E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Joseph Kaczmarek / AP
A law enforcement official makes his way around the perimeter outside the New Castle County Courthouse in Wilmington, Del., on Monday.
Delaware authorities have identified the suspected gunman and the victims of a shooting at a courthouse on Monday that left three people dead and two injured.
Police say 68-year-old Thomas Matusiewicz walked into the lobby of the New Castle County Courthouse in Wilmington, Del., at around 8 a.m. ET and shot and killed his former daughter-in-law Christine Belford, 39, and her friend, Laura Mulford, 47.
"He walked right up to the first victim and shot her point-blank right in the chest," Bill Heriot, a plaintiff in a court case told NBCPhiladelphia.com. "He then turned around and shot a second woman who was approximately 10 feet away."
Matusiewicz also shot and injured two Capitol Police officers, both wearing bulletproof vests, in the chest, identified as Steven Rinehart and Michael Manley, Delaware State Police Sgt. Paul Shavak said.
Witnesses said during a heated exchange of gunfire, the two officers shot and killed Matusiewicz as he was reloading his weapon, NBCPhiladelphia.com reported.
The injured officers were taken to nearby Christiana Hospital, treated and released.
Belford was due in court for a child support hearing with her estranged husband David Matusiewicz, 45, the gunman's son, Shavak said.
David Matusiewicz was released from federal prison in Texas last year after being convicted in Delaware federal court of bank fraud and kidnapping the couple's daughters, ages 11, 10 and 7.
Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden said the shooting was not a random act of violence, but based on their preliminary investigation, "a result of a custody dispute that lasted in our court system for several years."
Defense attorney Brian Chapman told NBCPhiladelphia.com that the building’s security is normally very tight.
"There are at least four or five rows of metal detectors when you go in, you put your belongings through, then you have to walk through the metal detectors,” Chapman said. “Then there are usually eight to 10 police with wands checking everyone and after that you still have to walk by a desk where capitol police sit."
Upon reports of the incident, dozens of police cars, ambulances and fire trucks flooded the scene, and the streets were cordoned off for several blocks, DelawareOnline.com reported.
The courthouse was placed on lockdown while investigators and search teams canvassed and later evacuated the 12-story building.
Five elementary schools and one high school in the area were on also lockdown Monday morning.
In a statement, Delaware Governor Jack Markell, while not on the scene, said, "Our thoughts and prayers right now are with the victims of this senseless violence and the Capitol police officers who put their lives on the line to protect the courts and public every day."
The New Castle County courthouse was closed on Tuesday.
Leave a Comment:
This is why people should not fight. If someone wants custody, give it to them. Arguments lead to bad feelings, which can lead to violence. We need to be much more passive people, who do not fight, rather spread love.
How funny! Do you by chance live in Boulder, CO?
I only have one problem with your idea. I did not fight in court for custody and I made an agreement, only to have my ex wife start moving from state to state 18 months after the agreement WITHOUT telling me where she was going or informing me of etch of her moves. I think, in my case, if I would have be able to keep her tied up in court for years at a time, it would have made it much harder for her to take off and not say anything.
The only way your idea will work is if there is instituted and Office of child custody enforcement and that office is given the same power to punish moms who take off with the children in the same way that child support is currently punished.. OFC that will not happen because there would be no free money to the state from federal matching funds like there is through child support. Custody enforcement would be a money loser for the state and so, it is not worth doing.
Generally though, your sentiment is correct. Do you ever wonder how much goes to the parents lawyers? Imagine all the money over months and years that people pay to their lawyers actually going to the kids they are fighting over.. I would say that putting down the legal "guns" and spending money on kids instead of court would be the biggest way to show your kids you care more about them then your hostility to their mother or father as the case may be.
Chirs
would you really want a child kidnapper to have custody of the children? This is mental abuse.....which is WORSE than physical abuse leading to years of scars. Some people will do anything not to have to pay child support! Obviously, the apple didnt fall far from the tree in this case!
What a horrible grandfather this man was.He raised an awful son to boot.He killed these children's mother and if there aren't nay family members to step in that are sane they will be turned over to foster care.He did not love his grandchildren enough to do something like this.
FedupwithFed
Chirs
would you really want a child kidnapper to have custody of the children? This is mental abuse.....which is WORSE than physical abuse leading to years of scars. Some people will do anything not to have to pay child support! Obviously, the apple didnt fall far from the tree in this case!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, just like some people will do anything to sever a fathers relationship with his kids. Not paying support and custody interference are different sides of the same coin and they are both important to uphold equally.
Was this guy a dead beat and not paying support? Was the mother a morally bankrupt mother that interfered with custody? Where they both out to use the kids as a weapon on the other? I have no idea, but all of these things happen a million times a day between millions of ex spouses. If your take is that the man abducted his children simply to avoid support then let me be clear.. There is an equal chance that he abducted them because it was the only way he could ever see them. It is no excuse, but the assertion that people take their children to avoid support is to narrow. If you have your kids you are supporting them, unless your plan is to take them and starve them under the forest trees in the dead of winter.
The dad sounds like a real scum, but there is not enough said about the kind of father he was. You could be scum of the earth and still really love your children.
He didn't get past security. It all happened in the lobby, just inside the door right before going through the metal detectors and wands.
Wow - seriously? So hypothetically - if a man or woman is suspected of abusing their children, the other parent shouldn't fight for custody based on your logic? You're a moron. Let's hope you don't have children and aren't able to procreate.
"Witnesses said during a heated exchange of gunfire, the two officers shot and killed Matusiewicz as he was reloading his weapon."
The shooter was probably a law abiding, responsible gun owner until he decided to go on a shooting spree. So, could this have been prevented? Probably not. But it's another reason for banning large capacity magazines. The more they have to reload, the fewer people they can kill.
The news stories I have read said the guy was a fruitcake and spent time in prison over this. SO... Where do you think he got his gun. You think he put them in storage till he was out of prison. No, all your freaking gun laws did not stop him, just those, like this woman, who needed a gun. The same news story I heard said she had her house setup like a fortress, so I guess I was right when I wrote on another post that this whack job waited till she was in a "Gun Free Zone" to take her out then go out himself in a blaze of glory.
No this was that guy's father. From actual local reports there is no evidence that this guy knew where she lived but he knew she was going to be at the court house. Truth is that even if she was armed she still would have died as reports say that she did not see him coming and he shot her at point blank range.
Yes, the writers were sure to include that statement. Of course....the obvious (more obvious every day it seems) agenda of the media.
This has nothing to do with any laws, existing, impending, or being considered. This has to do with bat @!$%# crazy, and bat @!$%# crazy has no regard for the law.
actually Dave, the father of the children spent time in jail and had previously kidnapped the children. The father's father is the one who shot and killed the mother and her friend yesterday.
b.s. that depends on a lot of things.
Shot his ex daughter-in-law and her gay lover!
There is nothing in the story that points to the victim and her friend being lovers. Even if they were, it does not excuse this man's actions.
This poor stiff that did the shooting probably raised his grandchildren while the mother and father were on drugs and in jail and now they were going to take them away from him. The court system could have prevented this incident. All the facts will come out eventually!!!
Unreal. You blame the court system for this? Really? The guy was ANGRY. He had access to a gun. ANGRY+GUN=DEATH. Had he had a knife or a hammer, someone would have stopped him after the first stabbing. Stop blaming everyone else but the person responsible. He was not a poor stiff, he was a murderer. But then again.... he is now a "poor stiff" quite literally.
Belford was due in court for a child support hearing with her estranged husband David Matusiewicz, 45, the gunman's son, Shavak said.
David Matusiewicz was released from federal prison in Texas last year after being convicted in Delaware federal court of bank fraud and kidnapping the couple's daughters, ages 11, 10 and 7.
To SRBINAT - Some reading comprehension please. Where in the article does it state the shooter was raising his grandchildren or that the shooting victim, Christine Bedford, was a drug addict? Ms. Bedford was going to court to settle the custody issue she had with her ex husband and was shot because of it. It doesn't sound like the shooter's son was an upstanding citizen if he had been in federal prison for bank fraud and kidnapping (custodial interference). Further, Thomas Matusiewicz (the shooter) shot an innocent person (the second woman) just for going to court with a friend plus he shot two other police officers. Please save your sympathy for the actual victims here instead of the "poor stiff"! He deserves no sympathy what so ever. People need to think of the consequences before they pick up a gun to settle disagreements. Now Christine Bedford's children will have to live with the knowledge that their grandfather killed their mother, another innocent woman, and tried to kill two other policemen. A moment of stupidity has a tremendous impact on other people's lives.
Sounds like the courts had it right, no way the convict son or his whacked out father should have had custody of any children.
I truly do wish you would pay closer attention. They were not in court for a custody hearing, they were there over child support. It's an absolute fact that 92% of divorced fathers default on their child support within the first 2 years after a divorce. I can't begin to count the number of men that have whined and complained about their ex-wife living high on the hog on "their money". As far as I can see the father-in-law just didn't think his son should have to do that. He shot dead the mother of his grand children over MONEY. How sick is that? I was a single mom and believe me, I never lived high on the hog. And the father of my sons never paid me a dime. Ever. Men are so dammed stupid sometimes.
Really? 92% ? Then state your absolute source for this absolute fact. Cause I know a LOT of divorced men, and they ALL pay their child support.
I'm calling BS on the 92% number.
Looks like the custady suit was won by the father now that the mother was killed by his father. Crazy world but I bet he gets the kids.
I wondered about that too. I don't know if his previous conviction for kidnapping them would factor into a custody determination, but maybe the shooter gets the desired results in the end.
Pray for those kids. They're gonna need it.
The father and his mother both did prison time for the kidnapping. Plus his bank fraud was forging his ex-wifes name to get $250K in cash which he then sent to his parents who then sent it to an overseas account..... all to facilitate the kidnapping. No one on the paternal side of the family should get these girls. And there has been no mention of the mothers family in any article I`ve read. I hope there is a really strong foster family that will take all three of these girls together. They will need all the help they can get.
Again, Kelcy did you read the article? the mother never kidnapped the kids!!
They put 6 schools in a lockdown over a 60 second incident in a unrelated building? Over-react much? I don't think they needed to traumatize kids and parents with this "Over-abundance of caution" thing. I could see it for a school if it was a block or so fromt he courthouse perhaps. but are all of these that close?
Jeez!
@Jim Burrill, the schools ARE just hat close. Wilmington is very small city, in a equally small state,we're located 30 minutes outside of Philadelphia. I'm at the local community college just 2 blocks away, there's Kuumba Academy, just a block away; Drew-Pyle Elementary, Bancroft Elem, Howard High School, DCAD/Delaware School for the Creative Arts all of these schools are literally a stones throw away from this courthouse.
So yeah, it was necessary, considering.
Consider also that schools are just chock full of defenseless hostages and human shields. It's not an overreaction AT ALL to go into lockdown when a gunman is potentially on the loose.
And there will be the gun idiots, Ted N and Wayne L, whom will say retarded retorts about such events. Immigration, Economy, what ever TF, the main problem is guns, guns, guns! Just below this piece, was another story about one woman, buying 31 guns! What can the 2nd admenment nutbags, say about that? More than likely, the same old crazy, lame ass bullcrap. We're tired of it, we're tired of them, change the gun laws period! Or FI, and just give everybody guns, and let's go wild wild west, and hopefully the idiots will come around, after their loved ones die at the hand of an assault weapon. A seven year old body, shot close range, seven times, should've changed some minds, no, it made these idiots more intense. Fools! The world would be better off with out these ones. No one is saying that guns should be banned, we're just saying that, they're too at the ready, accessible, quick to get at, first choice of the frustrated. Teaparty, NRA, KKK, that's our America, land of free, home of the brave! I'm so proud!
The "poor stiff"...really? No, he wasn't raising his grandchildren because he wasn't allowed to see them...because his son and wife (grandmother to the kids) had kidnapped them. They were found in South America in deplorable conditions...to which the grandmother plead guilty and the father was found guilty. So no, he was not a 'poor stiff' - he was a man that decided he didn't want to follow the court's ruling...one in which the judge told the father that he had 'lost touch with reality'. It would appear, that the entire paternal side of the family had lost touch with realty. The victims - aside from the mother of 4 beautiful children and her closest friend - are the children. Since the father had his parental rights terminated and now appears to be heading back to jail on a probation violation, one would hope that maternal grandparents/aunts/uncles/relatives take these beautiful children to another state and raise them.
It doesn't say his parental rights were terminated.
If they were, then she would have no reason to be in court for child support issues as the article states.
You don't get child support from someone who is no longer considered the other parent.
I don't know the back story, however, that is a pretty epic way for a father to go out. In cases like these, I always wonder what could push someone to such an extreme circumstance. Nobody wakes up and goes postal. People get fcked with and pushed; it's all a matter of how much someone can handle. The father went away for taking his kids. God knows the fights this couple must have had. I've seen how bad a divorce with kids can go so I can just imagine...at the end it got to the point that the old man figured he'd take one for the team and end the bullshiitt.
It was the grandfather that did the shooting. His son (the girls' father) went to jail for bank fraud AND kidnapping. The grandfather's wife also did time for the kidnapping. I'm thinking daddy's side of the family is a little..........messed up.
Sometimes I wonder what dragging family matters through courts serves anything but to make a bad situation worse. Surly people could resolve issues in time if allowed without outside inflammation. A perfect world doesn't exist and wouldn't be Life if it did. MHO.
Any firearm laws prohibiting military style guns or extened clips will just give Mexico another product to import to the U.S. Then the legal law abiding citizens will not be the ones buying them but the criminals.
Nonsense. Guns are no where near as easy to smuggle as drugs, or people.. Especially in any large numbers. Same with ammo. They are heavy and bulky, and easily detected with metal detectors.
And then theres the fact that these guns are made in the US, not in Mexico. And the gun manufacturers aren't about to start breaking the law.
We are the ones selling guns to Mexico. Ironically, our lax gun laws are a major part of the problem in Mexico which has (who'd of thunk it) stricter gun laws than we do.
But what can ya do when your neighbors (thats us) make it easy for straw purchasers to buy in bulk, and then market their wares from Chicago to Mexico.
We are their problem
Custody dispute, that figures. Taking away someone's kids, is probably the most likely thing that would cause them to lose it. I cant think of anything else that would make someone more emotional.
In my opinion, the courts should have to offer join custody in ALL cases. Except where violence, or some other kind of abuse against the children, is proven. The courts giving out sole custody to one relative, for ANY other reason, is wrong on every level. And it happens way too often. All relatives have a right to access to their family members.
I don't know the particulars of this case. But Im willing to bet, that because he was the man, and probably didn't have a lot of money, the courts were about to take away his kids and leave him groveling for visitation. If that's the case, I can see why he did what he did.
If anyone is to blame for these kinds of events, its the family court system that has been biased against fathers for decades. Most divorcing men now expect to get shafted. That says something about the system when men expect to get shafted. That's why you see so many murder suicides and events like this.
I guess its not really the case here, but I do agree with your outlook on custody. Nobody should be left to just visitation rights with their kids, if you are going to divorce, be prepared to share joint custody.
I have seen no information on what the structure of the original custody arrangement was but when the father (not the killer as he was the paternal grandfather) kidnapped the girls he was taking them to WDW for two weeks. It was not a spontaneous kidnapping...... the father had already stolen money from a bank by forging the ex-wife's signature to get a loan for $250K which he sent to his parents who then sent it to an overseas bank. It took two years (from 2007 to 2009) for the mother to get them back from South America.
EX husband, ex wife, childsupport, courtsystem, lawyers................BOOM!
I don't know all of the specifcs, but, if the grandmother went to jail for kidnapping charges of her grandchildren and the grandfather kills his daughter in law, this family situation seem pretty far from the normal divorce scene. f This might be a perfect storm for denying joint custody and relatives access.
What probably happened is similar to what happened to my son.
Mother hooked up with another man, took his son with her.
He has to file paperwork to get visitation and the right to see his son. She IS FORCED by the court to allow him to see his son. She then starts the "he's not really yours I just told you that and put you on the BC because I needed to list someone." Grandmother decides that she doesn't like her grandson's father, so she mortgages her home, sets her daughter (who had no $ to her name) up in an apartment, buys her a car and makes her look like the better parent and then funds the $ for a high-price attorney.
High-price attorney starts filing paperwork containing all kinds of allegations (without proof) to make father look bad, doesn't work - judge says he has the right to see his son, you're not going to raise this child off of state welfare dollars (actually said that I was in court, I almost yelled out way to go judge!).
Mother repeats to judge that my son is NOT THE FATHER. Judge then says fine, I'll grant a paternity test (even though it was outside of the 2-year window in the state in which we reside, because she claimed she was coerced into putting his name on BC--huh?). Turns out paternity test shows HE IS NOT the father. So she lied and led him on and this child is now 3 years old and only knows my son as his father.
She then petitions the court to deny visitation because she's afraid of him and he might harm the baby. Judge says, I'm not taking him off of the BC until you produce the REAL FATHER who will be tested also - you will not raise this child on the back of the citizens of ______.
She does not comply with judges order and moves back home with the baby. Court action was in another jurisdiction. My son runs out of money to defend this - while her mother is bank rolling her, we don't have the funds to bank roll him. She then, without notice to anyone, moves up north for a year with the baby (we suspect to keep my son from hauling her back into court, we only find out after she gets back).
She is unable to remove my son from the BC without a court order, so he is still listed as the LEGAL father. She is back home down south, Grandma is essentially raising him, Mom is too busy hooking up and partying. My son doesn't have the money yet to bring her back to court.
So now this child is fatherless, doesn't know where the only father he knew is at and she and her mother managed to circumvent the system.
And we wonder why kids are so screwed up these days? Because just because you can have kids, doesn't mean you should. Parents should have to pass a test before they are allowed to go forth and multiply.
MoreJustice - get real the paternal side of the family now has shown that they had 3 violent criminals trying for custody of the kids; 2 for kidnapping (and theft) and one a murderer.
The saddest part in this whole story is these children are now under the thumb of their 'father', because grandparent rights never trump parental rights (and in most cases it shouldn't). Violence or not.
www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0221/Do-grandparents-get-
www.grandparents.com/family-and-relationships/grandparents-r -
Considering the father has already been in jail for kidnapping said children, I would guess the grandparents have a pretty good case for custody.
And THIS is why children should never be used as pawns between parents.
I've heard and seen this over and over and over and usually it's the MOTHER that is pulling this crap--not allowing the father to see the children, constantly disparaging the father in front of the children and just generally totally screwing up the psyche of her own children, all in the name of what she considers love but is actually abuse.
This is why when I divorced my first husband, I made sure that my son was more important than any animosity I felt for my ex-husband. I nutured and facilitated their relationship as much as I could and they were always close and saw each other as much as they wanted.
Just because you share biology does not make you a real "mother."
Shame...
I love how everyone's jumping to the conclusion that the mother is at fault for the shooting. Given that four people got shot, and given that the father (not the grandfather, who did the killing) is a convicted felon who kidnapped the children, maybe this poor woman just made the mistake of marrying into a den of psychopaths. But go ahead, blame the victim rather than the shooter who killed two people and injured two more and was only stopped because he was RELOADING. Who else you think he wanted to kill?
There are plenty of cases where the mother is the crazy one (I know, because I've had to go up against a couple of those mothers), but I don't understand people who go looking to lay blame on the victim of a violent crime before the facts are known.
The article said they had gone back and forth and back and forth for years in court on custody.
So since the mother had custody, who do you think was dragging it into court? Father because he wasn't able to see his kids like he should have been able to - or mother trying to continue to squeeze the father or keep the father away?
Had to be one or the other - right?
And I would BET it was the mother. And I'm a woman, but unfortunately my own kind do not know how to act like mothers, they treat their children as property and use them to hurt whatever man has hurt them.
And I'd be willing to bet he kidnapped them because she wouldn't let him see them.
A convicted felon STILL has the right in this country to see and father his children whether you like it or not. Unless the conviction was for an act AGAINST his children.
The father was in jail and alread had his parental right terminated. HE was the one petitioning the courts for visitation to jail. He's also guilty of fraud, after signing his now deceased ex-wife's name for $250 grand loan, and use that money to kidnap his girls. His mother served time for the role she played in this.
WDEL.com and Delawareonline.com has plenty info on this, if you're interested in some real facts, instead of assumptions.
Kimbo's son has gotten screwed over by a woman and the court system. She is speaking from a certain point of view.
@kimbo47, you are perfectly within your rights to scorn your own gender, but I've seen pretty much both sides of quite a few custody battles. Both sides are capable of equal levels of selfishness.
Bottom line, Ban high capacity magazines. It will save lives.
Considering there is no mention of the type of gun used, nor the capacity of the magazine, I'm not sure how your statement fits with this story.
I will give you credit, however, for not just posting "ban handguns" like you usually do.
Reason for Husband's required court appearance was unrelated to custody. It was regarding (a) violation of the prior conviction for kidnapping and Bank fraud - where H fraudulently signed Wife's name [e.g. on a jointly held mortgage] to remove $249 thousand dollars from the home's equity, money that funded the kidnapping and life abroad with kidnapped children; details of violation included Husband's failure to pay child support and [apparently] 'restitution' to bank / state agencies related to fraudulent home loan. No mention of restitution to Wife for any share of the $250 thousand in home equity funds taken by Husband to fund his separate life with kidnapped children. Here is a quote from an article on the topic: "Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolfe told a judge that David Matusiewicz violated his probation by failing to pay court-ordered child support, by failing to pay any of the $9,674 in court-ordered restitution and by lying about where he was staying to probation officers while in the region." Conclusion - the entire reason for the violation-of-probation appearance was husband's failure to pay sums owed on behalf of children, to their Mom (that is, the husband's failure to pay his share of cost of children's food and shelter); and for husband's failure to pay sums owed to state on behalf of banks/agencies resulting from his fraud. As these were the 2 issues, children's Mom was likely there to testify in regards to arrears on child support. A horrific tragedy for these children.