The Out-Lawyer's Blog

THE EMBEZZLEMENT THEORY SURFACES

At a divorce related deposition, Nina said that “Sean Sturgeon was the co-signer and authorized user of our business bank account with Citibank and Patelco.” Recall that Sturgeon was Hans’ colleague with whom Nina carried on an affair.

At the same deposition, the jury was told that Nina has testified that Hans gave Sturgeon access to the company accounts (Namesys). Then -- after DA objections -- DuBois was allowed to ask if the attorney was investigating “whether Nina was embezzling money from Namesys?” The answer – “I was in the process of investigating” was allowed just before the lunch break.  

I suspect that DuBois can be going only one of two directions with this line. 

For example, he might still be trying to create the impression that Nina has made off with company money, staging her disappearance, or he might be laying down the foundation for an argument that the “evil boyfriend”, Mr. Sturgeon, is a live suspect because of some sort of betrayal.

But here’s the risk with this approach: The Hans was framed theory will not sell.  And, if Hans thought that Nina had not only betrayed the marriage, but had also looted his company, he might well have become furious enough to get her out of his life … forever…

The most intriguing theory, evident from the beginning of the case, is that somehow Sturgeon could be painted as a murder suspect. 

[Can a sturgeon be a red herring? Sorry…]

Stay tuned…