10/30/2009 10:00:00 PM
DEMOCKER HEARING: Prosecution
says debt caused problems for couple
| |
|
PRESCOTT - Accused killer Steven DeMocker and his ex-wife Carol Kennedy both struggled with finances after their divorce, which caused extreme friction between the two, a fraud examiner testified Friday at the Yavapai County Courthouse.
On the fourth day of the evidentiary hearing surrounding Kennedy's murder, Richard Echols said DeMocker and Kennedy argued extensively about money in a slew of e-mails during the months, weeks and days leading up to the victim's death on July 2, 2008.
Prosecuting attorneys accuse DeMocker, 55, of bludgeoning Kennedy to death with a golf club at what was their Williamson Valley home. The state is seeking the death penalty for DeMocker, a former financial advisor, based on five aggravating circumstances, including pecuniary gain.
On July 1, 2008, the day before Kennedy's death, e-mail correspondence between DeMocker and Kennedy indicates she complained about not receiving a second alimony payment of $6,000, money she was entitled to from her ex-husband and had planned to use to pay down debt.
She also could not afford to take over the mortgage on the couple's house, where she was living by herself after the split.
Essentially, prosecutors allege DeMocker killed Kennedy to avoid paying her $6,000 per month - $576,000 total - in alimony and to keep her from receiving a share of a 401K plan after the divorce.
Echols said Kennedy had a job but could not pay all of her bills. She was relying on DeMocker for help. However, Echols testified that DeMocker penned in a March 13, 2008, e-mail that he was unable to pay off his debts on five credit cards and he had borrowed $50,000 from his father.
Echols added that DeMocker's income shrunk by 30 percent in the first six months of 2008 when compared with the same timeframe the previous year. He estimated DeMocker owed creditors $160,000 in 2007.
To cover his shortfall, Echols said DeMocker tried to get money from the company he worked for, Phoenix-based UBS Financial Services Inc., and made a premature withdrawal of $89,000 from an IRA. Prosecutors say Kennedy also had two separate life insurance policies, including one for $250,000 that would go directly to DeMocker if Kennedy died.
"At the same time, Kennedy was making demands for money," Echols said.
Yavapai County Deputy Attorney Joseph Butner said Kennedy was upset with the couple's divorce settlement, felt her attorney had let her down, and wanted to take her ex-husband to court for not disclosing all of his assets.
Prosecutors say DeMocker became fearful that Kennedy would report him to the Internal Revenue Service about an inaccurate 2007 tax return, which might cause him to lose his license as a financial advisor and put him out of work.
In a June 14, 2008, e-mail between DeMocker and Kennedy that Echols read in court, DeMocker wrote, "How does this solve anything, Carol? Keeping at this fight will hurt you."
Echols said that in September 2004 DeMocker left a job at A.G. Edwards Inc., a financial services holding company, for a more lucrative position at UBS.
In 2007, while at UBS, the prosecution says DeMocker's tax return stated he earned $526,966, which was significantly more than the $374,000 he made the year before. Tax returns reveal DeMocker took in $315,000 in 2005 and $301,000 during his last year with A.G. Edwards.
Prosecutors said DeMocker received more than $800,000 to transfer his so-called "book of business" to UBS. They added that the defendant reported only his liability, and not his assets, from the book of business during his divorce hearing with Kennedy so he would not lose money.
"A reasonable person could conclude that the asset was left off for a reason," Echols said.
The defense, which began its cross-examination of Echols late Friday afternoon, will continue its arguments when the hearing resumes at 1:30 p.m. next Tuesday inside Judge Thomas Lindberg's courtroom.
|
Posted: Sunday, November 15, 2009
Article comment by:
Francie
Many here seem to resent their ex spouses. It seems DeMocker may have acted out their own fantasies which they all applaud him for. Seems many support him and regard him something of both a martyr and a hero. Of which he is neither, in my opinion.
Posted: Thursday, November 12, 2009
Article comment by:
x
There sure are a lot of rude people who either likes this man or not, but very rude.
Posted: Sunday, November 08, 2009
Article comment by:
Observer
The drama queen posting about some damning as-yet-undisclosed discovery item has nothing of consequence and needs to confine themselves to critiquing TV shows. (Or, at least, learn a little bit about “Brady” case law as it relates to this matter) Courtroom surprises are only on TV, and AZ law ensures this by requiring discovery disclosure within certain time frames. Whatever Yavapai County prosecutors have on this Democker fellow must be made known to the defense by now. This is a very weak case (especially since forensic evidence points convincingly away from the defendant), and a strong reminder about the dangers of charging “heavy” to drive an early plea.
Posted: Thursday, November 05, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
Well Julie, of course, have it your way... it's not a laughing matter and what I know, I know to be true. Some things are not allowed to be printed even if they are true. Enjoy your defensive stance.
Posted: Thursday, November 05, 2009
Article comment by:
Julie Abrita
Let me get this straight. You have information which is so interesting it makes everything else said here unimportant. But you can’t post it because you know the Courier would remove it. Well, the Courier only removes posts which are false, misleading, obscene, illegal, libelous, defamatory, or abusive in a number of other ways. I guess if you know your post would be false and misleading, or otherwise abusive, we should all be grateful you’re going to keep it to yourself. And as a rule it sounds like we should be suspicious of anything you post… Respectfully.
Posted: Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
I wish I could tell you what I do know... but that would not get published as the reporters would remove it! It's more interesting than the information printed here, but it will all come out in the end.
Posted: Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
I love how all of you who want to see him convicted summarily dismiss the DNA evidence found under Ms. Kennedy's nails. However, you're very quick to point out, over and over, ad nauseum, how only he could possibly have the motive because of financial reasons.
If the financial information that has come out is in fact accurate, then they were both living beyond their means, not just him.
Posted: Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Article comment by:
Julie Abrita
Democker camp? Someone’s feeling a little defensive eh? It must be all of us in the vast DeMocker-wing conspiracy are getting under the skin of the prosecution by pointing to actual evidence showing it wasn’t DeMocker. Speaking of which, does the anti-Democker camp have an explanation for how some other man left blood and DNA at the scene… blood and DNA which have been shown NOT to belong to DeMocker?
Posted: Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
It is said by homicide detectives that most murders, in this type of situation, are crimes of passion and committed because of money or jealousy. Of course, this is just hearsay.
Posted: Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Article comment by:
RJ
Is Mr. DeMocker really going to be convicted on nothing but circumstantial evidence? Wow! This place is getting too provincial...even for the right-winged uber-nationalists who thrive here.
Posted: Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Article comment by:
Want to hear more
The Democker camp is clearly on this blog trying to do some spinning of their own. They have to be because anyone in their right mind would want to here about all of this. If he did not do it, what are you all afraid of?
Posted: Monday, November 02, 2009
Article comment by:
Some real perspective
New perspective? No. This is nothing more than what the prosecutor is already spinning about this case. Worse, the commenter explains to us simple-minded folk that it’s always the ex-husband, especially if he happens to still live and bike ride in the same town, and the only question is whether the investigation was too shoddy to convict. But this business about a broken marriage and credit card debt is smoke and mirrors. The real “new perspective” needed here is the one which tells us why there’s no physical evidence tying DeMocker to the scene, and who the unidentified male is who left blood at the scene and DNA under the victim’s fingernails.
Posted: Monday, November 02, 2009
Article comment by:
family and friends
for those of you who don't want to read this...move on....However, this information is cruicial to the case, as well there are family and friends who are unable to "hang around" in Arizona. This paper and what they report is the only way we know what is happening with this trial. I'm so sorry if it isn't what you want to read so please why in the world do you contiue to read and post your comments...
Posted: Monday, November 02, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
Good heavens... all of this has to be discussed to get the full picture of the case. I don't think anyone is doing anything wrong by divulging this information. It's pertinent to the case. The money, the divorce, that's only the beginning. I can't wait until you hear some more ... that is going to come out in this case... you all will have a hay day battering each other over it.
Posted: Sunday, November 01, 2009
Article comment by:
JUST UNBELIEVABLE
well the prosecution is obsessed with the divorce and the money because they have no evidence for the charges that he is facing,so they have to make a case since they dont have one.this is a black eye on the judicial system and they wonder why people have no faith in the system.well we have no evidence so lets paint the worst picture we can and then lets hope for a conviction.this is part of whats wrong with this country,we have crooks running the judicial system and doing what they want for their own political gain.shame on them .i guess well all stand before our maker in the end...
|
|
Article Comment Submission Form
|
|
