Found Deceased TX - Sherin Mathews, 3, Richardson, 7 Oct 2017 #5 *Arrest*

[Scarlet1586]

He knows EXACTLY what he’s doing. He’s very clever. Sadly I dont think his charges will upgraded at all.
-Something in my gut is still telling me he’s covering for SM though,or any involvement she did have.
What really confuses me about this is is,many of the neighbours statements/comments stated how WM was normally the parent they would see with/taking care of Sherin. How does someone go from a caring parent to this. Even if it was a tragic accident,how could he then take her little body and leave her somewhere in the dead of the night all alone. Which makes me believe even more he’s covering for his wife. That’s why I don’t think she will talk/corporate with LE at all,she knows the slightest slip up in anything she says and Its could blow WMs coverstory. Also if his bail conditions were to have no contact with SM then she will be unawares of anything he may have said/changes in story ect so would be far too risky for her to be talking to LE. At the minute there’s WM story and that’s the only story they’ll have unless LE can disprove it & I believe SM would be the key to doing so.
All just my opinion.

 

[JaneEyre]

He knows EXACTLY what he’s doing. He’s very clever. Sadly I dont think his charges will upgraded at all.
-Something in my gut is still telling me he’s covering for SM though,or any involvement she did have.
What really confuses me about this is is,many of the neighbours statements/comments stated how WM was normally the parent they would see with/taking care of Sherin. How does someone go from a caring parent to this. Even if it was a tragic accident,how could he then take her little body and leave her somewhere in the dead of the night all alone. Which makes me believe even more he’s covering for his wife. That’s why I don’t think she will talk/corporate with LE at all,she knows the slightest slip up in anything she says and Its could blow WMs coverstory. Also if his bail conditions were to have no contact with SM then she will be unawares of anything he may have said/changes in story ect so would be far too risky for her to be talking to LE. At the minute there’s WM story and that’s the only story they’ll have unless LE can disprove it & I believe SM would be the key to doing so.
All just my opinion.

You and I are in sync in our perceptions.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[smallfry345]

As opposed to I didn't look for her. I forced her to drink her milk. I didn't do anything to help when she stopped breathing.

It seems he thinks this is all Sherin's fault.

Typical narcissistic type comments.

 

[DakotaMayi]

Typical narcissistic type comments.

:yeahthat:

 

[Gumbeaux]

He knows EXACTLY what he’s doing. He’s very clever. Sadly I dont think his charges will upgraded at all.
-Something in my gut is still telling me he’s covering for SM though,or any involvement she did have.
What really confuses me about this is is,many of the neighbours statements/comments stated how WM was normally the parent they would see with/taking care of Sherin. How does someone go from a caring parent to this. Even if it was a tragic accident,how could he then take her little body and leave her somewhere in the dead of the night all alone. Which makes me believe even more he’s covering for his wife. That’s why I don’t think she will talk/corporate with LE at all,she knows the slightest slip up in anything she says and Its could blow WMs coverstory. Also if his bail conditions were to have no contact with SM then she will be unawares of anything he may have said/changes in story ect so would be far too risky for her to be talking to LE. At the minute there’s WM story and that’s the only story they’ll have unless LE can disprove it & I believe SM would be the key to doing so.
All just my opinion.

Perhaps his caring for, and care of Sherin was really an act of absolute control?

 

[blue22]

He knows EXACTLY what he’s doing. He’s very clever. Sadly I dont think his charges will upgraded at all.
-Something in my gut is still telling me he’s covering for SM though,or any involvement she did have.
What really confuses me about this is is,many of the neighbours statements/comments stated how WM was normally the parent they would see with/taking care of Sherin. How does someone go from a caring parent to this. Even if it was a tragic accident,how could he then take her little body and leave her somewhere in the dead of the night all alone. Which makes me believe even more he’s covering for his wife. That’s why I don’t think she will talk/corporate with LE at all,she knows the slightest slip up in anything she says and Its could blow WMs coverstory. Also if his bail conditions were to have no contact with SM then she will be unawares of anything he may have said/changes in story ect so would be far too risky for her to be talking to LE. At the minute there’s WM story and that’s the only story they’ll have unless LE can disprove it & I believe SM would be the key to doing so.
All just my opinion.

All one has to do is search the dozens upon dozens of cases here, where a parent or caregiver murders their child. The same question is asked at some point in every thread. I don't know how, but I know they DO. I'm not letting him off and dumping on the mom, because to some, he had the appearance of caring. I'm not going to talk about the mom, to avoid going against TOS...but the only innocent people in that home were precious Sherin and her sister.

All JMO.

 

[Inthedetails]

He knows EXACTLY what he’s doing. He’s very clever. Sadly I dont think his charges will upgraded at all.
-Something in my gut is still telling me he’s covering for SM though,or any involvement she did have.
What really confuses me about this is is,many of the neighbours statements/comments stated how WM was normally the parent they would see with/taking care of Sherin. How does someone go from a caring parent to this. Even if it was a tragic accident,how could he then take her little body and leave her somewhere in the dead of the night all alone. Which makes me believe even more he’s covering for his wife. That’s why I don’t think she will talk/corporate with LE at all,she knows the slightest slip up in anything she says and Its could blow WMs coverstory. Also if his bail conditions were to have no contact with SM then she will be unawares of anything he may have said/changes in story ect so would be far too risky for her to be talking to LE. At the minute there’s WM story and that’s the only story they’ll have unless LE can disprove it & I believe SM would be the key to doing so.
All just my opinion.

Sometimes those who demonstrate perfect parenting in public are the opposite in private. (Not always, of course!!) But sometimes there is the type of person who "displays" perfection and fools everyone.

IDK if that happened here, but I'm suspecting that is what was going on with him. Speculation only.

jmo

 

[blue22]

Typical narcissistic type comments.

Yep. And it's usually their undoing. We can only hope.

 

[Margo/Mom]

I am in Canada and only heard about the case because I saw the Amber Alert on twitter, that is why I was so upset when they removed the Amber Alert as within about an hour Sherin went from top trending to not trending at all. People assume when it disappears that the person has been found. I always google to see and realized she wasn't located and it seemed very odd so I came over here! NBCDFW doesn't allow me to watch the broadcasts or live on their website and neither do several other MSM sources so my main source of media has been the CBS DFW and the FB live from Fox4 and from Maria Guerrero. There are a TON of people who go to those live streams from all over the world.

I believe that the intent of Amber Alert is to alert people who are likely to encounter a missing person, either because they are a wandering adult, possibly driving a car, or because they (as children) are known or believed to be in the company of a (possibly known) adult. Pretty sure it was never intended to be a comprehensive list of all missing persons--which would tend to dilute its impact, as those numbers are pretty overwhelming.

It is also not really a search organizing tool.

Just chiming in here because there has been a recurrent theme (not necessarily from you) about why various parties (LE, family, church, whatever) are not "out looking" for Sherin. While we tend to picture "searches" as being lots of people scouring the countryside, issuing please on television and so forth, these are not necessarily the tools best suited to every case. In this case the evidence (including Dad's story, forensics such as the canine searches, later on the search of house and analysis of evidence collected) really pointed away from an abduction, or even wandering off. Sort of "crowdsourcing" solutions became very targeted (the request for security video footage). And LE has really had to keep something of a lid on public sharing/updates in order to maintain a focus--eliminating folks eager to insert themselves who may not actually have anything meaningful to contribute, as well as not helping any potential suspects formulate alibis.

While I would truly love to know all the internal pieces of this puzzle they are looking at, I gotta be content at present at simply watching the process and seeing that their evidence collection and analysis did lead them to Sherin's body, and will continue to inform the case through any further charges and arrests.

 

[texasnative]

Mitch Nolte and Greg Gibbs are partners. I was a juror on a murder trial a few years back and they were the defending attorneys.

 

[Gigglingtoes]

me either. I've found i can get past that by searching the article name in google. And then clicking on "cache" next to the article to view a cached copy of it. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.

brilliance

 

[texasnative]

I just posted an article from msm that states this
(quote)
Her attorney, Mitch Nolte, said they do not plan to provide any comment or interviews to police at this time.
Who is Mitch Nolte? Is he her new attorney?

Mitch Nolte and Greg Gibbs are partners. I was a juror on a murder trial a few years back and they were the defending attorneys.

 

[Gigglingtoes]

Anyone considering they spoke to lawyers before calling police?

 

[Abp5]

I apologize if someone already mentioned this but IF there is partial truth in his statement I suspect he may have suffocated her while “assisting her”. If he forced the milk in her mouth and than covered her mouth and pinched her nose so that she would swallow, she could have suffocated from lack of air. I hate that my mind went there but I was reminded of a death case where the parent duct taped the paci in the baby’s mouth and the child suffocated because the baby Was unable to breath. It was years ago but I was a new mom and the case just stuck with me.

It would be interesting to know if there was any facial bruising (depending on the condition of her body). If it was a scenario similar to this, I could see why (in his mind) he wouldn’t wake the mother or call 911.

 

[Gigglingtoes]

Yes (and no)

To my knowledge, she can refuse to be questioned or give any type of statement. It is her legal right, as it is every citizens right, especially if that statement would be lies or self-incriminating. So in that sense, YES she can continue to refuse without being charged.

The NO comes in because if they have enough evidence they can appeal to the courts to compel her to make a statement under oath. I am not sure if this is done before a grand jury or in a regular court setting, but when this does happen you often just hear the person say "I plead the fifth" over and over again.

IF someone or the evidence, implicates Sini and she is arrested, they can basically question her as much as they feel like as long as she is in custody. She can refuse to answer, but if she is in custody there is no one to stop LE from going to talk to her. In that case I BELIEVE her lawyers could have the place she is being held have law enforcement etc removed from her visitors list but I am not sure if there are legal steps to keeping LE away if she were to be in a jail.

If you think about it what she is doing is fairly smart in not going down to talk to them. Once you are down on their turf they can and often will keep people for hours and hours with "just a few more questions" and basically be detaining you in hopes you will talk. Though, I do think her council should set up a meeting with LE either at his office, or at a place she is comfortable, just so she an reiterate that she was in fact asleep and heard nothing... (or whatever her story initially was). Keeping it on her turf would mean that at any point she or her lawyers could say "that's all" and have LE leave

If she doesnt speak, and WM charges arent raised to murder, I think they will try to hold her to talk with a different charge or something. jmo

 

[HIM_Darling]

With SM not talking to the police, I could understand if she was upset at them taking the 4 y/o and not wanting to talk at first, when WM's story was that Sherin had just disappeared. However, after hearing that your husband, at the very least, let your other child die, I would think with the help of her attorney and with 2+ weeks of time to think about things, she(IMO) should understand now that removing the 4 y/o was for the 4 y/o's safety and that she and/or her attorney would be making plans to now speak with the police about the night Sherin died.

I just can't see the attorney thinking it was good idea to reiterate that she isn't going to be speaking with/cooperating with the police if she's told the attorney that she really was sleeping and knows absolutely nothing about what happened. I would think in that case he would have said something along the lines of "my client is grieving at the moment, however we are making plans to meet with LE and give them an official statement". The whole "my client is not speaking with the police" statements baffle me. Especially when they should be doing everything possible to ensure that the judge over the custody case with the 4 y/o feels its safe for her to return to her mother.

 

[DakotaMayi]

With SM not talking to the police, I could understand if she was upset at them taking the 4 y/o and not wanting to talk at first, when WM's story was that Sherin had just disappeared. However, after hearing that your husband, at the very least, let your other child die, I would think with the help of her attorney and with 2+ weeks of time to think about things, she(IMO) should understand now that removing the 4 y/o was for the 4 y/o's safety and that she and/or her attorney would be making plans to now speak with the police about the night Sherin died.

I just can't see the attorney thinking it was good idea to reiterate that she isn't going to be speaking with/cooperating with the police if she's told the attorney that she really was sleeping and knows absolutely nothing about what happened. I would think in that case he would have said something along the lines of "my client is grieving at the moment, however we are making plans to meet with LE and give them an official statement". The whole "my client is not speaking with the police" statements baffle me. Especially when they should be doing everything possible to ensure that the judge over the custody case with the 4 y/o feels its safe for her to return to her mother.

I agree. This isn't a situation where police have come into a random house and taken a random families child away from them for no apparent reason. This is a little girl whose sister just died at the hands of her Dad. I'm sure LE just don't want two deceased little girls on there hands. You can't leave a child in that situation. It's nothing against Mom.

 

[blue22]

With SM not talking to the police, I could understand if she was upset at them taking the 4 y/o and not wanting to talk at first, when WM's story was that Sherin had just disappeared. However, after hearing that your husband, at the very least, let your other child die, I would think with the help of her attorney and with 2+ weeks of time to think about things, she(IMO) should understand now that removing the 4 y/o was for the 4 y/o's safety and that she and/or her attorney would be making plans to now speak with the police about the night Sherin died.

I just can't see the attorney thinking it was good idea to reiterate that she isn't going to be speaking with/cooperating with the police if she's told the attorney that she really was sleeping and knows absolutely nothing about what happened. I would think in that case he would have said something along the lines of "my client is grieving at the moment, however we are making plans to meet with LE and give them an official statement". The whole "my client is not speaking with the police" statements baffle me. Especially when they should be doing everything possible to ensure that the judge over the custody case with the 4 y/o feels its safe for her to return to her mother.

Just my personal theory...but I think she knows if LE knew what happened in her home on a daily basis, she would never see her daughter again.

 

[Dogface]

I keep seeing this "WM might be taking the blame"....and I just find that so hard to believe. Are there any cases like that between spouses and the murder of a child? It just seems far fetched. My hubby loves me, would undoubtedly put his life down for mine, but taking the fall for causing a child's death? Not in a million years could I see that happening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Margo/Mom]

Hey all!



I have dual citizenship - I was a naturalized US citizen (under 18) when my parents got their U.S. citizenship in 1958. When Latvia became free of Soviet rule (1991), my parents were still considering "Latvian citizens", and I could become a Latvian citizen if I chose to do so - I did! When my parents came to the U.S. in 1952 they (as well as us kids) were classified as "Displaced Persons". Even though I was born in Sweden, I could not be a Swedish citizen, as my parents were classified as "Displaced Persons" there too, after escaping the Soviet run on Latvia in 1944.

Just read this:



I don't know IF they asked my parents to denounce their previous citizenship when they became U.S. citizens. I do recall they did ask me when I became a naturalized citizen. I now see GrouchyMom's post - so I guess my parents DID renounce their previous citizenship per Oath.

I do have two passports.


We need JUSTICE for Sherin!! :judge:

I posted a long LA Times article that kinda goes through some explanations, and it's tricky. The words in the citizenship oath include renouncing all foreign alliances--which can be taken to mean citizenship in any other countries. Apparently, however, through court rulings the understanding has been altered/softened as not strictly requiring such renunciation. While Congress could act to formally require such renunciation, they have not. Apparently it is not regarded as a big issue as the numbers of people choosing to maintain a dual citizenship are pretty small. And things get further complicated because every country in the world is free to set their own citizenship requirements--some allowing dual status and others not. And, of course, any changes to immigration law at present are a major hot potato in the US.