Found Deceased TX - Sherin Mathews, 3, Richardson, 7 Oct 2017 #6 *Arrest*

[margarita25]

Q: What's the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer?

A: A bad lawyer makes your case drag on for years. A good lawyer makes it last even longer.

 

[angorwat]

Thank you, vmmking. You said it perfectly. No venom, I'm just very aware of they are working for.

Same with LE and their use of media as a tool for PR in their favor.
LE is also allowed and does put out facts that are not true when it serves their purpose. So it stands to reason to analyze their statements and actions too !!

And in the incident under comment , the fact that no one from LE and /or MSM has disputed the interrogation details provided by the lawyer, it stands to reason to conclude that it is indeed the statement of facts.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/L...thing-to-Do-with-Sherins-Death-453168833.html

 

[rosesfromangels]

Same with LE and their use of media as a tool for PR in their favor.
LE is also allowed and does put out facts that are not true when it serves their purpose.

And in the incident under comment , the fact that no one from LE and /or MSM has disputed the interrogation details provided by the lawyer, it stands to reason to conclude that it is indeed the statement of facts.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/L...thing-to-Do-with-Sherins-Death-453168833.html

Respectfully, I have never seen this. I have seen LE withholding info, or only providing bits of info that may be misinterpreted, but I have never seen LE outright not be truthful. That would seem like a very dangerous game, and one litigation lawyers could have a heyday with.

 

[tlcya]

While Maria Guerrero in a follow-up comment rightly states : "Trust me. I'm checking with police, checking online, checking anywhere I can for answers. I just don't post to post. I don't think that helps in a case where so much information out there is false and unfounded" , she is blurring the facts regarding SM's interaction with RPD just stating "Sini Mathews has not come forward, as Richardson police have asked, to talk with detectives about what happened to Sherin. Sini has never been charged with anything in this case. "

It has been reported that " Mrs. Mathews talked to the police at length that morning at her home, then went to the station that evening for further interviews. She voluntarily went back to the station a few days later, and was interrogated for hours by several officers with no attorney present."
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/L...thing-to-Do-with-Sherins-Death-453168833.html

Both the bolded items can be true, they do not contradict one another. Sini cooperated with LE initially (as described by the attorney in the second bolded item). Now that she has counsel LE says that is no longer so, outside of her assisting them by confirming the clothing on the body could belong to Sherin when LE was trying to ID her (first bolded item).

 

[JaneEyre]

Same with LE and their use of media as a tool for PR in their favor.
LE is also allowed and does put out facts that are not true when it serves their purpose. So it stands to reason to analyze their statements and actions too !!

And in the incident under comment , the fact that no one from LE and /or MSM has disputed the interrogation details provided by the lawyer, it stands to reason to conclude that it is indeed the statement of facts.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/L...thing-to-Do-with-Sherins-Death-453168833.html

But what are you saying LE's motive would be here to lie in this situation? I see none. Their motive in giving out the information was likely to press her into coming back in to answer their questions. Kind of an, "Answer our questions, or we'll make statements pointing out that you are not."

Motive for her lawyers is clear - make it look like she has fully cooperated and somehow no longer needs to do so.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[MarisaS1985]

Respectfully, I have never seen this. I have seen LE withholding info, or only providing bits of info that may be misinterpreted, but I have never seen LE outright not be truthful. That would seem like a very dangerous game, and one litigation lawyers could have a heyday with.

Yesterday in another case I follow (can't remember which), someone pointed out that there was a case where LE had announced they had found the body which caused their suspect to tell all. LE hadn't actually found the body but the suspects new statement led them straight to it. So, it does happen.

IME while lawyers can definitely finesse their wording and such, they aren't going to risk their practice by lying for a client. Something like interviews happening or not is extremely verifiable, it would be absolute rubbish for a lawyer to make these interviews up to make Sini look good.

GOOD defense attorneys will rarely ever ask their client if they are guilty. They don't care if you are guilty or not and if you walk in and tell them you killed someone, they cannot purger themselves in court and argue that you didn't do it, which is why they don't want to know if you did it. If you have confessed they will start to look at other ways to defend you, like diminished capacity, illegally obtained confessions, being coerced into committing the crime, and so on.

Because WM is sitting in jail now on charges he confessed to with his lawyer present, his lawyer can't argue that he didn't do what he has already said he did. He will have to come up with an alternate defense such as extreme duress and feelings of guilt being responsible for a confession that doesn't make sense, or temporary insanity, the extreme stress he had at home forcing his break that night etc - while none of this is likely true, it's bound to get ugly because they will grasp at straws in hopes of getting 5 years instead of 99.

All JMO

 

[Momma2cam]

But what are you saying LE's motive would be here to lie in this situation? I see none. Their motive in giving out the information was likely to press her into coming back in to answer their questions. Kind of an, "Answer our questions, or we'll make statements pointing out that you are not."

Motive for her lawyers is clear - make it look like she has fully cooperated and somehow no longer needs to do so.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I would argue the motive for the attorney is to protect his client. It is wise legal advice to hush up when you are in a situation in which something you say could be incriminating or twisted to be incriminating.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[MarisaS1985]

But what are you saying LE's motive would be here to lie in this situation? I see none. Their motive in giving out the information was likely to press her into coming back in to answer their questions. Kind of an, "Answer our questions, or we'll make statements pointing out that you are not."

Motive for her lawyers is clear - make it look like she has fully cooperated and somehow no longer needs to do so.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Just want to kindly point out, LE are the only ones in the interrogation room who are allowed to lie. They can make up whatever they want in hopes of getting a confession, but the person they are interviewing is expected to tell the whole truth, if they don't they can be charged for obstruction. They cannot lie on the stand and are held to the same standards any witness is, but obtaining the confession is a different story.
The lawyers also can't outright lie. They are a representative of the court, regardless of whether or not they are in court. They can bend the truth, as I said above a good lawyer doesn't ask about guilt or innocence.
JMO

 

[JaneEyre]

It's very simple to me. She cooperated at first, but is not cooperating now. She has refused to come back in for questioning after the second confession. LE is not lying about that, and her lawyer has not said they are lying about that.

They are simply moving true words around until they sound better for Sini. But it does not change the facts, only the way we perceive those facts.

How many ways can you say the same thing to your neighbor about their barking dog? A multitude. And how they perceive your attitude in the situation depends a great deal on how you move those words around before they come out of your mouth. There is a "best way" to say something, while several ways can mean the same thing.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[JaneEyre]

I would argue the motive for the attorney is to protect his client. It is wise legal advice to hush up when you are in a situation in which something you say could be incriminating or twisted to be incriminating.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

His motive is also to make her look good to the public, in case she is eventually charged with something. PR is always part of the game with lawyers.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[MarisaS1985]

It's very simple to me. She cooperated at first, but is not cooperating now. She has refused to come back in for questioning after the second confession. LE is not lying about that, and her lawyer has not said they are lying about that.

They are simply moving true words around until they sound better for Sini. But it does not change the facts, only the way we perceive those facts.

How many ways can you say the same thing to your neighbor about their barking dog? A multitude. And how they perceive your attitude in the situation depends a great deal on how you move those words around before they come out of your mouth. There is a "best way" to say something, while several ways can mean the same thing.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Totally agree, esp in this case.

SADLY, many people have demonized Sini despite BOTH her and WM stating she was asleep. So they are reading these things with tunnel vision searching for anything that makes her look ever worse to them, to justify how they feel, where the actual facts are Sini did cooperate initially. Once her child was taken she retained a lawyer and cooperation because extremely limited in that she has refused further interviews and has only helped to speed up the process of ID'ing Sherin's body.

IMO this means that she or her attorneys are still in contact with LE even if it is very minimal. Otherwise, they would not have been able to reach her in order to have her come in and look at the photos and to help with dental records etc.

All JMO

 

[Momma2cam]

Respectfully, I have never seen this. I have seen LE withholding info, or only providing bits of info that may be misinterpreted, but I have never seen LE outright not be truthful. That would seem like a very dangerous game, and one litigation lawyers could have a heyday with.

Deception is a very common and well known LE tactic but the law is unclear how much and when it is acceptable. It boils down to understanding case law within the jurisdiction of the investigation.

https://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/6909121-Case-law-on-police-deception/

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/faqs-police-interrogations.html

What tactics can the police use when questioning a suspect?

The police are prohibited from using physical or psychological coercion when conducting police interrogations. A confession or evidence that results from coercive tactics is inadmissible at trial. The police, for example, may not use torture techniques, threats, drugging, or inhumane treatment during an interrogation. The police, however, can use lying, trickery, and other types of non-coercive methods to obtain a confession from a suspect.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[Momma2cam]

His motive is also to make her look good to the public, in case she is eventually charged with something. PR is always part of the game with lawyers.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Of course. It is the attorney's job. But what I'm saying is, just because she is "not participating" in ongoing interviews with LE, does not imply guilt. It is wise, guilty or innocent, to be quiet and let LE do their job.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[JaneEyre]

Of course. It is the attorney's job. But what I'm saying is, just because she is "not participating" in ongoing interviews with LE, does not imply guilt. It is wise, guilty or innocent, to be quiet and let LE do their job.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

I never implied that it implies guilt.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[angorwat]

......It's very simple to me. She cooperated at first, but is not cooperating now. She has refused to come back in for questioning after the second confession.......

If the attorney feels that there is no benefit for the client to return for additional interrogations, they have every right to refuse additional interviews.
But selective reporting in media only about the second refusal, unnecessarily inflamming public opinion, is not reasonable. It might be valid LE tactic but MSM reporters blindly falling for that is questionable.

 

[Momma2cam]

If the attorney feels that there is no benefit for the client to return for additional interrogations, they have every right to refuse additional interviews.
But selective reporting in media only about the second refusal, unnecessarily inflamming public opinion, is not reasonable. It might be valid LE tactic but MSM reporters blindly falling for that is questionable.

I agree. The problem is not whether or not LE are being honest about her not participating after she obtained an attorney but the way the MSM is reporting it to obviously imply potential guilt in an already hostile community environment. Jmo.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[JaneEyre]

If the attorney feels that there is no benefit for the client to return for additional interrogations, they have every right to refuse additional interviews.
But selective reporting in media only about the second refusal, unnecessarily inflamming public opinion, is not reasonable. It might be valid LE tactic but MSM reporters blindly falling for that is questionable.

She was not selective. Nothing she said was untrue. Sini only spoke to them about her being missing and later identifying clothing. She had not answered questions since the body was found.

The questions they asked her in order to help locate a missing child would be quite different from the questions they would ask her in trying to determine how her child died

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[tlcya]

The subject of the thread is Sherin Mathews not any specific reporter following and reporting on the case.

Return to discussing the case and not those covering it please.

 

[Grouchymom]

[h=1]Parents maneuver through adoption process after Sherin Mathews case[/h]

WFAA is aware of families who have faced Indian judges and who have been asked whether they know the Mathews

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/pare...n-process-after-sherin-mathews-case/491010754

 

[Margo/Mom]

I think his lawyer helped him word that story. The part about "I assisted her in drinking the milk" I think came straight from the lawyer because WM may have said, "I forced her to drink the milk faster", and the lawyer probably said, "Wait. Let's reword that so you sound innocent." Just guessing.

Remember, that wording was provided by LE in the affidavit that accompanied the charges. There may have been considerable back and forth during questioning before arriving at that particular summation of what happened.

And as several have pointed out, the prosecutor is likely to have included only what was minimally necessary to substantiate the initial charge. So--based on the affidavit we know that WM was there, there was a struggle over drinking and when she drank, she choked and he watched until she died. That by itself was enough (based solely on his own admission) for charges that carry a 99 year penalty.

Now, clearly LE knew more than that at the time and even more at this time. He may have given them details regarding how she came to be in that culvert. But there would be good reason to hold those cards close to the chest--particularly any details that might serve to involve/clear any other persons they might suspect. So--they have his confession, but still need to confirm any details with evidence.