|
|
Post by doublydead on Apr 15, 2019 17:52:29 GMT
Hi, all. First post here. And to be honest, I'm very wary of hitting Submit, because this theory won't be popular and suggests ill of the dead. So before I talk myself out of it, I'll throw this out there:
Doesn't the family's lack of cooperation, and their desire to just make this story go away, suggest that it's possible they think Matt deserved what he got?
This would explain Matt's sister saying the family doesn't talk about what happened, and her discomfort during her interview right before she stopped herself and asked to change the topic. It also explains the pastor's lack of interest in finding the killer. And the mother-in-law's insistence that Freddy buzz off. And the police department's inaction. And Matt's conversation with his friend or pastor (can't recall which) about God's forgiveness. It's like the family knows what happened, and they know, or at least suspect, why it happened, and that's enough for them.
Suppose a loved one was guilty of something unsavory, especially if that "something" involved children. And then that loved one paid the ultimate price for it. Wouldn't a part of you want to just call it even, for lack of a better term? Wouldn't a part of you empathize with the killer (likely a parent)? And wouldn't a part of you be comfortable letting the killer stay free if it meant stifling the truth about your loved one's transgressions? And wouldn't a part of you feel that a podcaster revisiting the ordeal would just be reopening old wounds that never healed in the first place? If the killer is ever brought to light, his motive will come with him. And maybe the family doesn't want that.
I'm sorry if this suggestion offends anyone. I honestly do hope I am wrong. On the surface at least, Matt and I have a lot in common, which is probably why this case has struck a nerve in me and prompted me to post about it online, which I've never done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Apr 15, 2019 18:47:54 GMT
Welcome to the forums, Doubly, and thanks for the thoughtful post.
I'm sure that your thoughts have gone through the minds of many people as they hear some of the details of this case. I've wondered the same thing on more than one occasion, and the possibility that there's some truth here is still present. Unfortunately there is no way to prove a negative... no one can ever prove that Matt wasn't doing any of those things, and until someone chooses to go on record to say that they have first hand knowledge that he did, I'm personally choosing to assume he was the man most people have described. A man with flaws, certainly, but not a fatal one that directly caused his own death. If evidence comes out that this is not the case, I'm certainly willing to change my opinion, of course.
The community that Matt was a part of is one that values forgiveness highly, but I would hope that forgiveness would have extended to Matt while he was alive rather than been given to a brutal killer who decided to take the role of executioner. I'd be surprised if those closest to Matt all unanimously decided that they'd rather allow a murderer of their loved one to roam free and forgive them, rather than to seek justice for this horrible crime.
I suppose stranger things have happened, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by curious on Apr 15, 2019 23:08:11 GMT
You are not the only one who has mulled that one over... I have considered this option too. But, like Steve, I just don’t think that all parties involved would be able to agree to it. I am glad you put it out there... many people have probably thought it or considered it, and you managed to state it quite eloquently:)
|
|
|
|
Post by doublydead on Apr 16, 2019 2:29:48 GMT
Thanks for the warm welcome, Steve, and thanks for the feedback, Curious.
Steve, I have really enjoyed the Q&A sessions with Freddy and yourself. Both you and Freddy do an admirable job, on the podcast and in this forum, of respecting the deceased and the aggrieved while also keeping an open mind to all possibilities and motives, even those that shine a negative light on people. It's nice to read a forum whose members communicate sensitive topics respectfully without resorting to the typical internet mud slinging.
Anyway ... I agree, it's unlikely that a large number of people in Matt's circle unanimously agreed to allow a killer to roam free, but I think it's also possible that only a few select people know the truth. It's obvious Matt's nursing friends and colleagues desire justice, for example, as do many others. But maybe only a couple people -- like Angel and her mother and one or two other immediate family members -- know the truth, and they are afraid to voice it out of shame or whatever. Of course, I am just spit-balling here.
|
|
Batman
Full Member
Crime Fighter
Posts: 49
|
Post by Batman on Apr 16, 2019 14:42:54 GMT
Being brutally murdered, allowing a murderer to roam the streets, and your family accepting "call it even" would take some serious, seriously dastardly deeds on someones part.
Matt would have had to be a complete monster for his wife and family to "call it even" and for law enforcement to turn their eye.
This is a serious reach IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by curious1982 on Apr 17, 2019 3:01:36 GMT
IMO you're probably right about only a select few who did it. But I do not in ANYWAY think his murder was over anything even remotely similar to what you said in your first post. From pretty much all accounts, Matt was a great guy. Now, as to the wife and MIL... those are the select few who probably know what happened. Too much stuff just doesn't add up. But ppl slip up, and the MIL is def shaking in her boots for some reason. Someone who would want the MURDERER of their son in law to remain free.... and gets mad bc someone is trying to actively solve this murder.... something is seriously wrong with that her or she knows what happened. Point. Blank. Period.
|
|
|
|
Post by seeker99 on Apr 21, 2019 16:31:50 GMT
Thanks for the warm welcome, Steve, and thanks for the feedback, Curious. Steve, I have really enjoyed the Q&A sessions with Freddy and yourself. Both you and Freddy do an admirable job, on the podcast and in this forum, of respecting the deceased and the aggrieved while also keeping an open mind to all possibilities and motives, even those that shine a negative light on people. It's nice to read a forum whose members communicate sensitive topics respectfully without resorting to the typical internet mud slinging. Anyway ... I agree, it's unlikely that a large number of people in Matt's circle unanimously agreed to allow a killer to roam free, but I think it's also possible that only a few select people know the truth. It's obvious Matt's nursing friends and colleagues desire justice, for example, as do many others. But maybe only a couple people -- like Angel and her mother and one or two other immediate family members -- know the truth, and they are afraid to voice it out of shame or whatever. Of course, I am just spit-balling here. Just to clear this one up a little, as a spouse, if my significant other had something to do with harming children in any way whatsoever, there is no way I would voluntarily go on a Christian music video and share how wonderful my spouse was, creating more publicity for someone, who may "deserve" to die, in the instance you are speaking of. That would be ludicrous. Matt didn't do anything to harm any children for his "family" to talk about, still yet to this day, of how great of a man he was. |
|
Batman
Full Member
Crime Fighter
Posts: 49
|
Post by Batman on Apr 22, 2019 15:14:12 GMT
Outstanding point Seeker99!
|
|
|
|
Post by justis4matt on May 8, 2019 12:46:05 GMT
Being brutally murdered, allowing a murderer to roam the streets, and your family accepting "call it even" would take some serious, seriously dastardly deeds on someones part. Matt would have had to be a complete monster for his wife and family to "call it even" and for law enforcement to turn their eye. This is a serious reach IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by justis4matt on May 8, 2019 13:00:29 GMT
I have heard accusations of Matt having flaws but the worst Ive known was about drugs and before he ever was married. There is no way that if what people are referring to were real that brutally killing him would be the answer. There are legal ways of getting people away from you and your children, especially with the familys ties to law enforcement. If this had to do with his past I would think that it was bc he refused to go back to that past and people who are sent to kill people would never leave a witness. There were 2 different guns and a knife.....that speculates more than 1 killer. How does someone grab a baby, leave a little girl in her room, run out of the room and down the stairs, open the front door, run across the lawn and street and not get shot in the back? Even with 1 killer, the amount of wounds already inflicted on Matt would allow a killer to grab Angel. She is a small woman and she had a child in her arms. The justice system is so flawed. The problem is that they do not have to prove innocence. The state has to prove guilt so even though the behavior of the involved parties suggests guilt there has to be tangable proof which, if there was any, was allowed to be cleared away the minute they let the mother in law clean the house and crime scene.
|
|
