.
Feedback

Joel Matthews Charged With Capital Murder

Man accused of murdering two and setting fire makes first court appearance

A man accused of fatally bludgeoning two people and setting their home on fire in an attempt to cover the crime has been charged with capital murder.

The state added the charge to the two counts of murder and one count of arson currently pending against . Matthews is charged in the deaths of 57-year-old Noel Starback and 50-year-old Sherry Roush as well as the burning of a home 36 Blinman Street, where Matthews and Starback were residents, on Friday.

Capital murder is defined as murder committed any of a number of different circumstances, including the killing of two or more people, and is punishable by the death penalty. However, Judge Kevin McMahon noted at Matthews’ first appearance in the on Monday that the case comes as capital punishment is undergoing a change in the state.

Two days before the murders, the Connecticut House of Representatives passed a bill to repeal the state’s death penalty, following an earlier approval in the State Senate. The legislation, which does not apply to 11 people currently on death row, would replace the maximum state punishment for capital offenses with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

“Has the governor signed the new legislation yet? I didn’t even think of that,” said McMahon.

Gov. Dannel Malloy has not yet approved the legislation, but announced in a press release that he will do so when it reaches his desk.

According to a press release from Mayor Daryl Finizio’s office, Matthews admitted to police that he had assaulted Roush and Starback with a blunt object during an argument at the residence and set the fire to try to conceal the crime. Roush was dead when firefighters arrived at the residence and Starback was pulled from the burning building but later died at . Four other residents at the house were uninjured.

According to the Chief Medical Examiner’s Office, both Roush and Starback died of blunt head trauma. McMahon granted a defense to seal the prosecutor’s report in the case.

Matthews was held on $5 million cash or surety bond following his arrest, and a public defender sought to reduce the bond at his first court appearance. He said police officers twice visited Matthews after the fire and that Matthews was cooperative and did not try to escape after the first visit.

A state prosecutor asked to keep the bond high, saying the crime was “heinous in nature” and that Matthews had a violent criminal history.

Matthews was previously convicted of first-degree assault in 2006 and sentenced to 10 years in prison, suspended after three years, with three years of probation. According to archives, Matthews got angry when a group of people rapping outside on Ocean Ave. refused to let him join them. Matthews returned to the scene with a  .38-caliber revolver and fired one shot in the air before shooting a man named Kareem Smalls in the abdomen when he tried to take the gun away.

The probationary period for this conviction ended on Feb. 9. Matthews’ criminal history also shows that he was convicted of misdemeanor possession of marijuana in 2004 and fined $85.

McMahon set Matthews’ bond at $1 million cash only. Matthews will next appear in the on May 1.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from New London Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Kathleen Mitchell May 19, 2013 at 10:45 am
If I read this correctly and, if not, I'm sure someone will correct me, the highlights of this billRead More are (1) It's designed for workers "who do not have access to a retirement plan through their employer" (2) "workers can take their investment with them as they move from job to job." (3) "whatever administrative costs are associated with the plan are charged to the participants themselves, not Connecticut taxpayers." I haven't read the bill yet but I don't see anything in this article by Richard Waselik regarding an employer contribution or match so what is the problem?
Sue P. May 19, 2013 at 10:20 am
Richard, Are you the same Richard that sent a letter to the city council when you became concernedRead More that people that did not work for the city long enough were contributing to the pension plan? I think I have a copy of it somewhere. I think you were concerned that people were getting vested and they were not suppose to be yet.
Doc Halliday May 19, 2013 at 08:23 am
Should the general public be required to support the retirement of our elected/hired governmentRead More officials? Should those retirement checks be based on base salary and not base salary plus overtime/extra pay/bonuses etc? Should ALL government officials be on a 401 system instead of a government (public supported) retirement system? ie: government official retires at 95% pay, in a few years with cost of living increases that official is making more in retirement than when working. The public cannot afford to continue such high retirements. Social Security is being tapped by government officials to pay OTHER items rather than for what it was intended and future retirees who contributed to SS may be left out.
Carol Haley May 17, 2013 at 07:44 am
Pretty funny Spencer. But you don't want a museum there. You need something that generates taxes.Read More Museums are mostly non-profit thereby not generating any taxes. I know you were being funny. I was disgusted to read the developer couldn't show financial backing.
Kathleen Mitchell May 17, 2013 at 05:47 pm
Who would haveever thought of Wasp Spray? When you get the case of spray, be sure and drop a can offRead More at my house;>)
Jeff Brown May 17, 2013 at 03:46 pm
Good article, gonna have to pick up a case of wasp spray!
Carol Haley May 17, 2013 at 12:34 pm
Barbara, I agree with you. But it is probably a lot easier to get an illegal social security numberRead More than we would know. There are two ways of looking at this issue, but my resentment is that I have to pay for them.
Barbara Crocker May 17, 2013 at 07:52 am
But for state aid they would have to have a Social Security number. Bending and breaking laws isRead More how they got here in the first place. The fact that elected officials condone and encourage these laws to be broken is the biggest problem that I have with this whole debacle. "Undocumented residents" place a burden on all of us, and take jobs that could be worked by legal residents. Employers hire illegals (yes I prefer calling them what they are, to hell with being politically correct) because it saves them money, not because "no one else would work these jobs". This is a slap in the face to all of our ancestors who came to this country and followed the rules to become citizens.
Carol Haley May 17, 2013 at 06:51 am
The way things have been going in the eastern part of the United States, as long as the illegals areRead More not breaking the law criminally (motor vehicle is different), they are not arrested for being illegal. Its the illegal immigrants who break the law, such as the large drug bust recently in the papers. As long as they are minding their own business, they get a pass. The only problem I have with illegals is their rush to get on state aid, food stamps, etc. I don't think we should have to support those that choose to live in this country illegally. Becoming a US citizen is not cheap. It is expensive, but it is something that they must work for.
Spencer May 16, 2013 at 04:42 pm
Perhaps because people who vote continue to vote the same way they have for years--and expect to getRead More different results when they do so?
Carol Haley May 15, 2013 at 05:05 pm
Sounds like a bunch of goobledygook to me. And Sue, the Democrats being divided isn't anything newRead More as well as the backstabbing and bs. It's been going on for years. That is one of the reasons I changed to independent a long time ago. I'm presently a Democrat, but changing back to independent as soon as I can get down there.
Felicia Hendersen May 15, 2013 at 09:00 am
Bravo Sue P. And Kathleen I changed the word from "her" to "his". Why shouldRead More people not question the motives of the city council president?
Sue P. May 15, 2013 at 08:53 am
Glad to here that Felicia, I sure hope that you are who you are and not the HE I was told you are.Read More Now is the time to work together and not pick each other apart like the Administration is doing to the Democrat Town Committee.You should see how divided they are and all the back stabbing and bickering that goes on. I say stay clear of that group.
William Desmond May 14, 2013 at 12:47 pm
I must say this has created quite a stir!
Luis Smart May 14, 2013 at 07:04 am
I agree Richard argyle sweaters would have really made it. It is really sad Michael Passero has goneRead More to the dark side and has aligned himself with the administration rather than the people of the city. The one time high vote getter will be all done in November.
Richard Cranium May 13, 2013 at 10:26 pm
I think it is pretty funny although they should be wearing argyle vest sweaters!