RICHLAND CO.—The appearance of last issue’s (June-July 2013) article about the Opal Hataway probate case in Richland County apparently prompted a resurgence of interest into the investigation of Ed Hataway’s death by area mainstream media, but the fact remains that the case has not progressed since the discovery of his body last November.
Hataway, 61, is the Olney man who disappeared from his apartment at DC Sales on U.S. Highway 50 last September 16, 2012 on a Sunday night.
He was last heard from that night after tending bar at the Knights of Columbus in Olney, a part-time gig he was to have been paid for.
When the K of C didn’t hear from him to collect his check, his brother John and John’s fiancée Anita Scott couldn’t get him on the phone, and his landlord Don Cunningham found Hataway’s shoes and truck out on the parking lot at the apartment building, officials were notified that they believed something untoward had happened to Ed.
They had no idea, however, how untoward—and mysterious—that something would be.
Hataway’s corpse was found on November 7, 2012, in a drainage ditch off U.S. 50 in Lawrence County.
The body, badly decomposed and scattered about (with certain bones missing, suspected of having been dragged from the site by animals), was located after a letter was sent, anonymously, to Richland County authorities noting that Hataway’s body would be there.
Richland County involved Illinois State Police, and since that time, with the exception of when the body was positively identified in late November as Hataway’s, there has been no communication from authorities as to what, if anything, is going on with the case.
Officials have not publicly announced that there has ever been a suspect in mind, nor anyone even spoken to as a person of interest.
However, sources close to the investigation advised Disclosure earlier this year that a 2004 probate case in which Hataway is embroiled—that of his mother’s, Opal Hataway, who died in 2003—might hold some clues, as it so happens that Ed Hataway disappeared the day before a pending court hearing was set on the matter for Sept. 17, 2012.
This is but one page of the multiple handwritten pages submitted to the court to show distribution of items of personal property belonging to Opal Hataway, who died in late 2003 with a will, but whose probate was begun in 2004 because the sons—William Robert Jr., Daniel, John and Ed Hataway—couldn’t come to agreements about what to do with the rest of her estate. The probate case, as a result, raged on for years, resulting in an order of protection being issued against the two out-of-area brothers, William and Daniel, on behalf of John and Ed Hataway and John’s girlfriend, Anita Everette Scott. In the OPs, both John and Ed Hataway claimed that their brothers had issued threats of physical violence both in person and by phone; in Ed Hataway’s case, he specifically stated—in 2005—that he was receiving death threats from his two brothers. Ed Hataway’s death has not been solved.
And, just before the first of two articles on the probate appeared in Disclosure in June, another hearing had been scheduled in the probate case, this for July 15…this after languishing in court for five months with no movement whatsoever.
As well, since the appearance of the article, mainstream media has picked up that there’s been no movement in the Hataway death investigation…also something that’s languished for months, and mainstream media, it appeared, had lost all interest in until Disclosure began revealing the facts behind the probate.
Many exclamations in Daniel’s message to the court
This month’s installation picks up where last month’s left off: With the elder Hataway brothers, Daniel, of Pesotum, Ill., and William Robert Jr., of Rusk, Texas, complaining in statements made for inclusion into the probate case about how the sale, division and distribution of existing real estate (Opal’s house at 622 West Main, Olney, in which Ed Hataway was living at the time) and personal items of Opal Hataway’s was going, in their opinion.
On November 29, 2007, Daniel Hataway submitted a letter, quoted in part last month and the rest this month, as follows:
“It is my opinion the personal items should be liquidated before the 622 location!!!!!!!!!!!!” Daniel wrote, complete with that many exclamation marks. “Common sense dictates moving and storage would be an extra and undue expense and burden!” he continued, which actually reiterates a point he made just one paragraph before but possibly not realizing he was being repetitive.
“The Co-Executors should be made to place the property with a realtor (Century 21 w/Robert Quail or someone local.
“Give the realtor graduated incentives above normal, (as previously introduced), after reaching the 50K price, in order to promote a greater sales price.
“Allow communications of some sort in order to resolve the personal items at the 622 West Main location.
“As far as cleaning expenses, Edward was the last to claim residence at the 622 West Main location, he should be made to incur any cleaning expenses. It was obviously clean enough for him to reside there up to at least 10/21/2007.
“In regard to abstracting and advertising fees, if turned over to a realtor there will not be advertising fees, and the abstract fee can be made part of the sale to the purchaser resolving another issue!”
Wants co-executors replaced
Then Daniel Hataway gets to the crux of the matter: replacing Ed and John Hataway, who had been appointed co-executors of the estate since they were both local, with himself…despite the fact that the estate, including the house, had a full value of only a little more than $50,000, a petty amount to be doing this kind of bickering over. But in the next paragraph, it can be seen just how small the amounts were that were being squabbled over:
“If these requests seem to be nonreceptive, the replacement of the Co-Executors by Daniel Hataway should be initiated immediately in order to preserve what is left of the Estate,” Daniel Hataway asserted. “Daniel is the one that took action initially that preserved the estate after others officially turned their backs, and after paying for Tom Weber’s ideas on saving the property to which Weber could not save 9/12/2000. Daniel was personally billed $25 by Weber and associates.” (italics ours for emphasis of the negligible amounts being fussed over)
But Daniel persisted in even more strong terms:
“Action should also be taken to charge the Co-Executors for official misconduct and have them fined appropriately in accordance with Illinois Estate Law,” he insisted. “The reimbursement to the estate for all prior debts, unnecessary expenditures, and reckless damages to the estate by Co-executors should also be collected.”
Makes ‘reasonable offer’
“The removal of the disabled truck, 68 Firebird, deep freeze and other of Ed Hataway’s personal belongings should not be expenses incurred by the Estate,” Daniel wrote. “For selling purposes they should have been removed long before now!
“in order to further speed the resolve of the estate I wish to accept a reasonably offer from William Hataway for the Texas property with the mineral rights for all of the related Texas properties left intact, this to avoid further undue expense and waste of time. It was our father’s wishes not to relinquish the mineral rights to the relatives, John and Ed have many times declared no interest in the Texas property.
“There has been conversation as to the value of equipment in Texas by Mr. Weber on behalf of John and Ed. Daniel was there in person two months ago, and finding the equipment in the undergrowth is a major concern. It is my educated opinion it is worth less than the scrap price of recovering it, as all is inoperable in present condition.
“If the Co-executors wish to cause additional expense by reclaiming these items, they should personally share in the debt of recovery of these items, not the estate.
“Any participation in the estate settling by the presence of Anita Everette, shall be viewed by the defendants as another hostile action by the Co-Executors,” Daniel wrote, referencing Anita Scott as she was known by the name of Everette at that time.
Serious allegations raised in late 2005 OP petitions
Anita and John, as well as Ed, had all managed to acquire Orders of Protection against the brothers Daniel and William Robert, just two years before, hence the notification by Daniel of the “hostile action”…although according to documents filed with the OPs, it was Daniel and William Robert who created “hostile action” against the two local Hataways and Anita, threatening extreme violence toward them on multiple occasions.
At one point in the “description of incidents” for the OPs, Ed Hataway listed that “both W.R. Hataway Jr. and Daniel Hataway made verbal threats of physical abuse, and threatened to kill me.”
Ed Hataway also wrote, “At the same time (they) made similar threats against John D. Hataway. On previous occasions, both respondents made similar threats not only in person, but also during phone conversations.
“This verbal abuse and physical threats have been taking place for over two years prior to this date.”
On Nov. 7, 2005, both William and Dan Hataway filed a joint motion for continuance in the OP case stating that the matter is contested and involved numerous witnesses, which would require extensive court time, and they had insufficient time to present their testimony.
Court documents don’t show how it was worked out, but it was: On December 2, 2005, Ed and John Hataway and Anita Everette all dismissed their cases against the two elder brothers.
It might be noted that no such claims of threats of physical abuse, nor of death threats, were made by Ed and John Hataway toward their brothers Daniel and William Robert.
WR’s letter reflects Daniel’s
A letter submitted to the file by William Robert was largely a repeat of his brother Daniel’s assertions, with a couple of minor exceptions:
After noting that the presence of Everette (Scott) “shall be viewed by the defendants as another hostile action by the Co-Executors,” William Robert wrote, “In the beginning, Daniel and Williams’ greatest concern has been the fair and timely distribution of the estate as per Opal Hataway’s wishes.
“From November 18, 2004, when the Co-Executors were instated, Daniel and I have done nothing but try to encourage and assist John and Ed expedite the fair settlement of Mother’s estate. After driving long distances, Dan and I helped move all personal stuff downstairs. Since Ed lived in the house, why would it need to be cleaned? Not only do I not see any reason for outside help to be hired, I do not want estate money spent to remove Ed’s Firebird, Triumph motorcycle or the abandoned deep freeze and unregistered pickup from the premises,” William wrote.
“If Ed and John are truly ready to settle the mess they’ve created, then I make the following proposal. I’ll repay the $10,000 timber money. I’ll give $28,000 for the property as is. Do not spend any more unnecessary money to divide mineral rights or move scrap iron ‘equipment.’ Keep the $2,000 I’ve already sent.
“I’ll pay for any lawyer fees or court cost or recording fees down here in Texas.
“I’ve become more and more aware that Ed and John are quite content to pay other people to spend estate money and care nothing about Dad or Mom’s wishes or family honor or name.”
Subsequent settings go nowhere
The case, however, was not resolved with this input from either of the out-of-area brothers.
Instead, it continued to drag on, throughout the next year when further attempts to sell the property were made, and further division of the small items belonging to Opal were continued to be divided.
No changes were made in the executor arrangement.
Then in 2012, when only two hearings had actually been held and two others continued under review by the judge in the case (Larry Dunn, Richland County resident judge), these being early in the year (hearings on January 9 and February 1, and court judicial notations on status hearings made February 27 and March 19), a hearing was set for Sept. 17 at 2 p.m.
Only the attorneys (Tom Weber and Daniel Shinkle), as previously noted would occur, appeared on that day. The co-executors were not required to respond. No mention was made by either side about Ed Hataway’s non-presence in the case, as he wasn’t required to attend.
However, on that day, a next court setting of December 17 was made.
When that date arrived—more than a month after Ed Hataway’s body was found, and more than two weeks after it was positively identified, and nine days after the funeral for Ed Hataway, where it’s been reported that neither Daniel nor William attended—a petition had been submitted by their attorney (Shinkle) to substitute executor: to replace John with Daniel and William Hataway.
No one appeared on that day, however, including the attorneys. Dunn’s notes reflect this in the file. The entire thing was reset to a Feb. 25, 2013 date.
Weber appeared on that date, and by agreement everything was again reset, this time to June 17.
That date was vacated at the end of May and the July 17 date was ultimately set for another hearing.
Where will this go?
Whether this will go off, and whether anyone will bother to appear, remains to be seen.
What also remains to be seen is whether either of the two out-of-area Hataways have been questioned, either through Ed Hataway’s disappearance, or after the discovery and identification of his body.
The problem the public has with the situation is twofold: one is that David Hyde, Richland County state’s attorney only because no one has run against him the last two elections, is the investigative office in charge of the Ed Hataway case, and Hyde does the absolute minimum he can do in any criminal investigation that he can in order to get by.
Of late, he doesn’t even bother to give the appearance of doing anything meaningful in any of the cases he’s handled.
The second problem is that even if the Illinois State Police has done anything to aid the investigation, including talking to the two brothers, their hands are tied as regards release of information because Hyde’s office is “in charge” of the case, and even if Hyde has any good information from ISP, that doesn’t mean he has to charge it. Given the option, if it doesn’t suit him, he simply won’t; this while going after people who are merely trying to defend themselves with weapons, one in his own home (see previous stories).
Both out-of-area Hataway brothers’ phone numbers were on file in the probate case.
When Disclosure attempted to reach them, no voicemails were available to leave a message, and so no response has been forthcoming.