The Curious Case of Andrea Sneiderman...

[LSN80]

With all Murder Charges against the woman dropped today, it seems Sneiderman will only be on the hook for charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in the murder of her husband, Rusty. He was gunned down in front of his children's daycare by the female Sneiderman's boss, successful engineer Hemy Newman. Neuman is currently serving life in prison.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/prosecutors-planning-to-drop-murder-charges-agains/nY2xm/

It took almost two years, and four months after her boss' conviction, but last August, Ms. Sneiderman was indicted on charges of malice murder, criminal attempt to commit murder, and racketeering. Prosecutors believed Neuman and Sneiderman were having an affair, and Sneiderman convinced her boss to kill her husband, which allowed her to collect $2 million in insurance policies as well as control of $960,000 that the two shared in joint bank accounts. Said Sneiderman, through her lawyer:

"I was the victim of masterful manipulation from a stalker who weaseled his way into my life only to ambush her husband when I refused his advances."

However, phone records showed she and Neuman exchanged three phone calls the evening before Neuman killed her husband, and that she called him six more times on the way to the hospital. She testified that she didn't know her husband had been shot until she reached the hospital about an hour after the shooting, though her father-in-law and a close friend both testified she told them he had been shot during calls made on her way to the hospital.

The family of her husband has been vigorous in their pursuit of an indictment against Sneiderman. Said Rusty's brother, Steve:

"I long suspected that Andrea was involved in the death of my brother, and the trial(of Neuman) only confirmed my suspicions. We have no peace, until everyone involved in this is brought forward for their actions. In the meantime, it is clear to me that Andrea is covered in Rusty's blood and there are not enough rabbis in the world to wash away the stains."

The indictment, which was dropped against her, alledged that she and Neuman were having an affair, and she put him up to killing her husband. Ms. Sneiderman has time and again denied these allegations, both of the affair and getting Neuman to kill her husband.

What I find hard to believe is that a man would kill her husband because she rejected his advances. Generally, men whose advances are rejected who are sociopaths, or, in Ms. Sneiderman's words, 'Master Manipulators', kill the object of their spurned advances, not the spouse of. Yes, there are some who kill the husband and present him as a sort of 'trophy' to the object of their affection, but that is generally done solely when the two have already had an affair, and she then spurned his advances.

Sneiderman first had said that she learned of her husband's shooting at the hospital, although the indictment against her attested that she had informed both her father-in-law and a close friend that he had been shot while she was on her wayto the hospital. Said Prosecutor Robert James:

"There are strong beliefs that remain about Mrs. Sneiderman’s involvement. She and Neuman were covering up for one another. Hemy didn’t hide his crime from Andrea because Andrea already knew. How could she know 30 minutes after [Rusty] was shot that he had been shot?."

However, with the case being believed to be strongly circumstancial, the charges against her were dropped. There was no direct evidence that Sneiderman was involved, only second-hand testimony from witnesses. Said prominent criminal defense attorney Steve Sadow regarding the decision:

"Jettisoning the most serious charges “may be a wise tactical move, but would be outrageous considering they’ve alleged her involvement in the murder for over a year.”

Even without concrete evidence, should the charges against Sneiderman have been taken to trial, at least?

Do you believe she conspired to kill her husband? Why or why not?

Any other thoughts on this story are welcome and encouraged.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Even without concrete evidence, should the charges against Sneiderman have been taken to trial, at least?

Well, that's what we'd like to see, given that it seems preferable to bring the case before a jury to let them decide. Yet, with the court docket so crowded and prosecuting attorneys facing the realization that all the defense has to establish is reasonable cause, they figured they wouldn't waste time on a case they were bound to lose.

If this case ever saw the light of a courtroom, the jury might not even have the input of hearing the woman tell them she had nothing to do with the murder, since she isn't required to take the stand. The prosecutors might be able to catch her in a lie during testimony, but not if they can't compel her to testify.

Given these factors, the prosecution knows it has little chance of establishing for certain that she conspired to murder her husband. There's always an element of doubt in these cases, and the prosecutors might as well try her on the lesser charges, in which they at least have a chance of nailing her. It's a shame our legal system isn't a search for the truth, but rather, a series of maneuvers in which the defense needs only get their client off. The truth often has nothing to do with it.

Do you believe she conspired to kill her husband? Why or why not?

Probably, but not definitely, which is why the murder charge was thrown out. But why her alleged lover would kill her husband if she had no involvement is problematic. Then again, what the lover expected to accomplish by murdering the guy in plain sight of others makes you wonder how he planned to get away with it.

This is made-for-TV movie type stuff......and we'll probably wind up seeing it on the Lifetime network.

 

[Fire Marshall Bill]

Did I miss something? Did her boss not cut a deal for a shorter sentence to put her away? That would be WAY beyond circumstantial and would almost certainly have put her away. Maybe he truly loved her... Or maybe I've seen too many cop shows.

I firmly believe this woman was involved. However, without concrete evidence what are they going to do? It is mostly circumstantial, but the phone calls are a clear sign that something more was going on there.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Even without concrete evidence, should the charges against Sneiderman have been taken to trial, at least?

Without solid evidence, in my opinion, it could be a waste of time to take her to trial. With the way the law is set up, a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich if it really wanted to, so I have little trouble believing they'd have trouble convincing a grand jury to indict her. However, getting an indictment is the easy part because then comes the rest of it. It sounds as though the state isn't at all confident in whatever evidence it has, so they're not going to trial with what they've got. There's a high possibility of the case being dismissed at some point if Sneiderman's attorney is able to convince the presiding judge that there's simply not enough evidence to warrant sustaining the indictment.

The thing about murder is that there's now statute of limitations, so the investigation can go on indefinitely. Maybe someday, they'll be able to find rock solid evidence implicating her in her hubby's murder. It might be 20 years from now, but that's irrelevant. If they're able to go to trial with what they've got, which doesn't sound like all that much if they're not pursuing it at this time, and she's acquitted, then the state blew its only shot.

Do you believe she conspired to kill her husband? Why or why not?

In murder cases, the spouse is always a suspect and usually the first on the police look into. With the bank account & insurance policies, Sneiderman gained control of substantial finances to the tune of nearly $3 million altogether. However, for all I know, her hubby himself may have taken out the policy 5 or 10 years ago. If she'd taken it out on him recently, say within 6-12 months or so before his death, that'd definitely raise some flags. However, it doesn't say anything about that in the story, so maybe there's nothing to that.

As it pertains to the alleged affair, it's a possibility of course. However, Neuman's attorney could show no evidence of an affair beyond a "timeline" regarding numerous sexual encounters between them and a couple of emails that seemed to hint at something more than just a friendship. Maybe they did have something going on or maybe they had some sort of flirtatious relationship. It's not all that uncommon of a thing between coworkers and friends. Maybe she didn't know he was serious. Also, is there any real physical evidence? Hotel receipts to show they'd met somewhere? Coworkers who saw them get a little "too close"? Is there anything Neuman could say in regards to their sexual encounters that could prove that he had had sex with her? Describing her body? If she has any tattoos or scars or anything that one could only know about or describe if they saw her nude? Also, Neuman pleaded not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. He claimed that angels & demons that looked like celebrities told him to kill Sneiderman in order to protect the Sneiderman children. Andrea Sneiderman did say that Neuman confessed to having feelings for her but that she didn't feel the same about him. Neuman's attorney said that her rejection of him only worsened his psychological problems & hallucination, problems that Sneiderman said she had no knowledge of. I haven't read anything in the stories in which family members or coworkers have testified about his alleged mental problems. Insanity defenses are the biggest Hail Mary of defense attorneys because, I think, less than 1% of insanity defenses are successful. It's what they do when they simply don't have any other means of defense. Might he have these problems? Anything's possible, but to keep knowledge of his condition secret from everyone around him day in & day out? That's too far fetched and something that he pulled out of his ass as a last resort since this seems to be the first time people are hearing about it. For enough money, the defense can bring in any quack who can diagnose him with whatever they think works.

Whether he's severely mentally ill or was lying his ass off in order to avoid spending the rest of his life in prison, any testimony he could potentially give against her would have little to no credibility. If he is ill and really does have hallucinations, then how could his word be taken when he can't tell what's real and what isn't? If he's ill, then maybe this affair happened all within the confines of his own head. If he's perfectly healthy and was lying, he has no credibility. If they went to trial with his testimony as the key piece of evidence, a first year law student would have a field day tearing him apart on the stand.

Part of me feels that she had some hand in this, the inconsistencies in her story are troubling but there's just nothing that's at all solid. If I was sitting on a jury in which the meat of the prosecution's case consisted of a few emails and the testimony of a man claiming that demons in the shape of Brad Pitt & Beyoncé told him to blow Rusty Sneiderman away, then I'd simply have to find her not guilty.