Lottery poisoning case plays like soap opera
CHICAGO — In the week since news surfaced that a Chicago man was poisoned to death with cyanide just before he was to collect a lottery payout, surprising details about his convoluted family saga have trickled out daily.
Urooj Khan's widow and siblings fought for months over the businessman's estate, including the lottery check. His father-in-law owed tens of thousands of dollars in taxes. His 17-year-old daughter from a previous marriage had moved out of her stepmom's home and into his sister's after his death. Then his ex-wife came forward, announcing in anguish that she had not seen her daughter in more than a decade and hadn't even known she was still in the United States.
The slowly emerging family backstory and expanding cast of characters have added layers of intrigue to a baffling case in which authorities have revealed little and everyone is wondering: Who did it?
The victim's relatives hint at family squabbles. And Khan's wife, Shabana Ansari, has endured clutches of reporters outside the family home and business, asking even whether it was a lamb or beef curry dinner she made for Khan on the night he died.
“She's just as curious as anyone else to get to the bottom of what caused her husband's death,” said Al-Haroon Husain, who is representing Ansari in the case that will divide Khan's estate, including the $425,000 in lottery winnings.
Ansari and other relatives have denied any role in his death and have expressed a desire to learn the truth.
Authorities remain tightlipped about whom they may suspect.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Social Security’s $300M IT project doesn’t work
- Massachusetts teen held in teacher’s slaying accused assaulting detention center worker
- Man told transit police the Boston Marathon bomber ‘was my best friend’
- Head of troubled CDC anthrax lab quits
- Ariz. inmate’s execution apparently botched
- U.S. knew Islamist militants planned offensive in Iraq, lawmakers told
- Fire season expected to accelerate
- Obamacare enrollees strain Medicaid in Oregon
- Mont. senator’s thesis appears to have been plagarized
- Can Georgia GOP ‘outsider’ Perdue best Democrats’ Nunn?
- Biden decries voting restrictions in NAACP address