While a substantial amount of evidence emerged from the Hemy Neuman trial tending to implicate Andrea Sneiderman in the murder of her husband, Rusty Sneiderman, one of the most frequently cited "smoking guns" is the conflicting testimony regarding when Andrea knew Rusty had been shot.
The testimony regarding when Andrea knew Rusty was shot may not be as damning as you think. Let me summarize the testimony as I recall it from watching clips of the trial:
- Andrea first testifies that she first learned that Rusty had been shot and killed from a doctor at the hospital approximately 2 hours after Rusty had been shot. She says she didn't learn what happened to Rusty until she got to the DeKalb Medical Center. "Nobody told me what happened to Rusty."
- Shayna Citron testifies that Andrea called her around 10:30 am and told her that Rusty had been shot, and that she did not know whether he was alive or dead, and that she was on her way to the hospital.
- Don Sneiderman testifies that he received a call from Andrea at about 9:30 am. Andrea said she was on the way to the day care and that Rusty had been shot.
- Alan Schactely testifies that he received a text from Andrea to contact Andrea. Alan called Andrea some time before 11 am, and that Andrea said that Rusty had been shot. Andrea said to tell Neuman she was leaving, and Schactely presumed she meant leaving work.
Andrea's testimony is NOT that she FIRST learned Rusty had been shot at the hospital. Her testimony is that she learned he was shot AND had died. It is the "and died" part that is important. As I will explain below, Andrea could easily have learned and/or figured out Rusty had been shot before she ever got to the day care. In short - nobody told Andrea what happened to Rusty, that he had died, until she got to the hospital. And, therein lies the rub.
Go watch Andrea's testimony here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJvJ-2H7iTg&feature=youtu.be
The longer version is this:
Citron and the co-worker, Alan Schlactley, testified that Andrea's contact came after Andrea was at the day care and before she got to the hospital. Andrea could have heard on the radio and seen/heard evidence of a shooting at the day care. Andrea testified that a doctor at the hospital told her Rusty had been shot and had died. Do not infer from that testimony that was when she FIRST learned Rusty had been shot - that testimony is only good to show that was when Andrea FIRST learned that Rusty had DIED. She could have already learned he had been shot because she could have heard the news on the radio, and she was at the crime scene at the day care - I'm assuming that anyone at that crime scene could have observed that there had been a shooting or overheard someone talking about a shooting.
Only Don Sneiderman testified that Andrea said Rusty had been shot BEFORE Andrea got to the day care. Andrea still could have learned Rusty was shot before getting to the day care. The number one way was by radio broadcasts. I recall hearing about the shooting on the radio before I got to work that morning, and Andrea could have also heard the same "breaking news."
So - what do you think? Do you think the Defense will spin it this way? Its pretty difficult evidence to overcome, and the Defense has to get a jury through this evidence and on their side. What would you do if you had to explain Andrea's testimony in a way that is plausible and shows that she had no involvement in her husband's murder?
Please, poke holes in my theories.
I welcome comments here or on twitter: @SpeakerDave
Also, please join the Dunwoody Murder Trial Discussion Club (#DMTDC) on facebook.