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

[TXNurse77]

Thanks for the info. I mentioned earlier in the thread about my having personally met Gregg Gibbs. Mitch Nolte is with the same firm, and appears to handle criminal defense.

http://www.mckinneylaw.com/lawyers/mitchell-r-nolte/

Just don’t get a good feeling about this. I know I’m in the minority, and don’t want to violate TOS with speculation, but I doubt WM acted alone. It’ll be interesting to see when additional arrest(s) are made. It seems peculiar for Sini to hire a powerful criminal defense attorney if she is innocent. Of course, though, she and everyone else has a right to be represented if they desire.....

Why does mom have a criminal attorney? Is that common in this type of case in the event he implicates her? I understand the separate family law attorneys because one or both could potentially be granted custody... but a preemptive criminal defense attorney? Again, may be status quo, please enlighten...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MarisaS1985]

Thanks for the info. I mentioned earlier in the thread about my having personally met Gregg Gibbs. Mitch Nolte is with the same firm, and appears to handle criminal defense.

http://www.mckinneylaw.com/lawyers/mitchell-r-nolte/

Just don’t get a good feeling about this. I know I’m in the minority, and don’t want to violate TOS with speculation, but I doubt WM acted alone. It’ll be interesting to see when additional arrest(s) are made.

I honestly don't think you are in the minority, but until we hear anything official it's really not fair to treat any other party as anything more than a victim.

The part of me that has been a victim and been in a similar process with police and having things taken etc, I really can understand why a victim would shut down. I actually recall MYSELF storming out of the police station FURIOUS saying "if I am ever raped again the last people I call will be you" to the detective. Over the years my relationship with LE has become really good... but back when I had escaped and my mind was struggling between brainwashed victim and person wanting justice I was really all over the place and as a result can understand why a victim wouldn't want to or wouldn't be able to talk.

I am sure many people here have been victims and that's a motive for wanting justice for others, but I just wanted to give some added insight into what may be going on behind the scenes for any other victim. It can be REALLY hard to find your voice once you have lost it....

 

[JaneEyre]

Theoretically, can Sini continue to refuse to speak to LE indefinitely without facing obstruction charges?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Rocco]

Theoretically, can Sini continue to refuse to speak to LE indefinitely without facing obstruction charges?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

According to defense attorney Pete Schulte, who was interviewed today, yes she can.

 

[rosesfromangels]

According to defense attorney Pete Schulte, who was interviewed today, yes she can.

Which leads me to two speculations. I *think* there is some law that says a wife can't be forced to testify against her spouse? Any legal-beagles here to help validate that? Second, she may be clammed up because she is afraid it will effect her citizenship? (Let alone jeopardize her freedom).

All speculation and opinion only

 

[Rocco]

Which leads me to two speculations. I *think* there is some law that says a wife can't be forced to testify against her spouse? Any legal-beagles here to help validate that? Second, she may be clammed up because she is afraid it will effect her citizenship? (Let alone jeopardize her freedom).

All speculation and opinion only

Yes, he said that too--that she can't be forced to testify against him.

 

[EA18G]

RICHARDSON – Sherin Mathews’ breathing slowed and her pulse stopped, but in the account that her father gave police, he never woke his wife, a registered nurse who works at Dallas Children’s Medical Center.


https://www.dallasnews.com/news/cri...s-wake-nurse-wife-sherin-mathews-choked-death

 

[LietKynes]

Just marking my spot and hoping for justice for this little girl !
No matter what horrible things she may have suffered... bring them to light ; and may her abuser(s) /killer(s) face a lifetime of prison -- or the DP.

She was an innocent child ,and also a human being who did nothing to deserve her fate.

Going off to sit on my hands now......:censored:

 

[Rocco]

RICHARDSON – Sherin Mathews’ breathing slowed and her pulse stopped, but in the account that her father gave police, he never woke his wife, a registered nurse who works at Dallas Children’s Medical Center.


https://www.dallasnews.com/news/cri...s-wake-nurse-wife-sherin-mathews-choked-death

Pete Schulte also stated that WM didn't do himself any favors by going in to the PD with his second story.

 

[MarisaS1985]

Theoretically, can Sini continue to refuse to speak to LE indefinitely without facing obstruction charges?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

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

 

[rosesfromangels]

RICHARDSON – Sherin Mathews’ breathing slowed and her pulse stopped, but in the account that her father gave police, he never woke his wife, a registered nurse who works at Dallas Children’s Medical Center.


https://www.dallasnews.com/news/cri...s-wake-nurse-wife-sherin-mathews-choked-death

I have *zero* sympathy for this poor excuse of a human being, but I will say his attorney should just tell him to stop talking. He is making things much worse for himself. Then again....I guess I'm glad he is, in fact, making things worse for himself.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Guys, just to clarify something, OCI typically stands for "Overseas Citizen of India". India is one of those countries which do not allow dual citizenship. So, what typically happens is if an Indian settled overseas becomes a citizen of that country, then they are forced to renounce Indian citizenship and can choose to either have PIO (Person of Indian Origin - but this is becoming defunct I believe) status or OCI status. OCI holders don't have all the privileges of being an Indian citizen but still allows them several benefits and most importantly they can travel visa-free to India.

What I'm saying is, someone mentioned OCI in the above posts and if the parents are holding OCI status then they could possibly have taken American citizenship - I'm speculating here, I don't know the parents' citizenship status. But, OCI and Indian citizenship are mutually exclusive

Anyone who becomes a naturalized US citizen must renounce any other citizenships. Dual US citizenships are, I believe, limited to situations like the child of American citizens born in another country.

 

[Grouchymom]

Which leads me to two speculations. I *think* there is some law that says a wife can't be forced to testify against her spouse? Any legal-beagles here to help validate that? Second, she may be clammed up because she is afraid it will effect her citizenship? (Let alone jeopardize her freedom).

All speculation and opinion only

Rule 504. Spousal Privileges

(a) Confidential Communication Privilege.

(1) Definition. A communication is “confidential” if a person makes it privately to the person’s spouse and does not intend its disclosure to any other person.

(2) General Rule. A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing a confidential communication made to the person’s marriage.

(3) Who May Claim. The privilege may be claimed by:
(A) the communicating spouse;

(B) the guardian of a communicating spouse who is
incompetent; or

(C) the personal representative of a communicating spouse who is deceased. The other spouse may claim the privilege on the communicating spouse’s behalf—and is presumed to have authority to do so.

(4) Exceptions. This privilege does not apply:

(A) Furtherance of Crime or Fraud. If the communication is made—wholly or partially—to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or fraud.

(B) Proceeding Between Spouse and Other Spouse or Claimant Through Deceased Spouse. In a civil proceeding:

(i) brought by or on behalf of one spouse against the other; or (ii) between a surviving spouse and a person claiming through the deceased spouse.

(C) Crime Against Family, Spouse, Household Member, or Minor Child.
In a:
(i) proceeding in which a party is accused of conduct that, if proved, is a crime against the person of the other spouse, any member of the household of either spouse, or any minor child; or
(ii) criminal proceeding involving a charge of bigamy under Section 25.01 of the Penal Code.

(D) Commitment or Similar Proceeding. In a proceeding to commit either spouse or otherwise to place the spouse or the spouse’s property under another’s control because of a mental or physical condition.

(E) Proceeding to Establish Competence. In a proceeding brought by or on behalf of either spouse to establish competence.

(b) Privilege Not to Testify in a Criminal Case.

(1) General Rule. In a criminal case, an accused’s spouse has a privilege not to be called to testify for the state. But this rule neither prohibits a spouse from testifying voluntarily for the state nor gives a spouse a privilege to refuse to be called to testify for the accused.

(2) Failure to Call Spouse. If other evidence indicates that the accused’s spouse could testify to relevant matters, an accused’s failure to call the spouse to testify is a proper subject of comment by counsel.

(3) Who May Claim. The privilege not to testify may be claimed by the accused’s spouse or the spouse’s guardian or representative, but not by the accused.

(4) Exceptions. This privilege does not apply:

(A) Certain Criminal Proceedings. In a criminal proceeding in which a spouse is charged with:

(i) a crime against the other spouse, any member of the household of either spouse, or any minor child; or
(ii) bigamy under Section 25.01 of the Penal Code.

(B) Matters That Occurred Before the Marriage. If the spouse is called to testify about matters that occurred before the marriage. Comment to 2015 Restyling: Previously, Rule 504(b)(1) provided that, “A spouse who testifies on behalf of an accused is subject to cross-examination as provided in Rule 611(b).” That sentence was included in the original version of Rule 504 when the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence were promulgated in 1986 and changed the rule to a testimonial privilege held by the witness spouse. Until then, a spouse was deemed incompetent to testify against his or her defendant spouse, and when a spouse testified on behalf of a defendant spouse, the state was limited to cross-examining the spouse about matters relating to the spouse’s direct testimony. The quoted sentence from the original


Criminal Rule 504(b) was designed to overturn this limitation and allow the state to cross-examine a testifying spouse in the same manner as any other witness. More than twenty-five years later, it is clear that a spouse who testifies either for or against a defendant spouse may be cross-examined in the same manner as any other witness. Therefore, the continued inclusion in the rule of a provision that refers only to the cross-examination of a spouse who testifies on behalf of the accused is more confusing than helpful. Its deletion is designed to clarify the rule and does not change existing law.

http://www.txcourts.gov/media/921665/tx-rules-of-evidence.pdf

Red bold by me to show exceptions to spousal privilege that would apply in this case

 

[Margo/Mom]

From what I read, there is not a question of her citizenship but rather if the orphanage had followed procedure. (The orphanage claims they did.) Even if the norms were not followed, she remains a citizen b/c she was internationally adopted. If the Mathews are not citizens, then they would be talking about her as an Indian citizen but they are talking about agency regularity.


"Sherin’s reported death prompted Nalanda district magistrate Thiyagarajan SM to set up a three-member team to “ascertain if all norms of adoption were followed in this case”.

He warned of legal action against the NGO if any irregularity is found.

The centre asserted it had followed stipulated norms." http://www.hindustantimes.com/india...rom-nalanda/story-vaboB83baJvGRhf5TOW4PL.html


Citizenship information:

The Child Citizenship Act of 2000 was designed to make acquisition of U.S. citizenship easier and to eliminate extra steps and costs. Under the Child Citizenship Act, children adopted abroad automatically acquire U.S. citizenship if:

At least one of the child's parents is a U.S. citizen;

The child is under 18;

The child lives in the legal and physical custody of the American citizen parent;

The child is admitted into the United States as an immigrant for lawful permanent residence; and

The adoption is final.

Because of the Child Citizenship Act, many parents no longer need to apply separately for a child's naturalization.

https://travel.state.gov/content/ad.../acquiring-us-citizenship-for-your-child.html

I think any time an agency has placement responsibilities and something like this happens there are a lot of people who get very nervous about accusations that they missed something that could have prevented the tragedy. There are also folks here who are willing to suggest that CPS should have done a better job in knowing that this could happen in this family. Maybe. Maybe not. Still--good time to review everything.

 

[margarita25]

I'm.. speechless... I could ask why forever on this I think.

(Ana, I am speechless, too. I couldn't think of the right word until now when I saw your post..speechless. The last time I couldn't even type/post was Jessica R's over 5 years ago...throughout all the heartbreaking things I've seen here, I've still been able to at least post, and read...that arrest warrant you guys posted...that's got to be one of the most awful, heartbreaking, saddest, most disturbing things I've ever read in my life. I can't even talk. Nor do I want to. You guys know it takes a lot to shut me up. Thank you everyone for the updates, I am silently following along. Trying to keep it together over here, on the verge of balling my eyes out. I honestly might even have to step away from this one...it's just too much...but it's too late, I'm already here. No going back now. If little Sherin had to go whatever she had to go through, then surely I can manage this? I don't know, a special friend told me the other night that it's ok, even the strong have to take a break sometimes. Thanks for listening, please keep the msm coming...(so much for speechless lol...that's all I've got to say though really...that this one has hit me HARD. And is hitting harder with every word I read. It just gets worse and worse, if that's even possible!! Words fail me. Sorry Sherin sweetie love. You did not deserve this. You will never be forgotten. Love, Auntie Margarita.)

 

[Rocco]

Anyone who becomes a naturalized US citizen must renounce any other citizenships. Dual US citizenships are, I believe, limited to situations like the child of American citizens born in another country.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/dual-citizenship-allowed-naturalizing-us-citizens.html

''Nevertheless, U.S. practice, as upheld in various court decisions, is to allow dual citizenship. (You can see this on the U.S. State Department’s website, for example, where it explains that: “U.S. law does not . . . require a person to choose one citizenship or another.”)

The United States will not ask naturalizing citizens to take any steps to formally renounce the citizenship of their home country.''

 

[RiceCasparr]

Anyone who becomes a naturalized US citizen must renounce any other citizenships. Dual US citizenships are, I believe, limited to situations like the child of American citizens born in another country.

Not sure about this... I have a friend who is American but whose grandmother is Irish and mother is dual. She then applied for dual just because she could within Irish laws, as at the time it meant she could easily travel Europe and she would be studying abroad.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Margo/Mom]

Theoretically, can Sini continue to refuse to speak to LE indefinitely without facing obstruction charges?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

A person cannot be required to incriminate themselves. So there's that. I think there would be the possibility of subpoena, should LE have reason to believe that she knows something more than she has already said. That would attach some consequences to refusal to come in. And compel statements under oath, I do believe. However, she would have the option of "taking the fifth" (reference to 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination) on any questions.

 

[MarisaS1985]

O/T a bit, but I was reading Gibbs and Nolte's info on their lawyer website and was surprised to see that Gibbs was previously in LE and Nolte was previously a prosecutor.
I wonder if they saw too many people being railroaded and decided to switch sides or what would cause a lawyer to switch from putting the "bad guy" away to defending them...
Sorry, was just a random thought...

http://www.mckinneylaw.com/lawyers/gregg-m-gibbs/

http://www.mckinneylaw.com/lawyers/mitchell-r-nolte/

 

[CTHR]

as in every event , hindsight is 20-20
My daughter was a cps intake worker prior to becoming the supervisor for her department . Over and over , cases " slipped thru the cracks " or were assessed improperly . Ultimately children suffered. She eventually quit social work , not sure if being based in Cleveland was key to that decision , I know her memories still affect her .
This precious little Childs demise has ripped my heart out . I am so very grateful her suffering is over , her beautiful smile and bright eyes won't be forgotten .