 in it that also went to HM?

That condo was sold the year after his death. So does that mean those funds are still in trust for HM?

So what I'm saying is that he may not have known how a settlement would be divided and that by creating the will as he did, he set HM up to receive anything he received after his death as well. Which may not have been his intention and may be what SWM was able to successfully argue? Her brother was the executor so he would likely know the intent?

I just don't think he ever intended for HM to get all that money is my point.

MOO

Mind you these are only my speculations and suppositions that follow.

The brother was the secondary executor and only would come into play if SM had been unable to serve in that capacity. It possible SM shared their reasoning with him, we know at the least she would have shared her thoughts with him regarding her estate and trust.

I'm going to hazard a guess that the $150,000 and the real properties were not in the trust, but made up the inventory of the estate and it all went to Sheila and only JM's portion of the settlement proceeds were designated to make up what is called the corpus of the trust. I only say that because other than the 2 existing mortgages they don't appear to have been encumbered in any other way and it just makes more sense to pass the estate on to the surviving spouse. IMO there are much more effective ways to ensure real property is passed to an heir, if that's what you want to do. Putting it in a trust would be clumsy given the nature of the properties, that is, they were not ancestral grounds or designated historical homes for instance, plus that would have in effect rendered SM homeless. I would think JM knew how the proceeds from the lawsuit would be allocated, that generally would be a known factor when drawing up the trust. Did he have any idea of the amount? Would he have wanted his 15 year old to have half a mil? I too doubt that but it is hard to say. I'm thinking here was a man that probably was sensing his demise was not too far off in the future and he just wanted to leave his then 10 year old something and to be provided for and a trust does that. He certainly had no idea that she would turn out to be a sociopathic murderess. Keep in mind, we really don't know much more than both he and SM chose a trust as the final devices to dispose of their assets. The answer possibly lies in the probate file along with the reasons for SM's petition to the court to be designated the sole beneficiary. I've wondered a couple of times about the reference to "documentation" of the 86 incidents (save the baby mama drama) that has been attributed to SM. We know she wasn't documenting it to have HM arrested, she "didn't think that would help HM" and she could have been doing for the purposes of further treatment or hospitalization for HM but IMO she seemed to be resistant to that as well. Is it possible that this was instrumental in demonstrating to a Judge why a then 15 year old HM was not stable enough to have the proceeds at her disposal under the conditions of the trust? Between 2006 and 2011 SM would have had ample time to observe the difficulties HM was having with school and at home and as I still contend, socially as well. All of that seems to have increased after JM's death. It would be very helpful to know just what the trust denoted and the basis for SM's petition.

 

[gracehatter]

More thoughts I had yesterday.

What the article I posted did provoke in my mind was the motive for the murder. Specifically HM's. I'm still unsure just at what point TS and motive come into play. I do think having learned he impregnated HM, TS at least figured by doing the responsible thing, maybe by marriage to HM, he would surely get what is known in slang as "the come up" or a boost up the social ladder as it were. We have heard that HM was somewhat of a braggert about the family's windfall from her peers. She certainly was flaunting it (or appeared to be) with the hosting of the hotel party at the Conrad. I wonder just what she had told Tommy about the money situation. Did HM have some expectation of recouping "her" inheritance since she was getting close to the age of majority? Had SM made promises about that at all? I keep thinking of Mr. Elkins, he called himself the "family lawyer" but that feels like a stretch on his part. Is it possible that HM had spoken to him, in whatever "social" setting, about determining if she had any cause of action against SM re: the trust funds? At 18 she would have been free to do so and would account for well, let's not go there...just a thought. I still am not sure of premeditation at least by TS. It just feels like a rage based murder to me because who would so poorly plan a murder in this fashion??

 

[gracehatter]

The above should say "since she had reached the age of majority".

 

[Curious Me]

Hi Curious Me. I'm sorry you and at least a few others can't access the link in one of my recent posts.

Try this docket search page to find the deets I linked to. Specify "domestic relations/child support" in the "Division Name" drop list, and enter the name of Heather's deceased father as defendant (not plaintiff).

http://www.cookcountyclerkofcourt.org/?section=CASEINFOPage&CASEINFOPage=2400

A few other little points:

1. We call it "baby daddy" here in Chicago. We don't mess around with pesky possessives when getting down to the nitty gritty!

2. I am confident that the woman who filed a police report (she did not call 911, but visited the police station to make her complaint), is LH; and yes this is the incident alleging SvWM interfered with visitation. It is chronologically the very first of the 86 reports released by Oak Park Police.

3. I can find no evidence JM was ever married to this child's mother. I think it's the lack of having been married that lead her to the next point on this list.

4. The mother filed a petition to establish parentage, so it does seem that at some point the proceedings -- legal and otherwise -- failed to be remotely congenial.

5. If a man of his age at the time felt "duped" by the situation, then I would feel pity for his cognitive faculties.

Thanks. I did get to see it using the docket search.

He a "Baby Daddy". :smile:

Just in general, it's sad for the children when there's visitation hassles. It's just not fair to the child.

 

[Orange Tabby]

I'm going to hazard a guess that the $150,000 and the real properties were not in the trust, but made up the inventory of the estate ...

[SBM]

Just a point of clarification. The $150,000 asset was one of the real properties, according to Jon Seidel in the Chicago Sun-Times:

The estate left behind eight years ago by James L. Mack, whose wife was found stuffed in a suitcase in Bali last week, didn’t amount to much — at first.​

Mack left behind a $150,000 Chicago condo and a bank account worth about $1,800 when he died in 2006, according to court records filed by his now-deceased widow, Sheila von Wiese-Mack.​

See: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/...in-a-cruise-line-settlement.html#.VE3Wba5GRak

I think it likely that James and Sheila’s ownership of their Linden Avenue home was a joint tenancy. In Illinois, this means it would automatically become Sheila’s property after the death of her husband. This is a very common form of home ownership by a married couple in my state. And it would explain why it isn't in the list of assets Seidel mentions, which he asserts are the assets of the estate. Here’s a bit of info on that:

A joint tenant’s interest in the property terminates upon his or her death, and the surviving joint tenant or joint tenants then own the property free of any claim by the heirs of the joint tenant who died.​

See: http://www.illinoislawyerfinder.com...w/estate/joint-tanency-joint-tenants-illinois

This source also notes that other kinds of assets can be jointly held in the same way, so that the death of one spouse means that the other automatically assumes total control of the assets, for example: joint bank accounts, registered securities, U.S. savings bonds, and other Treasury obligations.

I think it's also reasonable to assume James and Sheila had such a joint bank account and that it automatically became Sheila’s alone when her husband died.

 

[Orange Tabby]

Thanks. I did get to see it using the docket search.

He a "Baby Daddy". :smile:

Just in general, it's sad for the children when there's visitation hassles. It's just not fair to the child.

Glad the more circuitous route of the docket search worked for you and you could see the info.

On visitation hassles: I couldn’t agree with you more.

The story of JM and his second-youngest child seems to be a very sad and unfortunate one. James, by all accounts, was such a talented and up-beat person. Just think what he could have brought into the life of that child.

Although perhaps this now-young-man is currently thinking that on the positive side, he never had contact with his murderous half-sister.

 

[gracehatter]

[SBM]

Just a point of clarification. The $150,000 asset was one of the real properties, according to Jon Seidel in the Chicago Sun-Times:

The estate left behind eight years ago by James L. Mack, whose wife was found stuffed in a suitcase in Bali last week, didn’t amount to much — at first.​

Mack left behind a $150,000 Chicago condo and a bank account worth about $1,800 when he died in 2006, according to court records filed by his now-deceased widow, Sheila von Wiese-Mack.​

See: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/...in-a-cruise-line-settlement.html#.VE3Wba5GRak

I think it likely that James and Sheila’s ownership of their Linden Avenue home was a joint tenancy. In Illinois, this means it would automatically become Sheila’s property after the death of her husband. This is a very common form of home ownership by a married couple in my state. And it would explain why it isn't in the list of assets Seidel mentions, which he asserts are the assets of the estate. Here’s a bit of info on that:

A joint tenant’s interest in the property terminates upon his or her death, and the surviving joint tenant or joint tenants then own the property free of any claim by the heirs of the joint tenant who died.​

See: http://www.illinoislawyerfinder.com...w/estate/joint-tanency-joint-tenants-illinois

This source also notes that other kinds of assets can be jointly held in the same way, so that the death of one spouse means that the other automatically assumes total control of the assets, for example: joint bank accounts, registered securities, U.S. savings bonds, and other Treasury obligations.

I think it's also reasonable to assume James and Sheila had such a joint bank account and that it automatically became Sheila’s alone when her husband died.

Any real property and tangibles that are owned jointly with rights of survivorship do indeed pass automatically to the survivor, however if that is the case they pass outside of the will and are not considered nor listed as part of the estate. So if the condo and the bank account were listed on the court records that SWM filed, it means they were not jointly owned. Since he doesn't state that the Linden property was listed I imagine that was jointly owned by the two of them.

 

[Orange Tabby]

Any real property and tangibles that are owned jointly with rights of survivorship do indeed pass automatically to the survivor, however if that is the case they pass outside of the will and are not considered nor listed as part of the estate.

That was precisely my point, since you had suggested that real properties (plural) were part of the estate. My clarification was (i) that only one real property (out of two that we know of) was part of the estate, and (ii) that there wasn't both $150,000 and a real property in the estate, as you had suggested, but that the $150,000 asset was a real property.

So if the condo and the bank account were listed on the court records that SWM filed, it means they were not jointly owned. Since he doesn't state that the Linden property was listed I imagine that was jointly owned by the two of them.

I agree. I was making the distinction between the two real properties, which you did not make.

As to the the bank accounts, I was pointing out that I believe there was in addition to Mack's personal account, a joint account. I believe this because $1,800 in a bank account seems very tiny indeed for this couple. So I think there was at least one other (a joint one), if not still another (one owned solely by Sheila).

All of these things by way of noting that there are assets we will probably never learn about, and that these are assets that Heather would never have been entitled to, either by way of will or trust.