Hyper Local News Pages

Web Stats Provided By Google Analytics

Sunday, September 5, 1999

09/05/99 Mother still hopes for arrest

Site where body Found stirs vivid memories

By J.A. Johnson Jr.

Inching down the steep incline, parting low-hanging branches along the way,Maryann Margolies stopped and pointed at bicycle handlebars on the ground.

"They're still there," she said. "I can't believe after all these years they're still there."

For Margolies, the badly rusted metal bars jutting from the earth are a landmark, a headstone of sorts. They mark the spot that had been the shallow grave in which her son, Matthew, had been unceremoniously interred a decade and a half ago.

On Friday morning, Maryann returned to this secluded place on the wooded outskirts of the Glenville neighborhood where Matthew lived his 13 years - that is at the same time unholy and hallowed. She was overwhelmed with the grief she has carried since the youngest of her two children was savagely murdered on August 31, 1984.

"All I want to understand is why. Why did this happen to him? Matthew deserved much better than this," the 59-year-old woman said, her eyes welling with tears. "He was a human being, and he had so much potential to be a contributing person to society. He already was contributing because he made people happy, and if that was all he ever did the rest of his life - making people happy - that would have been outstanding."

It was exactly 15 years ago today (September 5th) that Matthew's body was found by a local volunteer fighter on this wooded hillside below Greenway Drive and overlooking Pemberwick Road.

He had disappeared five days earlier, on August 31, 1984, after having left his grandmother's house less than a mile away to go fishing. Police said they believed the boy was killed that same day by someone who strangled and repeatedly stabbed him.

The 13-year-old's partially clothed body was found in the hastily prepared grave, covered with leaves and stones. The murder weapon, a boning knife, was found beneath the body.

In between the time Matthew was murdered and his body found, the crime scene had been all but destroyed by the elements. Five days of intense heat and steady rain had combined to wash away any trace evidence the killer had left and speed up decomposition of the body.

Detectives started out by identifying some 20 potential suspects, then whittled the number to five, some of whom remain suspects and continue to either live in town, or nearby.

A profiler from the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit told police the killer likely was a white male familiar with Glenville as well as the victim, and who knew of the boy's love of fishing. In a 1986 consultants critique of the investigation, the murderer was further characterized as a sadist who lured Matthew to the secluded hillside where the body was found.

If Matthew had been lured to this death, the hillside overlooking Pemberwick Road would have certainly been a place to tempt an, adventurous boy his age. In the area of the makeshift grave, the rugged terrain flattens a bit at the foot of rock outcroppings that scream to be climbed on. Investigating the nooks and crannies could easily delight a young boy fancying himself an explorer. The area is littered with rusted beer cans and similar debris that make it seem it had been a place to hang out in the days before aluminum containers, the absence of which could indicate that at some point visitors abruptly stopped coming. One could almost envision teens passing long summer days seated amid the rocks, perhaps drinking and smoking, spying on traffic that rolled past below. Charred stones seemed to speak of fires around which young males swapped tales and cemented bonds.

"When we would drive past, Matthew would ask me, 'What's up there?' and I'd tell him that I didn't want him going there," Maryann recalled. "He was very curious about this place for some reason."

One of the suspects, none of whom have been publicly named by police, is said to have been a young troublemaker who got kicks rolling logs from atop the ravine onto the roadway below. Another is rumored to have harbored a grudge against Matthew because he believed the boy somehow responsible for his getting caught growing marijuana in the woods nearby. Yet another suspect, tagged by other children as a neighborhood bully lived up the hill from where Matthew's body was found.

On her somber return to the site, Maryann wore a gold "love knot" on a chain around her neck, explaining, "It's the last thing Matthew gave me!" She reminisced about how 15 years ago, as a recently divorced mother of two, she often worked double shifts to make ends meet. One of those long work days was on August 30, 1984, and Matthew, as usual, was spending the night at his grandmother's house Morgan Avenue, a few blocks from his own house on Pilgrim Drive. "When I was working doubles, I would always call Matthew before bedtime to say good night," Maryann said."When I called him that night, my last words to him were 'I love you,' and that one thing has helped to sustain me. "At least he left this world knowing that his mother loved him."

Matthew was last seen the following day at about 5 p.m., leaving his grandmother's, and was believed headed for a favored angling spot along nearby Byram River. As the boy walked toward his destiny, he carried his prized possession, a fly rod given to him by his grandfather, George Miazga, who died two weeks before. One year later, the tightly knit Glenville community paid tribute to Matthew, dedicating a plaque on the Glenville Road bridge spanning the Byram River.

Below a depiction of a fly rod on the plaque, an inscription reads: "An excellent angler!; and now with God. Matthew Margolies, 1971-1984."

Sunday, May 2, 1999

May 2, 1999 - Events In Greenwich

Emil and Elizabeth Benvenuto are to be honored yesterday at the Hyatt Regency Greenwich for their support of the Connecticut Center for Child Development.

Monday, January 18, 1999

1/18/99 HELP WANTED

SLP for Greenwich and Norwalk, CT

Full-time, CFY, Part-time, and Per Diem positionsWe are a center based private practice (we are not an agency and we do not provide any contract work or home care services) that has been growing steadily in the past few years. Now we are interviewing for positions that will provide flexibility to fit your career needs. We offer great opportunities for career growth and skill development. We will help you achieve your long-term career goals. Our practice is an exciting and rewarding place to work. You can have career growth within our company.Our Organization: We are experienced and dynamic professionals who enjoy working and learning in a pleasant office setting. We provide weekly in-service and staff development programs.Client Population: 90% are children from age 18 months to 15 years. 10% are adults.Type of Disorders: Children: Play, speech and language skill development, feeding and oral motor dysfunction, phonological and articulation disorders, motor planning, language delay, language based learning disabilities, word retrieval and auditory language processing, voice, fluency and tongue thrust/reversed swallow. Adults: voice, fluency disorders, head injury and stroke, and accent reduction.Locations: Our main office is in Greenwich Connecticut, and our second office is in Norwalk Connecticut. We have openings at our Greenwich and Norwalk locations. Our Norwalk office is an easy commute from anywhere in Fairfield County, Connecticut. Our Greenwich office is only 5 minutes by car from Westchester County, New York.Salary & Benefits: For full time employees, we offer excellent compensation packages including individual health insurance, company matched 401-K retirement plan and 6 weeks of paid time off per year. For per diem clinicians, we offer a competitive rate. To Apply: You must have a master’s degree in Speech and Language Pathology, ASHA certified, licensed or eligible for licensing in Connecticut. Two years of pediatric experience and some adult experience are preferred. Special interests and experience in stuttering, voice disorder, and feeding with both children and adults are a plus. Send letter of interest and your resume to Josephine Chen by e-mail to jchen@speechtherapyct.com, mail to 100 Melrose Avenue, Suite 201, Greenwich, CT 06830 or fax to 203-869-8289. If you have any questions, please call us at 203-869-8272. We look forward to hearing from you.Please visit our website at: www.speechtherapyct.comOur offices:100 Melrose Avenue, Suite 201, Greenwich, CT 068305 Mott Avenue, Norwalk, CT 06850
Contact Name: Josephine ChenCompany: Center for Speech and Language PathologyAddress: Greenwich & Norwalk, Connecticut . USAPhone: (203) 869-8272Fax: 203-869-8289Website: http://www.speechtherapyct.com/

Sunday, July 5, 1998

07/05/98 New probe of 14-year-old Margolies murder begins

By J.A. Johnson Jr. - Greenwich Time

The renewed investigation into the unsolved 1984 murder of 13-year-old Glenville resident Matthew Margolies is under way.

After a recent review of the extensive but dormant Margolies case file, a Greenwich detective began conducting interviews two weeks ago to officially launch the renewed murder probe.

"We've started some interviews, Detective Division Captain James Walters said Thursday. He would not disclose whether those questioned included suspects. According to police, more than 60 people were initially identified as possible suspects, a number that was whittled down to about a dozen, some of whom remain under suspicion.

The reinvestigation of the Margolies case was announced in May, when Police Chief Peter Robbins revealed his department was planning to launch an all-out effort to find out who nearly 14 years ago sadistically murdered Margolies and buried him in a shallow grave beside the Byram River.

Though police followed up on occasional leads in the case, the murder of the only son of a working-class family has not been as actively investigated as has the case of Martha Moxley, a 15-year-old who was bludgeoned to death outside her family's mansion in the affluent Belle Haven section of town in 1975.

The Moxley case has maintained a high profile because two nephews of the late U.S. Sen. Robert Kennedy are among the murder suspects. The case has been the subject of two recently published books, the inspiration for a novel and subsequent television miniseries, as well as fodder for numerous talk shows and other television programs. A reinvestigation of the Moxley case was launched in 1991, and last month a grand jury was appointed to probe the matter.

Robbins was promoted captain and placed in charge of the Detective Division three months after Margolies was killed. For reasons he would not explain, Robbins said he had been unable to pursue the case as vigorously as he had wanted. But in a May interview, Robbins said that as a result of his appointment as chief eight months earlier, he found himself in a position to do things with the investigation he previously could not.

On Thursday, the police chief said he remained optimistic the case would be solved.

I just think that it's a solvable case, but I don't want to go into why I believe that at this time," Robbins said.

The victim's mother, Maryann Margolies, who still lives in Glenville, has declined comment on the reopening of her son's case.

According to Walters, there have been no new developments that warranted the renewed investigation, but he said it was hoped that advances in forensic science since the 1984 slaying would play a pivotal role in identifying the youth's killer.

"We're going to re-evaluate all the evidence to see if they should be submitted for further forensic analysis," he said. "There is a substantial body of evidence in this case."

In addition to a knife found near Margolies' body, believed to be the murder weapon, Walters said the initial investigation recovered trace evidence. Although he would not disclose what was recovered, trace evidence can include hair, clothing fibers, semen, or any other physical evidence a killer leaves at the crime scene.

No fingerprints were found on the alleged murder weapon, as the knife was exposed to rain during the five days Margolies' body went undiscovered.

According to police, Margolies set out the afternoon of August 31, 1984 from his Pilgrim Drive home to go fishing in the Byram River. Police said they believed the boy was killed the same afternoon by someone who repeatedly stabbed and strangled him. The boy's partially nude body was discovered five days later in a wooded area near the river. The boning knife believed to be the murder weapon was found a short distance. from the body.

Shortly after the murder, the FBIis Behavioral Science unit profiled Margolies' killer as a white male familiar with Glenville, who knew Margolies as well as the victim's passion for fishing. In a town funded 1986 paid consultant's critique of the Police Department's investigation, the murderer was further characterized as a sadist who lured his victim to a secluded area where he would be able to act out his gory fantasies.

Walters said no time limit has been set on the renewed investigation, "The investigation isn't going to be limited by time constraints," he said. "We will spend whatever time is necessary to follow all leads and review all the evidence to further the investigation as far as we can."

Wednesday, February 8, 1995

02/08/95 RTM MEMBER RICHARD HOLLERAN WAS RIGHT

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Richard Holleran,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 94-80

Greenwich First Selectman and Greenwich
Department of Public Works,

Respondents February 8, 1995

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 21, 1994, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

2. By letter of complaint filed March 18, 1994, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that he was denied access to a meeting on February 18, 1994 at which town business was discussed.

3. It is found that the town of Greenwich is in the process of redevelopment plans for a certain parcel land known as the Cos Cob Power Plant.

4. It is found that the commissioner of the respondent department of public works solicited requests for proposals for a site plan for the power plant.

5. It is found that, after numerous proposals were received, the commissioner delegated the responsibility for developing a "short list" of applicants to a committee of three individuals, consisting of a selectman and two other town residents.

6. It is found that the committee developed such a list, was enlarged to five members, and set a date to interview the five finalist applicants.

7. It is found that the committee met on February 18, 1994 to interview the five finalists separately but sequentially.

Docket #FIC 94-80 Page 2

8. It is found that each interview consisted of the same questions put to the applicants, concerning their proposals, and that their answers were scored on a scale of one to ten.

9. It is found that the highest scoring applicant was then communicated to the commissioner of public works, who met with and ultimately executed a contract with that applicant.

10. It is found that the February 18, 1994 interviews were not open to the public generally or to the complainant, who also sought to attend in his capacity as a member of the subcommittee of the planning and zoning committee of the representative town meeting ("RTM") that is charged with collecting information about the Cos Cob power plant site.

11. The complainant maintains that he was improperly denied access to the meeting, and that without access he is unable to discharge his responsibilities as a citizen and member of the RTM.

12. The respondents maintain that the meeting was a staff or administrative meeting within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S., and that conducting the interviews in public would result in the disclosure of documents exempt under 1-19(b)(7), G.S.

13. The respondents further maintain that conducting the interviews in public would have been unfairly prejudicial to the applicant then being interviewed, and unfairly advantageous to other applicants who could have attended, because all the questions that were asked of the applicants were the same, and because applicants would have had to reveal whatever plans they necessarily believed gave them a competitive advantage.

14. Section 1-18a(b), G.S. provides that an administrative or staff meeting of a single-member public agency is not a "meeting" within the meaning of 1-18a(b) and therefore is not subject to the requirements of the FOI Act.

15. The respondents maintain that the February 18, 1994 meeting was an administrative or staff meeting within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S., because the commissioner of public works himself would ordinarily conduct such interviews with the assistance of a staff member.

16. It is found that the commissioner of public works delegated the responsibility for interviewing and scoring the applicant engineering/architectural firms to the committee.

17. It is also found that the first member of the committee (a selectman) was selected for his architectural knowledge and background, not for his administrative abilities.

Docket #FIC 94-80 Page 3

18. It is found that the respondents failed to prove either that the selection of an architectural/engineering proposal is an administrative function, or that the members of the interview committee were staff members of the respondents.

19. It is therefore found that the respondents failed to prove either that meeting with applicants to evaluate their proposals is an administrative task within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S., or that the previous participation of a staff member at such an interview would convert it into a staff meeting within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.

20. Section 1-18a(a) provides in relevant part that the term "public agency" means:

any executive, administrative or legislative office of the state or any political subdivision of the state and any state or town agency, any department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or official of the state or of any city, town, borough, municipal corporation, school district, regional district or other district or other political subdivision of the state, including any committee of, or created by, any such office, subdivision, agency, department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or official .... [Emphasis added].

21. It is therefore concluded that the respondents' interview committee is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

22. The respondents also maintain that the proposals submitted were feasibility studies within the meaning of 1-19(b)(7), G.S., which are permissibly exempt from disclosure, and that 1-19(b), G.S., generally provides that nothing in the Freedom of Information Act--such as requiring a meeting to be open to the public--shall be construed as requiring the disclosure of documents exempt by 1-19(b)(7), G.S.

23. Section 1-19(b)(7), G.S., provides that disclosure is not required of:

the contents of real estate appraisals, engineering or feasibility estimates and evaluations made for or by an agency relative to the acquisition of property or to prospective public supply and construction contracts, until such time as all of the property has been acquired or all proceedings or transactions have been terminated or abandoned, provided the law of eminent domain shall not be affected by this provision ....

Docket #FIC 94-80 Page 4

24. Section 1-18a(e)(5), G.S., provides in relevant part:

"Executive sessions" means a meeting of a public agency at which the public is excluded for one or more of the following purposes: (5) discussion of any matter which would result in the disclosure of public records or the information contained therein described in subsection (b) of section 1-19.

25. It is found that proposals were sought from engineers and architects.

26. It is found that the proposals generally concerned the design of affordable housing and park space at the site of the former Cos Cob Power Plant.

27. It is found that the proposals addressed road design and construction; a plan for marina facilities; 23 units of affordable housing, including plans to show sidewalks, driveway and parking, as well as the location of the units themselves; plans to grade, topsoil, seed and landscape open space; and a method for screening off nearby railroad and electrical facilities.

28. It is concluded that the proposals submitted were engineering or feasibility estimates and evaluations made for the respondent relative to a prospective public construction contracts

29. It is therefore concluded that the proposals were exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(7), G.S.

30. It is therefore concluded that the respondents' committee could have permissibly convened in executive session to discuss the contents of the proposals.

31. It is also found, however, that the respondents' committee did not file a notice of the meeting to conduct interviews, and did not vote to convene in executive session in accordance with the procedures described in 1-21(a), G.S.

32. It is therefore concluded that the respondents' committee violated 1-21(a) by failing to file a notice of the committee meeting to conduct interviews, and by failing to vote to convene in executive session and to state a reason for so convening.

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

Docket #FIC 94-80 Page 5

1. Henceforth the respondents shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-18a(e) and 1-21(a), G.S.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 8, 1995.


Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:
RICHARD HOLLERAN
66 Milbank Avenue
Greenwich, CT 06830

GREENWICH FIRST SELECTMAN AND GREENWICH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
c/o John K. Wetmore, Esq.
Assistant Town Attorney
101 Field Point Road
P.O. Box 2540
Greenwich, CT 06836-2540


Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission

The Raw Greenwich Blog And RSS Feed - Bloggers Who Are From, Work In Or Used To Live In Greenwich