WA WA - Sky Metalwala, 2, Bellevue, 6 Nov 2011 - #12

[sunflowerchick]

All I can say about Julia's friends is they need to explain to her that Sky needs to be brought home and that she needs to tell the truth about what she did to him. It's quite obvious to me that they do not have the best interests of Sky or M in their heart, if they did, they would be begging Julia on their hands and knees every day to tell the truth.

Do we know that they aren't at this point?

 

[Miziree]

Respectfully BBM. This is the first I've heard this. Do you have a link to support this statement? TIA!

In the beginning I thought I heard they had no evidence of anyone entering the car. I can't find it atm

What I did find however is this presser:
"Found DNA at mom's apartment, Sky's apartment and in the car."

Transcription:
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - WA WA - Sky Metalwala, 2, Bellevue, 6 Nov 2011 - #3

Video:
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - WA WA - Sky Metalwala, 2, Bellevue, 6 Nov 2011 - #3

It is in the first video at 4:30:
http://www.myspace.com/video/565006329/sky-metalwala-press-conference-11-9-11-part-1/108329182

So they did find DNA in the car.

This is presser early on has lots of info too not about the car though, it is 30 minutes long:
http://www.kirotv.com/videos/news/raw-video-full-bellevue-police-briefing/vD66Q/

 

[Miziree]

Do we know that they aren't at this point?

in the presser I just posted with the DNA evidence in the car they also talk about the friend that helped her that day. They believe she has the same mind set of LE. She don't understand why Julia did what she did that day. MOO

This one:
http://www.myspace.com/video/565006329/sky-metalwala-press-conference-11-9-11-part-1/108329182

 

[bendrn]

Thank you. I am aware of both and I still feel neither apply to Julia.

My nursing specialty for 10 years was Pediatric ICU. I have seen many cases of Munchausen By Proxy, and can tell you that as with so many other disorders, there is no set standard as far as "how" or even "when" it is done.

I don't rule it out at all in this case. It is already documented in the court docs that she has been accused of this in the past.

One of my 10 zillion theories as far as this case goes, is that JB's Munchausen by Proxy actions got out of hand, went too far, and she just didn't care. Sky was totally dependent on her, and thus an easy victim for which to assert her control over, even to sickness or health, life or death.

I have to say, though, that JB's mental issues are so complex that it's as if someone threw a psychiatric diagnostic manual into a blender and out popped JB.

Everything here is MOO.

 

[GARV]

My nursing specialty for 10 years was Pediatric ICU. I have seen many cases of Munchausen By Proxy, and can tell you that as with so many other disorders, there is no set standard as far as "how" or even "when" it is done.

BBM - Wow, I didn't realize it was so prevalent. That is truly disturbing to hear.

I have to say, though, that JB's mental issues are so complex that it's as if someone threw a psychiatric diagnostic manual into a blender and out popped JB.

:silly: Its so funny because its true.

 

[cleo612]

Do you have links as to what evidence was presented? I've read Solomon's complaint but I haven't see anything else and am very interested in reading it. TIA

Hi Camille, I am sorry that I don't have the time to find the links for you, but they are located within these threads. Maybe someone else can provide them, or at least pooint you in the right direction.

(I have a cake in the oven, my granddaughter is starting to stir from her nap, and then I have to get the pumpkin pies started before I make dinner for the two of us.)

My apologies for not having the links available for you at this time.

 

[Abby Normal]

Thank you. I am aware of both and I still feel neither apply to Julia.

I agree. She seemed to pride herself on their rare need for medical attention. Their first appointment was photo documented with a naturopath, right? And they weren't tiny by any means.

IME, part of the image she wanted to portray would include that the kids don't get sick much because they eat organic, healthy meals.

There's no record of constant doctors visits, hospitalizations, medications, etc. Which with MC or MCbP there always is.

 

[KMouse]

Yeah.

Sadly, my gut is telling me that this is going to be yet another example of a mom getting away with it. I don't think the police have a clue where his body is, and without that (in my opinion based upon what we know currently) they really do not have a lot to nail her with.

Leaving the kid in the car? I don't think anyone actually believes that she did that this time.

Leaving the kid during mediation? Prove it. She is not required to prove that she did not leave them, they are required to prove that she did. And so far as we know there is not one witness that can testify to this.

Murder? Not a chance. There's no body.

In any case I really hope I am wrong.

ITA with everything you typed. I think Sky was gone before mediation.

 

[gitana1]

My nursing specialty for 10 years was Pediatric ICU. I have seen many cases of Munchausen By Proxy, and can tell you that as with so many other disorders, there is no set standard as far as "how" or even "when" it is done.

I don't rule it out at all in this case. It is already documented in the court docs that she has been accused of this in the past.

One of my 10 zillion theories as far as this case goes, is that JB's Munchausen by Proxy actions got out of hand, went too far, and she just didn't care. Sky was totally dependent on her, and thus an easy victim for which to assert her control over, even to sickness or health, life or death.

I have to say, though, that JB's mental issues are so complex that it's as if someone threw a psychiatric diagnostic manual into a blender and out popped JB.

Everything here is MOO.

Well, here's the thing though, isn't Munchasuen's by Proxy about a disturbed need for attention? And doesn't it result in repeated trips to the doctor, the hospital, needless tests, etc?

In this case, it seems that Julia likely bruised her children, but not because she wanted attention or sympathy, but to coldly bolster her allegations against Solomon and to insure that he did not get custody. I think that is different. And while we don't know that Julia wasn't taking her kids to doctors all the time or making up illnesses for them or herself, we do know that M's first trip to a doctor was when she was over a year old and it was to homeopath, not to a medical doctor.

Also, nowhere in Solomon's detailed declaration does he indicate that she claimed sickness, claimed the kids were sick all the time, or made things up for attention, caused situations for attention, etc. A better candidate for that would be, I think, the woman who killed Sandra Cantu - her daughter was always "ill" and she had falsely claimed rape and tried to start fires, etc.

IMO, Julia was a little bit the opposite. She wanted desperately to be left alone so she could indulge in her obsessions about cleaning. She wanted to be left alone so badly that she didn't want people to come over, wouldn't allow her children to rise until Solomon could come get them after work, and possibly, eventually killed in order to not have anything get in her way of an obsessively, sterile environment. So I am in agreement with PattyG at this point.

 

[pdxmama]

ITA with everything you typed. I think Sky was gone before mediation.

BBM - Unfortunately, I completely agree.

 

[bendrn]

BBM - Wow, I didn't realize it was so prevalent. That is truly disturbing to hear.

Sad but true.

In my observation, there is an overall communication by the perpetrator of something along the lines of, "See what a wonderful parent I am, I am burdened by this sick child but I bring him/her in to the hospital every time something goes wrong, I am so exhausted but extremely dedicated, nobody can figure out what's wrong, oh poor me, look at me, me, me, etc. etc."

:furious:

 

[bendrn]

Well, here's the thing though, isn't Munchasuen's by Proxy about a disturbed need for attention? And doesn't it result in repeated trips to the doctor, the hospital, needless tests, etc?

In this case, it seems that Julia likely bruised her children, but not because she wanted attention or sympathy, but to coldly bolster her allegations against Solomon and to insure that he did not get custody. I think that is different. And while we don't know that Julia wasn't taking her kids to doctors all the time or making up illnesses for them or herself, we do know that M's first trip to a doctor was when she was over a year old and it was to homeopath, not to a medical doctor.

Also, nowhere in Solomon's detailed declaration does he indicate that she claimed sickness, claimed the kids were sick all the time, or made things up for attention, caused situations for attention, etc. A better candidate for that would be, I think, the woman who killed Sandra Cantu - her daughter was always "ill" and she had falsely claimed rape and tried to start fires, etc.

IMO, Julia was a little bit the opposite. She wanted desperately to be left alone so she could indulge in her obsessions about cleaning. She wanted to be left alone so badly that she didn't want people to come over, wouldn't allow her children to rise until Solomon could come get them after work, and possibly, eventually killed in order to not have anything get in her way of an obsessively, sterile environment. So I am in agreement with PattyG at this point.

I absolutely agree with you as far as a generalization of the diagnosis goes.

But again, JB is such a complex person that I am thinking MBP may present itself in different ways given her spectrum of other disorders.

Total Speculation: "Oh, SO (or whomever), I am just exhausted and Sky is sick all the time but I take such good care of him, I have to keep him with me and only me because his dad wouldn't know what to do with him in this condition". Still gaining attention to herself, but within her realm of safety with her few friends, versus in a doctor's office or hospital setting.

I believe it was Rougelette (sp?) who stated there is a kernel of truth in most lies, and I am in total agreement. I believe we will discover that Sky was indeed sick and in need of medical attention at some point... unfortunately, given JB's spectrum of mental issues, he never made it that far, as a hospital or doctor's office was probably far from her realm of "safe places" to be.

What is evident to me is her need for absolute control, and it is far too easy for a parent to control everything about their little child, even their overall health.

Again, all MOO. Thanks for a great debate. :crazy:

 

[SmoothOperator]

It is so very very disheartening, enough so to bring tears to my eyes in the realization that Julia took 9/5 to do such a massive upload of photos.. One would think she would have been doing so due it just having been her baby boy, Sky's second birthday just 3days before on 9/2.. What does this say?? IMO it says so very much.. Just look at MM's milestones and birthdays documented to the hilt with photos.. But yet mom does a massive upload 3 days after her baby boys 2nd birthday and there's nothing of Sky and his birthday.. Infact the most recent photo of him is from June??

Of course I don't know this means something for certain but it certainly hurts my heart for him no matter what it actually indicates.. I fear she has learned from CA that if she can keep the body concealed long enough then she's home free.. I am so very fearful that this is what she's banking on..

 

[Patty G]

I agree. She seemed to pride herself on their rare need for medical attention. Their first appointment was photo documented with a naturopath, right? And they weren't tiny by any means.

IME, part of the image she wanted to portray would include that the kids don't get sick much because they eat organic, healthy meals.

There's no record of constant doctors visits, hospitalizations, medications, etc. Which with MC or MCbP there always is.

Exactly.

 

[cocomod]

I have to comment on the pictures and lack of pictures of Sky. I am wondering if Julia really never bonded with Sky. We know that Solomon took a couple of months (IIRC) off from work when Sky was born to help take care of the children. Is it possible that in JB's sickened state of mind, she cleaned and cleaned and ignored her newborn baby? Isn't that the time for bonding? We see NO pictures of birthdays with Sky. We see NO wonderment (my own word) pictures of Sky's first steps. We see a few pictures of M opening Christmas presents on her dad's lap (and probably his family).

I have to admit that there are very few pictures of me with my kids. I have a few professional shots, but very few with my camera; because my husband refuses to take pictures. I really need to set up a tri-pod and get some candid shots with me and my kids.

However, I have pictures of every birthday, every holiday, and every "special" event; and I am NOT a great picture taker. I am not one that has photo album after photo album. But I make sure to take the important ones. I have friends that take pictures almost on a daily basis.

I am really feeling like JB did not bond with Sky, and his absence is not affecting her.

 

[Patty G]

I am looking for photos that have the following:

This photo was taken on September 5, 2011 using a Canon PowerShot SD770 IS.

This photo was taken on September 15, 2011 using a Canon PowerShot SD770 IS.

I am not sure if September 15, 2011 is the correct date, but I thought there were some after September 5, 2011

It has to read "using a Canon PowerShot SD770 IS, as this means it was uploaded from the camera to the website, rather than from the camera, to a computer file, to the website.

 

[SmoothOperator]

Ok I'm very confused by something and perhaps someone with more knowledge than I could enlighten me.. I know we have discussed MM's firsy doctor visit and it being to a homeopathic type dr(not sure if that's the correct label) but you know what I'm talking about.. This obviously was well after MM was over year old, likely closer to two IMO.. My Point is I do not understand how these children are able to "get by"(for lack of a better term) in life without having had the exhaustive list of immunizations that babies, tots, and children are required to have..(and I am not claiming that we know for absolute certain that the children WERE NOT IMMUNIZED.. am just asking a question here) Now I am aware there is a religious clause that can be used to refuse these immunizations however my issue is that I do know in order for the children to begin school that the children must show proof of immunization, infact I believe that it's required even for PRE school and daycare.. So how do those who choose not to have their children immunized get around this issue.. Seems to me that with it being such an important REQUIREMENT(and boy do they make sure to have the documented proof when a child begins school, changes school, etc and that's throughout their entire mid/highschool as well).. ATLEAST in my state that's how it goes and if for some reason you cannot come up with their complete shot record.. Well.. The child IS NOT ALLOWED TO ATTEND SCHOOL, PERIOD!! i mean if even one booster shot is missing THEY DO NOT ALLOW THE CHILD TO EVEN INTERACT WITH ANY OTHER STUDENTS, period..

So could someone who knows explain this issue to me?? I am very confused about it and find it difficult to believe that children whose parents for religious reasons(or other reasons) have refused these immunizations are able to attend daycare, PRE school, elementary, middle, or highschool.. In my area it's flat out prohibited as I explained so I'm curious to know how this issue is handled..

TIA to anyone who has knowledge of this issue..

 

[fluffyslady]

Ok I'm very confused by something and perhaps someone with more knowledge than I could enlighten me.. I know we have discussed MM's firsy doctor visit and it being to a homeopathic type dr(not sure if that's the correct label) but you know what I'm talking about.. This obviously was well after MM was over year old, likely closer to two IMO.. My Point is I do not understand how these children are able to "get by"(for lack of a better term) in life without having had the exhaustive list of immunizations that babies, tots, and children are required to have..(and I am not claiming that we know for absolute certain that the children WERE NOT IMMUNIZED.. am just asking a question here) Now I am aware there is a religious clause that can be used to refuse these immunizations however my issue is that I do know in order for the children to begin school that the children must show proof of immunization, infact I believe that it's required even for PRE school and daycare.. So how do those who choose not to have their children immunized get around this issue.. Seems to me that with it being such an important REQUIREMENT(and boy do they make sure to have the documented proof when a child begins school, changes school, etc and that's throughout their entire mid/highschool as well).. ATLEAST in my state that's how it goes and if for some reason you cannot come up with their complete shot record.. Well.. The child IS NOT ALLOWED TO ATTEND SCHOOL, PERIOD!! i mean if even one booster shot is missing THEY DO NOT ALLOW THE CHILD TO EVEN INTERACT WITH ANY OTHER STUDENTS, period..

So could someone who knows explain this issue to me?? I am very confused about it and find it difficult to believe that children whose parents for religious reasons(or other reasons) have refused these immunizations are able to attend daycare, PRE school, elementary, middle, or highschool.. In my area it's flat out prohibited as I explained so I'm curious to know how this issue is handled..

TIA to anyone who has knowledge of this issue..

The only thing I can think of is maybe it's not her first time per se, just her first time to a homeopathic doctor. She could have used a regular pediatrician at first then switched to the homeopathic and it was M's first time there.

 

[sunflowerchick]

Ok I'm very confused by something and perhaps someone with more knowledge than I could enlighten me.. I know we have discussed MM's firsy doctor visit and it being to a homeopathic type dr(not sure if that's the correct label) but you know what I'm talking about.. This obviously was well after MM was over year old, likely closer to two IMO.. My Point is I do not understand how these children are able to "get by"(for lack of a better term) in life without having had the exhaustive list of immunizations that babies, tots, and children are required to have..(and I am not claiming that we know for absolute certain that the children WERE NOT IMMUNIZED.. am just asking a question here) Now I am aware there is a religious clause that can be used to refuse these immunizations however my issue is that I do know in order for the children to begin school that the children must show proof of immunization, infact I believe that it's required even for PRE school and daycare.. So how do those who choose not to have their children immunized get around this issue.. Seems to me that with it being such an important REQUIREMENT(and boy do they make sure to have the documented proof when a child begins school, changes school, etc and that's throughout their entire mid/highschool as well).. ATLEAST in my state that's how it goes and if for some reason you cannot come up with their complete shot record.. Well.. The child IS NOT ALLOWED TO ATTEND SCHOOL, PERIOD!! i mean if even one booster shot is missing THEY DO NOT ALLOW THE CHILD TO EVEN INTERACT WITH ANY OTHER STUDENTS, period..

So could someone who knows explain this issue to me?? I am very confused about it and find it difficult to believe that children whose parents for religious reasons(or other reasons) have refused these immunizations are able to attend daycare, PRE school, elementary, middle, or highschool.. In my area it's flat out prohibited as I explained so I'm curious to know how this issue is handled..

TIA to anyone who has knowledge of this issue..

It isn't just for religious beliefs that you can refuse to have your children vaccinated. You can also do so for personal reasons. There is paperwork you can fill out that "exempts" your children from the policies. I am not saying that is the case here, but I know in my state and several others that is how it works. It is as easy as signing your name that your children were not vaccinated and you understand the risks.

 

[pdxmama]

Ok I'm very confused by something and perhaps someone with more knowledge than I could enlighten me.. I know we have discussed MM's firsy doctor visit and it being to a homeopathic type dr(not sure if that's the correct label) but you know what I'm talking about.. This obviously was well after MM was over year old, likely closer to two IMO.. My Point is I do not understand how these children are able to "get by"(for lack of a better term) in life without having had the exhaustive list of immunizations that babies, tots, and children are required to have..(and I am not claiming that we know for absolute certain that the children WERE NOT IMMUNIZED.. am just asking a question here) Now I am aware there is a religious clause that can be used to refuse these immunizations however my issue is that I do know in order for the children to begin school that the children must show proof of immunization, infact I believe that it's required even for PRE school and daycare.. So how do those who choose not to have their children immunized get around this issue.. Seems to me that with it being such an important REQUIREMENT(and boy do they make sure to have the documented proof when a child begins school, changes school, etc and that's throughout their entire mid/highschool as well).. ATLEAST in my state that's how it goes and if for some reason you cannot come up with their complete shot record.. Well.. The child IS NOT ALLOWED TO ATTEND SCHOOL, PERIOD!! i mean if even one booster shot is missing THEY DO NOT ALLOW THE CHILD TO EVEN INTERACT WITH ANY OTHER STUDENTS, period..

So could someone who knows explain this issue to me?? I am very confused about it and find it difficult to believe that children whose parents for religious reasons(or other reasons) have refused these immunizations are able to attend daycare, PRE school, elementary, middle, or highschool.. In my area it's flat out prohibited as I explained so I'm curious to know how this issue is handled..

TIA to anyone who has knowledge of this issue..

I know in Oregon, it's pretty easy to get an exemption because they just require a signed statement from the parents staying they are exempt for religious reasons. I imagine that people that are against immunizations use the religious exemption when it comes to enrolling their children in school, although I don't know that for sure.

I looked up the laws in Washington and this is what I found:

"On May 10, 2011, Governor Gregoire signed a bill that requires a licensed health care provider to sign the Certificate of Exemption for a parent or guardian to exempt their child from school and child care immunization requirements. The signature verifies that the provider gave the parent or guardian information about the benefits and risks of immunization. A parent or guardian can also turn in a signed letter from a health care provider stating the same information.

The law took effect on July 22, 2011. It only applies to exemptions requested after this date. A health care provider doesn't need to sign the form for parents or guardians who demonstrate membership in a church or religious group that does not allow a health care provider to provide medical treatment to a child."

It requires the additional step of having a health care provider sign but until they are school age, it probably hasn't been an issue yet. (This is assuming that the children are not immunized and I have no idea either way.)

http://www.vaclib.org/exempt/washington.htm