Sneiderman and Joshua Young Updates

There are two major court cases ongoing. The first is the Joshua Young trial. After only a few witnesses, including the family caseworker, Allison Miller, the defense rested and Joshua did not testify. 

One of Joshua’s aunts testified that she saw him teary-eyed and upset during the funeral. Witnesses for the prosecution had previously testified that Joshua showed no emotion during the funeral.

We have been hearing all throughout the trial that Allison Miller, the caseworker, believes that Joshua is innocent though we heard very little from her on the stand. She testified that she saw Joshua Young and Trey playing video games and joking together. She saw no problems between the two teens however, the prosecution pointed out that she spent very little time in their presence.

It would have been interesting to have heard more from Ms. Miller. She has been involved with Joshua Young since 2007. Bound by state law, she also assisted in the reunification of Joshua Young and Josh Gowker.

Closing arguments and deliberations begin on Friday. The judge told jurors to pack a bag in case they aren’t able to reach a decision by Friday night. If no verdict is reached, they will be sequestered in a hotel and asked to resume deliberations on Saturday.

Andrea Sneiderman 

Don Sneiderman, Rusty’s father,  testified about a phone call that he received from his daughter-in-law Andrea Sneiderman regarding the death of Rusty Sneiderman. According to Don Sneiderman, Andrea called him before arriving at Atlanta Medical Center where her husband was pronounced dead.

“She called, she was very excited, her voice was very high pitched,” Mr. Sneiderman said. “She said Rusty had been shot, she was so, so sorry and she was going to Dunwoody Prep to see what had happened.”

The prosecution also introduced correspondences between Andrea Sneiderman and Hemy Neuman, attempting to demonstrate that they were having an affair. After the two went on a business trip in Greenville, South Carolina, Andrea writes about a “betrayal.”

In another letter she says that she has to “repent” and that she doesn’t know how to “live with this.”

A friend of Neuman’s, Melanie White, testified that Neuman told her he and Sneiderman were intimate during a trip to England. Ms. White told the court that Hemi said, that the two “decided they were soulmates.”

Ms. White had been telling Mr. Neuman to leave Andrea alone.

Today, the jury is watching a three hour video of the police questioning of Andrea Sneiderman that took place about a week after her husband was murdered.

Andrew Thompson, lead detective with the Dunwoody Police Department, took the stand and told the court “I made a mistake.” He was apologizing for mishandling the investigation of the shooting of Rusty Sneiderman.

He also told the court that “she did not tell me about any extramarital affair. She concealed any kind of physical involvement with Hemy. She told me absolutely nothing to emphasize that there was an inappropriate relationship or extramarital affair with Hemy which would have guided my investigation directly at him.”

Andrea Sneiderman’s attorney pointed out, when the detective was on the stand, that she came to the police station without an attorney even though she was told that it was a death penalty case.

13 thoughts on “Sneiderman and Joshua Young Updates

  1. I too am surprised at how little we heard from Miller. If involved with Josh Y. since 2007, I am sure she could have more to say.
    Sneiderman will get her just desserts. Arrogance usually catches up.

  2. Sorry Dr K – did my level best to watch the Joshua Young trial, but had to surrender when the victim’s mother was under cross-examination. Wholeheartedly agree with Uppity – people such as this should never be permitted to procreate.

  3. Seems some defense witnesses were limited to extremely narrow testimony – social workers and aunt especially.Was it bcz they were not allowed to use character witnesses? Wish a reporter would report on that.

  4. I haven’t followed either trial, but I did see some limited testimony in the Joshua Young trial. Not sure what the social worker said or could have said. If she believes he’s innocent, that’s inadmissible since no expert is allowed to opine on the ultimate issue in a criminal trial. (Dr. Samuels wanted to testify the same thing about Jodi Arias–that it was his opinion she did not have the mental state to premeditate the murder but acted instead on impulse. It was not allowed, and the slugs still tried to slime it in, requiring objections and reminders that the expert has no right to give such testimony.)

    Like I said, I haven’t followed the testimony but from the little I heard it does sound like there’s reasonable doubt given that the father wanted the son to take responsibility and he’s such a horrible human being.

    Andrea is a piece of work. I’m fascinated by people like her who make exaggerated displays of emotion as it implies to me at least that they’re imitating the way they believe people with real empathy behave. There’s a story about how after her husband was murdered, on the day of their anniversary, she dressed up in her wedding dress and went to the place they were married (a synagogue or church or something) so she could feel his spirit there. Right, and so that everyone else can see her acting out her deep grief.

    • Andrea is a piece of work and I think you nailed it- she acts the way she thinks others think she should be acting.
      8:00 pm – verdict reached in Josh Young trial – just waiting to hear it.

    • Wow! It’s really something that juries don’t seem to convict on emotion very often anymore but really want the evidence to line up and prove the crime. I don’t have research to support this but the tide seems to have turned from the days when juries were prone to convict. So many cases in the 1970s, 80s & 90s where juries wrongly convicted people without corroborating evidence on the word of a few witnesses or coerced confessions. Decades followed of appellate court reversals, exoneration by DNA, etc.

      I recently read that the medical expert that testified for the prosecution in the Louise Woodward case in 1998 (she was the 19 year old au pair convicted of killing baby Matthew Eappen) has now said that the state of the science on shaken baby syndrome shows Matthew’s head injury really could have occurred days earlier or even from a medical condition. She was convicted on his expert testimony that Matthew must have been injured minutes before he went unconscious (and he was in her care) rather than from a fall a few days earlier or any other reason. (The judge reduced her sentence, she returned to England and is now a lawyer.) The doctor says what we believed about shaken baby syndrome back then has been disproven now by advances in MRIs and advances in the science of neurology.

      Then there’ are all the bizarre convictions in daycare sex abuse cases in 1990s. No Greater Tyrannies is a great book on those.

      I guess I’m in a little bit of shock (and relieved) that juries are refusing to assume guilt as was the rule rather than the exception in times past.

      • Maria – I agree with you. The media has a lot to do with swaying public opinion as was the case with Josh Young – portraying him as having a baby face but a monster inside like his Dad. I am glad that public opinion does not determine guilt or even innocence. Through the media, much more info is dragged up that the jury does not hear necessarily. Public opinion does not hear the evidence presented, the admonitions and the papers that give jurors info under the law. The juries do their due diligence with the evidence presented to them. They may not get it right all of the time, but it is better than thousands, indluenced by the media being given the task.

      • CSI effect, combined with cases of actual innocence. Science and an awareness of science allows people to demand more than emotions. Eye witness testimony still trumps, even though identifications of people other than those we know have been shown to be faulty, but most jurors want to put the case together.

        The pendulum swings.

  5. Maria, your summation of AS as ‘a piece of work’ says it all.
    This woman should be on far more serious charges than she currently is. Her arrogance and conceit is overwhelming, and her lack of emotion over the loss of her husband is staggering – that is, of course, after you allow her time to feign concern for him.
    This woman -on reflecting back over your life’s experiences – is someone you can be thankful you didn’t become involved with.

    • Don – Her arrogance is astounding. Unlike Josh Young, I feel that she was deeply involved in her husband’s murder and my question is…can they re-file Murder charges or conspiracy to commit murder in the future? She will be found guilty of her current charges I believe and be sentenced accordingly. Her arrogance may have got her out of murder charges for now but caught up with her currently. What about the kids? Where are they? she is a piece of work for sure!

    • Yep, she got away with not facing murder charges. But she effectively deleted the emails that would have proven she was involved in the murder. I have some faith in these prosecutors because they seem to have set up a really good trap for her during Nueman’s trial which led to her lies and the opportunity to charge her with perjury and obstruction even though they don’t have enough to prove her involvement in the murder. Hopefully their tactic will pay off in sending her to prison for a very long time through this alternate route. It was brilliant, I think, the way prosecutors set the trap, letting her perjure herself, and police also letting her talk till she was blue in the face not realizing they suspected her of being involved and knew her stories were lies. Brilliant work if you know someone is guilty but you don’t have the evidence to prove it to a jury, just give them opportunities to lie under oath, and get them on that!!

  6. Nern, I believe Maria has summed up AS’s position to a nicety. She has covered her tracks to a certain degree but will be hard pressed to defend the charges she currently faces. Her attorney appears to be almost as arrogant as she is – if that’s possible. I don’t think there is any impediment to upgrading charges against her, but am most doubtful they will.

Leave a Reply