GUILTY GA - Rusty Sneiderman shot to death at Dunwoody preschool, 18 Nov 2010 #2

[CarolinaMoon]

I'm thinking that the townhouses could be investment properties. Andrea and her children cannot live by themselves. As has been said before, she was ordered to live with her parents. Also, if they wanted to move, they would have to informe LE as she has a GPS strapped to her leg.

 

[atthelake]

I agree with your above post, however, don't you think Andre's parents checked with the court judge before purchasing another three bedroom house? Why not just buy one house, large enough to accomadate all five of them? If she is allowed to live across the street, I, for one, will be really angry!! It will be interesting to see the outcome of this!!

These properties were purchased prior ro last months bond hearing with the judge. They even spoke about this in court during the bond hearing that she wanted the kids to live in Johns Creek instead of where Andrea and Rusty previously lived because the schools were better (I remember that in court specifically because I too live in Johns Creek because their schools are excellent). I now have looked at the actual court order online and it says they must reside with her parents, but does not specifically state Johns Creek. I was theorizing that because of the discussions in court said Johns Creek, and since the order allowing her only fifteen minutes to get to religious ceremonies, that reinforced Johns Creek too aas you cannot travel from her parents bouse on the west side of the county line to her religious congregation she is now attending in Johns Creek IMHO.

I'm thinking that the townhouses could be investment properties. Andrea and her children cannot live by themselves. As has been said before, she was ordered to live with her parents. Also, if they wanted to move, they would have to informe LE as she has a GPS strapped to her leg.

Agree perhaps investment properts, but the timing of second property leads me to believe that it was purchased specifically for Andrea and the children (see above three posts up as to dates of purchase)

 

[atthelake]

I know this was for SpeakerDave but IIRC the judge ordered her to remain under house arrest with her parents; I don't recall him specifying which house or if there is more than one house. The gist of the ruling seems to indicate she's allowed out of jail but is not allowed to live alone (with her children). So it would seem to me that if they moved from house to house she would have to go with them. Or she would not be allowed to reside in one house and they another.

Seems to me that even if they had acquired 10 properties the ruling would be the same.

Just MO

CourtFilingsLinkHere <----I found the actual order language.

I was incorrect above (sorry, as I always try not do be incorrect/misleading here!) and was misled due to what was stated in court during the bond hearing - the written orders neither state "Johns Creek" nor do they state 15 minutes allowance to get to/from religious ceremonies. So it looks like they *could* be living at the parents Roswell house.....it's just that I recalled they spoke about Johns Creek schools for the children, and living in Roswell doesn't allow for the kids to go to Johns Creek public schools...hmmmmmm......

(I'm not doing the all caps! It's a cut/paste)

<snip> Case ID 12CR4394 Description Order Filed Docket Filing Date 22-AUG-2012 Associated Party ANDREA SNEIDERMAN

6. DEFENDANT SHALL RESIDE WITH HER PARENTS, HERBERT AND BONITA GREENBERG; 7. DEFENDANT SHALL BE CONFINED TO HOUSE ARREST 24 HOURS A DAY AT HER PARENTS' RESIDENCE AND SHALL LEAVE THAT RESIDENCE ONLY FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS; OFFICE MEETINGS WITH LEGAL COUNSEL; MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS OF DEFENDANT OR HER MINOR CHILDREN; COURT APPEARANCES;

and later filing.....

AS TO SNEIDERMAN, ANDREA; ORDER FOR BOND MODIFICATION TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO ATTEND RELIGIOUS SERVICES; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, THAT DEFENDANT BE ALLOWED TO ATTEND THE FOLLOWING RELIGIOUS SERVICES, ALL TO BE HELD AT CHABAD OF NORTH FULTON AS LISTED BELOW. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, THAT DEFENDANT MUST GO DIRECTLY TO THE SPECIFIED SERVICES FROM HER RESIDENCE, AND MUST RETURN DIRECTLY TO HER RESIDENCE IMMEDIATELY AFTER SAID SERVICES. THE SERVICES WHICH DEFENDANT IS ALLOWED UNDER THIS ORDER TO ATTEND ARE AS FOLLOWS:
ROSH HASHANA SERVICES - SEPTEMBER 16, 2012, 7:00PM - 9:00PM; SEPTEMBER 17, 2012, 9:30AM - 2:00PM; SEPTEMBER 18, 2012, 9:30AM -2:00PM;
YOM KIPPUR SERVICES SEPTEMBER 25, 2012, 6:45PM - 9:00PM, SEPTEMBER 26, 2012, 9:30AM-2:00PM;
SUKKOT SERVICES, OCTOBER 3, 2012, 5:00PM COMMUNAL MEAL, AND YIZKOR SERVICE, OCTOBER 8, 2012, 11:30AM; CHANUKAH SERVICES (FIRST CANDLE LIGHTING), DECEMBER 8, 2012. ALL OTHER CONDITIONS OF BOND PREVIOUSLY IMPOSED BY THIS COURT REMAIN IN EFFECT. SO ORDERED THIS 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012; SIGNED BY JUDGE ADAMS; FILED IN OPEN COURT; (DYP)

 

[Niner]

:yesss: I FINALLY caught up on reading about Hemy's trial and now Andrea's to come!!

This "new" guy Joseph should interesting to follow!

Now, I'm going to go and read atthelake's new media - no discussion thread!

Oh - atthelake - I noticed that you had a problem trying to find the thread you started... :giggle: here's what you do - next time you "find" it - Bookmark it in your favorites!! nline:

Will look forward to a great discussion when the trial starts - which is WHEN?? And will be following SpeakerDave's blog too! I don't "twitter" either... :fence: Also, I'm available to count the Sidebars, etc. in this case too!! :seeya:

 

[Niner]

I just went to read this link that rustyfriend provided on the No Discussion thread...

http://friendsofandrea.com

Website where people post their personal stories about how wonderful Andrea is.

This was posted by a JMoss on September 11th: snipped... to make my point!

With the recent indictment, that is no longer possible, so Andrea will have her opportunity to fight the accusations of her involvement and will finally be able to speak publicly.

So, it sounds like Andrea will be taking the stand in her own defense?? Should be interesting! I'm on the :fence: about her involvement now that I have read this "blog" - we shall "see", eh?!

 

[*LD*]

Her attorneys should not let her take the stand. She is terrible. I cannot imagine it will happen but they are in a bit of a bind because the State will show her combative and selfish testimony from Hemy's trial.

 

[4Jacy]

Her attorneys should not let her take the stand. She is terrible. I cannot imagine it will happen but they are in a bit of a bind because the State will show her combative and selfish testimony from Hemy's trial.

Actually, I really hope she does take the stand!

 

[Mama-cita]

Actually, I really hope she does take the stand!

She definitely would convict herself because she is SO unlike able! It would be interesting to see the dichotomy of being questioned by her attorneys, in which she would act like the grieving widow/victim of Hemy. But when questioned by the DA she will make an instant conversion into a hornet just let out of a pickle jar! :floorlaugh:

 

[4Jacy]

She definitely would convict herself because she is SO unlike able! It would be interesting to see the dichotomy of being questioned by her attorneys, in which she would act like the grieving widow/victim of Hemy. But when questioned by the DA she will make an instant conversion into a hornet just let out of a pickle jar! :floorlaugh:

It will definately be the trial to watch. For a woman who is supposed to be so smart, and had such a good job, she didn't do a brilliant job on the stand.

Also, any news or sightings of Joseph Dell?

 

[panthera]

Whether or not Andrea knew this murder was going to happen, I do not know at this point. But what I find particularly egregious is the place that it happened. Outside the day care of her child! Some day that child will learn the truth of where and who was responsible for their Father's death. Even if Andrea is found "not guilty" of conspiracy, she was having the affair that led to the murder. How sad for the children to learn this some day. If she is guilty of the conspiracy, then her children will learn this even worse truth. Not to mention the shock and fear of the other children and parents at the day care. This was a callous and selfish choice of location for the murder.

This is one instance where it would be very informative to hear from HN, specifically why this location was chosen. Did he pick the day care because it was the easiest place to murder Rusty, or was it her choice? Hopefully we will get these answers during her trial. I can't imagine anything more horrifying for her child, let alone all the others at the day care.



MOO

 

[ChickenPants]

She definitely would convict herself because she is SO unlike able! It would be interesting to see the dichotomy of being questioned by her attorneys, in which she would act like the grieving widow/victim of Hemy. But when questioned by the DA she will make an instant conversion into a hornet just let out of a pickle jar! :floorlaugh:

I agree with the spirit here, and also with Sunny Hostin's declaration of Andrea on the stand was: "She was a train wreck ... you dreaded watching her but you couldn't take your eyes off of her."

We have to bear in mind, though, that whether she is "unlikable" or not, or even if she's proven to have perjured herself during the HN trial, the prosecution's burden is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed the crimes for which she was indicted. I'll repeat that I think they MUST have some more evidence. As it stands, the one fact that she appeared to know Rusty was shot before being told may not stand on it's own. They might pull off a theory that she got the information somehow but still argue that she was not in on the actual planning of it. I wonder, also, if a specific conspiracy can be charged if she just happened to provide HN with particulars, say about Rusty's routine, but did not participate in planning the actual crime. There seems to be a lot of technicalities the defense will have to work with here...

The many pages of discovery in the indictment give me the impression that they've pulled something off of the electronic media that was not available before. Perhaps something they found on that search conducted after HN's trial.

As I read it, LE dropped the ball and did not collect certain evidence at the beginning. It was some time after things got rolling before Ariel Neuman's attorney alerted them to the affair between AS and HN. When they suspected Andrea's involvement, they were already into the HN trial and their strategy was to wait to drop the indictment on her because they suspected she would lie on the stand....and then they got the additional bonus of her treatment of Shayna Citron. It should be very interesting.

 

[ChickenPants]

This is one instance where it would be very informative to hear from HN, specifically why this location was chosen. Did he pick the day care because it was the easiest place to murder Rusty, or was it her choice? Hopefully we will get these answers during her trial. I can't imagine anything more horrifying for her child, let alone all the others at the day care.



MOO

Personally I have always thought that his choice to commit the murder - finishing Rusty off at close range, in broad daylight and at a day care center showed that he was at that point somewhat mentally deranged. I don't buy the long-standing bi-polar/bad childhood defense, nor the idea that he was trying to protect her children. But I do feel that in his situation of near bankruptcy, unhappy marriage, frustrations on the job, affair, and manipulation by Andrea as the frosting on the cake contributed to a breakdown of sorts. Just MO.

 

[4Jacy]

Personally I have always thought that his choice to commit the murder - finishing Rusty off at close range, in broad daylight and at a day care center showed that he was at that point somewhat mentally deranged. I don't buy the long-standing bi-polar/bad childhood defense, nor the idea that he was trying to protect her children. But I do feel that in his situation of near bankruptcy, unhappy marriage, frustrations on the job, affair, and manipulation by Andrea as the frosting on the cake contributed to a breakdown of sorts. Just MO.

I see this as only (the shooting at the school) as being complely contrived by Heny. What better excuse does an case insainty make? Also, I loved his sweaters, his slumped shoulders, and his lost look. He figgin' played this court, and a wonderful young man is dead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[atthelake]

I agree with the spirit here, and also with Sunny Hostin's declaration of Andrea on the stand was: "She was a train wreck ... you dreaded watching her but you couldn't take your eyes off of her."

We have to bear in mind, though, that whether she is "unlikable" or not, or even if she's proven to have perjured herself during the HN trial, the prosecution's burden is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed the crimes for which she was indicted. I'll repeat that I think they MUST have some more evidence. As it stands, the one fact that she appeared to know Rusty was shot before being told may not stand on it's own. They might pull off a theory that she got the information somehow but still argue that she was not in on the actual planning of it. I wonder, also, if a specific conspiracy can be charged if she just happened to provide HN with particulars, say about Rusty's routine, but did not participate in planning the actual crime. There seems to be a lot of technicalities the defense will have to work with here...

The many pages of discovery in the indictment give me the impression that they've pulled something off of the electronic media that was not available before. Perhaps something they found on that search conducted after HN's trial.

As I read it, LE dropped the ball and did not collect certain evidence at the beginning. It was some time after things got rolling before Ariel Neuman's attorney alerted them to the affair between AS and HN. When they suspected Andrea's involvement, they were already into the HN trial and their strategy was to wait to drop the indictment on her because they suspected she would lie on the stand....and then they got the additional bonus of her treatment of Shayna Citron. It should be very interesting.

:banghead: that we cannot see it before trial the evidence like we did with Caseys trial! Question, even though no sunshine laws here in Georgia, could someone get any of that list of evidence (assume everyone has seen it here) through the freedom of information act?

 

[atthelake]

I just went to read this link that rustyfriend provided on the No Discussion thread...



This was posted by a JMoss on September 11th: snipped... to make my point!

With the recent indictment, that is no longer possible, so Andrea will have her opportunity to fight the accusations of her involvement and will finally be able to speak publicly.

So, it sounds like Andrea will be taking the stand in her own defense?? Should be interesting! I'm on the :fence: about her involvement now that I have read this "blog" - we shall "see", eh?!

Well well alrighty, it appears we are having daily postings on that site. As the old saying goes, what you say about another person actually speaks more to you as a person versus the person you are describing. Honestly, if you look to examples of people vouching for murderers in the past, you will find that many had staunch supporters to thier character. Perhaps those that are writing this are friends with those who are giving Jose Baez five star book reviews:floorlaugh:

 

[SpeakerDave]

As promised: An opinion on the DA possibly stipulating to a change of venue.

http://dunwoodymurdertrial.blogspot.com/2012/10/update-what-if-da-agrees-to-change-venue.html

 

[Sooner Fan#1]

As promised: An opinion on the DA possibly stipulating to a change of venue.

http://dunwoodymurdertrial.blogspot.com/2012/10/update-what-if-da-agrees-to-change-venue.html

Thank you, SpeakerDave. I always look forward to you knowlegeable posts.

In your opinion, what are the chances of Andrea taking the stand?

 

[Niner]

Does anyone know WHEN Andrea will be going to trial?? TIA! :rocker:

edited to add: Will THIS be thread for the trial, too? Mods?

 

[atthelake]

Does anyone know WHEN Andrea will be going to trial?? TIA! :rocker:

edited to add: Will THIS be thread for the trial, too? Mods?

Niner, I would think next summer or more likely fall due to 1) there are rumors change of venue or venire is going to be requested, 2) her attys in court said they were not asking for a speedy trial last week 3)longer delay has Andrea free for longer 4) the defense will probably do motions scheduled by December deadline to have a lot of stuff excluded like perhaps some of the videos being shown. All that put together makes me believe delays delays delays. This will not be n ormal timeframe and no "tentative" date has even been scheduled at this time for the judges calendar. I would think in December of this year we will have a better idea for next years activities with this cas. Hopefully it will not be as long of a delay as Drew Peterson was. :rotflol:. :seeya:

 

[Niner]

Niner, I would think next summer or more likely fall due to 1) there are rumors change of venue or venire is going to be requested, 2) her attys in court said they were not asking for a speedy trial last week 3)longer delay has Andrea free for longer 4) the defense will probably do motions scheduled by December deadline to have a lot of stuff excluded like perhaps some of the videos being shown. All that put together makes me believe delays delays delays. This will not be n ormal timeframe and no "tentative" date has even been scheduled at this time for the judges calendar. I would think in December of this year we will have a better idea for next years activities with this cas. Hopefully it will not be as long of a delay as Drew Peterson was. :rotflol: :seeya:

:gthanks: atthelake, I was wondering why the thread was so quiet! I registered for "Google Alerts" on this case, and JUST today got the stuff that you mention above! Kind of "late" on those alerts, they are!! I'll make a note - and check back in December!


:seeya: