1 year later, Iowa Lottery still hunting for suspicious no-show winner

sadly, we hear more and more of this.

This article reads:  "Crawford Shaw, the 77-year-old lawyer from Bedford, New York who has been the public face of the mystery, again declined Tuesday to say how he obtained the ticket."

The article also indicates that this lawyer was ONLY the second small law firm involved in this 'trust endeavor' in a series of three law firms.  Though this article doesn't reveal, what was the name, phone #, e-mail address, and/or location of the lawyer or law firm who mailed lottery ticket to and hired Crawford Shaw?  That key info would be necessary to solve this mystery and allow Iowa Lottery Headquarter's/Iowa Police's intended prosecutions and fines to occur.

Once again rdgrnr.......Great Point!!!!!....or was told it "wasn't a winning ticket" by the store owners....beaudad!!

That's a great point too, beaudad.

Could well have been a crooked store owner too.

And if so, he probably offered to split with the slithering lawyers if they could get it for him.

yep

l think the iowa lottery department are doing a very bad job and they are as bad as the criminals too.First and furmost they have no clue about a mystery ticket but they are busy happy doing what ever they want with the money and spending it and then planing to release video later.well for one thing this is a crazy case and the only way to solve a crazy case is to open the pandoras box and release the f.. video surveillance because the public is the only people that can ever help you solve it and the longer they wait the more time you give criminals to tie up loss ends.Since they want public to trust them and they are obviously clueless i guess is time to release the video even if there are false claims it doesnt matter there will be false claims anyway so you need a clue then 

start your investigation with the false claims and in it you may be lucky with the right claim.

I agree.  Where does the chain of relatives stop?

Yea, exactly my line of thought.

I would think it ends with "immediate family" but would subject "all" family to investigation if need be.

If several attorneys suddenly got out of the process, it sounds like they had some clue something was not above board.  Ethically if you become aware that your client committed a crime or is about to, you have to withdraw from the matter (and at a point where you are not doing damage as well).

huh? where did he go?

Hopefully after the mother in law.

I'm not sure the mother in law should be considered a "relative"

Ah jeeeze, I meant before the mother in law.

If there's any justice in this world at all.