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

[MissMalowe]

Just thought I would note, since a lot of things get lost in translation as it is, that the terms co-sleeping and bed-sharing are often confused as meaning the same thing.
Bed sharing is when the child sleeps in your bed
Co-sleeping (often mistaken as meaning bed-sharing) is a child sleeping in close proximity to the parents/in the same room.
So for example, a newborn baby in a bassinet in a parents' bedroom would be co-sleeping.

Or, to phrase it another way, bed-sharing is co-sleeping, but co-sleeping isn't always bed-sharing. Which definition news outlets or anyone in general means when THEY use the term can be easily misunderstood.

Many parents who practice either (or both) co sleeping and/or bed-sharing still have separate bedrooms for their child with their own bed/crib etc.

So, a home that has a separate room fully furnished is not necessarily an indicator that the child always sleeps alone in that room.

Also, for children who are still young enough to take naps during the day, that can often take place in their own room/own bed, even if they are bed-sharing or co-sleeping with their parents at night.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

But one would expect a mother to assist in making an investigation easier and more likely to result in a conviction if her child is murdered and she is innocent.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

If Sherin had been my child LE would get tired of me coming to the station or calling them. I would want to help in any way possible and answer every question they had about the killer of my child.

A good question to ask now that we know co-sleeping is a custom in India was Sherin sleeping with her father the night all of this happened and Sini may have been sleeping with their bio daughter.

The story has changed which means the answers LE needs to know now has also changed.

IMO

 

[Deleted member 158085]

While this article from 2013 probably has little relevance to this case, it was an interesting read about the increase in parents killing their children, and it mostly being fathers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ologist-reveals-research-sickening-trend.html

A few blurbs from the article are below:

"Perhaps the most terrifying thing I have learned from my research is that the incidence of parents murdering their children is becomingly increasingly common. There have been 71 cases since 1980 - and the numbers are speeding up alarmingly.

In the Eighties, fewer than one child a year was murdered by a parent. Over the past decade, numbers have risen to two or three a year - a rate that is increasing steadily.

Though mothers are also capable of murdering their children, the vast majority of murders - 59 of the 71 - are committed by men."

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[oceanblueeyes]

It doesn't have to be planned-out to be murder. His actions CAUSED her death - but not in an accidental way. Forcing a child to drink to the point of choking (if that's what happened) and then hiding the body is not an accident.

I don't mean to imply that he plotted to kill her in advance.

jmopinion

Exactly. This was a purposeful act. No accident and that is why he faces up to 99 years in prison. If LE thought it was an accident they wouldn't have charged him with injury to a child and he would still be charged with child endangerment only.

 

[Deleted member 158085]

I think LE would of known by searching in the Mathews home if the two little girls had separate bedrooms to their parents.

Having their own bedroom does not rule out regular co-sleeping. All of my friends excitedly decorated rooms for their kids while pregnant and then half of them ended up co-sleeping anyway. I've learned the hard way not to mention my views on co-sleeping at a certain age, thinking I know the kid sleeps in his/her room simply because they have a bedroom.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Margo/Mom]

It doesn't have to be planned-out to be murder. His actions CAUSED her death - but not in an accidental way. Forcing a child to drink to the point of choking (if that's what happened) and then hiding the body is not an accident.

I don't mean to imply that he plotted to kill her in advance.

jmopinion

I believe that there are some legal distinctions having to do with intent--even within the categorization of murder. However, the current charges, based on what WM has so far confessed to, I believe are felony child endangering. Which accounts for his actions resulting in death, and has the same sentencing parameters as murder. But he is not currently charged with murder.

 

[Inthedetails]

I believe that there are some legal distinctions having to do with intent--even within the categorization of murder. However, the current charges, based on what WM has so far confessed to, I believe are felony child endangering. Which accounts for his actions resulting in death, and has the same sentencing parameters as murder. But he is not currently charged with murder.

He's not charged with murder because her cause of death and manner of death have not been determined by the medical examiner yet.

jmo

 

[Karinna]

If Sherin had been my child LE would get tired of me coming to the station or calling them. I would want to help in any way possible and answer every question they had about the killer of my child.

A good question to ask now that we know co-sleeping is a custom in India was Sherin sleeping with her father the night all of this happened and Sini may have been sleeping with their bio daughter.

The story has changed which means the answers LE needs to know now has also changed.

IMO

There have been guilty parents that also have cooperated with LE, and i can think of Lonzie Barton's mother offhand.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Yes, that is the detail that doesn't make sense to me (she says she is innocent.) I cant recall another parent who professed to be innocent refusing to be interviewed by LE.

If she has nothing to hide then there would be nothing LE could find on her if she spoke with them. I honestly cant understand why she says, through her lawyer, she will no longer be speaking to LE. Its very odd when the police come out almost pleading with a parent to speak with them.

Even though the internet masses had Mark Lunsford and/or his parents already guilty of killing little Jessica, he and his parents spoke with LE day in and day out for many hours at the time every time LE showed up or called them into the station for another interview. They all willingly took polygraphs too. And the same thing happened to Steve Greone yet he spoke with LE every time they wanted to interview him and readily took a poly when asked.

To me this is not what an innocent parent does. It is like so many other cases we have seen where a family member will lawyer up right after the crime has been committed and are later on arrested for being involved.

She may not think this is the perception she gives off but most innocent parents in this situation will cooperate totally and completely with LE for however long it takes to get to the truth because they want justice for what has happened to their loved one. His story has changed so of course LE would have different questions now for Sini which is understandable.

No one has to memorize the truth.........it is what it is and very easy to tell. It is lies that must be memorized, and that is why often when those who are covering up someway in LE interviews will have glaring inconsistencies.

What logical reason could she have for not wanting to talk to LE AFTER her child has been found killed, and her husband's story has changed? I dont think I can remember another case quite like this one when the mother of the murdered child will only speak through her attorney, and will no longer talk to LE. I find it bizarre. IMO

JMO

Well, there would be the Ramseys, who, as I recall obtained legal counsel at a point and stopped "cooperating." Neither parent (nor anyone else) has ever been found guilty.

 

[Deleted member 158085]

You seem to be overlooking the hours of questioning previous to this, and her assistance at the house when it was being searched. Made sense to me when I learned yesterday that she had done so that they were able to locate such things as marriage license, adoption papers, etc. Earlier we had speculated that they were somehow in plain view.

An important feature of our legal system is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Important because innocence cannot be proven. This is why trial outcomes are worded as findings of guilty or not guilty, rather than guilt of innocence.

I'm not overlooking her initial cooperation, but you seem to be overlooking that there are obviously new questions to ask her with the story change, and that by refusing to cooperate further right now she is slowing down the investigation into her child's murder. While I do not believe that makes her GUILTY, IMO it does make it look like she cares more about herself than her child.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 158085]

Yes, that is the detail that doesn't make sense to me (she says she is innocent.) I cant recall another parent who professed to be innocent refusing to be interviewed by LE.

If she has nothing to hide then there would be nothing LE could find on her if she spoke with them. I honestly cant understand why she says, through her lawyer, she will no longer be speaking to LE. Its very odd when the police come out almost pleading with a parent to speak with them.

Even though the internet masses had Mark Lunsford and/or his parents already guilty of killing little Jessica, he and his parents spoke with LE day in and day out for many hours at the time every time LE showed up or called them into the station for another interview. They all willingly took polygraphs too. And the same thing happened to Steve Greone yet he spoke with LE every time they wanted to interview him and readily took a poly when asked.

To me this is not what an innocent parent does. It is like so many other cases we have seen where a family member will lawyer up right after the crime has been committed and are later on arrested for being involved.

She may not think this is the perception she gives off but most innocent parents in this situation will cooperate totally and completely with LE for however long it takes to get to the truth because they want justice for what has happened to their loved one. His story has changed so of course LE would have different questions now for Sini which is understandable.

No one has to memorize the truth.........it is what it is and very easy to tell. It is lies that must be memorized, and that is why often when those who are covering up someway in LE interviews will have glaring inconsistencies.

What logical reason could she have for not wanting to talk to LE AFTER her child has been found killed, and her husband's story has changed? I dont think I can remember another case quite like this one when the mother of the murdered child will only speak through her attorney, and will no longer talk to LE. I find it bizarre. IMO

JMO

Absolutely. I can't recall another like this either. I'm sure there is one, but I even did a couple of Google searches and couldn't turn anything up.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Karinna]

Having their own bedroom does not rule out regular co-sleeping. All of my friends excitedly decorated rooms for their kids while pregnant and then half of them ended up co-sleeping anyway. I've learned the hard way not to mention my views on co-sleeping at a certain age, thinking I know the kid sleeps in his/her room simply because they have a bedroom.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I guess it depends on any individual case certainly. I just don't know how LE can prove one or both of the children were co sleeping with parents on any given night unless there is cctv footage of who was in what room & when?

 

[Love Never Fails]

Yes, that is the detail that doesn't make sense to me (she says she is innocent.) I cant recall another parent who professed to be innocent refusing to be interviewed by LE.

If she has nothing to hide then there would be nothing LE could find on her if she spoke with them. I honestly cant understand why she says, through her lawyer, she will no longer be speaking to LE. Its very odd when the police come out almost pleading with a parent to speak with them.

Even though the internet masses had Mark Lunsford and/or his parents already guilty of killing little Jessica, he and his parents spoke with LE day in and day out for many hours at the time every time LE showed up or called them into the station for another interview. They all willingly took polygraphs too. And the same thing happened to Steve Greone yet he spoke with LE every time they wanted to interview him and readily took a poly when asked.

To me this is not what an innocent parent does. It is like so many other cases we have seen where a family member will lawyer up right after the crime has been committed and are later on arrested for being involved.

She may not think this is the perception she gives off but most innocent parents in this situation will cooperate totally and completely with LE for however long it takes to get to the truth because they want justice for what has happened to their loved one. His story has changed so of course LE would have different questions now for Sini which is understandable.

No one has to memorize the truth.........it is what it is and very easy to tell. It is lies that must be memorized, and that is why often when those who are covering up someway in LE interviews will have glaring inconsistencies.

What logical reason could she have for not wanting to talk to LE AFTER her child has been found killed, and her husband's story has changed? I dont think I can remember another case quite like this one when the mother of the murdered child will only speak through her attorney, and will no longer talk to LE. I find it bizarre. IMO

JMO

Thanks Ocean. I agree. Bizarre is a light term. JMO.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I don't think that is a part of the ego-protective process.

Most of us have a difficult time with the notion that a father could kill a child and then stuff her body in a culvert. And we are watching from afar. Even so, many of us are dealing with that difficulty by separating him from what we know of human interaction--he was simply a monster, inhuman, and by declaring how WE could never have responded as SM is responding.

SM's current reality is that the man she trusted and married and likely climbed into bed with every night murdered their child and hid her body. First off, there is nothing she can currently do to change that reality. No amount of legal "justice" can bring her child back or ever restore her to that place of trust. I recall when someone I knew called it quits on a marriage that was moving in abusive directions and had in fact been pretty dysfunctional for awhile. She had children and was physically and emotionally overwhelmed. She also had some counseling/mentoring connections and I remember what her closest mentor advised her to do, which was to focus only on those things that were immediately necessary, which in her case were caring for the children and going to work every day. Now, there were many other things that she was going to have to face up to immediately--things like the divorce process, possible housing change, how to augment her income facing single parenthood, all that. But first she had a critical need to focus only on the daily tasks of simple survival.

There's a reason we take casseroles to people who are dealing with the death of a loved one. It's because in the freshness and shock of grief, even such simple things as making a sandwich become overwhelming and we need the cocoon of protection and care that friends and loved ones can provide.

Margo, you give a good argument and you may be right. We don't know much right now. But I have a gut feeling the dad adopted her for all the wrong reasons and the mom may have suspected but kept her mouth shut. I'm sorry but his whole story isn't making sense and her unwillingness to help gives most of us the impression that there's no love there. COD may help if LE can find that out. He did hide her body didn't he?

 

[BlinkOfAnI]

Someone explained the medical term for how this can happen, but I don't remember what that was. Basically, the coughing caused by aspiration can cause something to happen with the esophagus so that it's not actually the fluid and aspiration that causes death.

This new bit of information I learned here scares me a bit for myself because from time to time I have swallowing issues and recently I aspirated again. It was frightening and I thought I was going to die - it was like I couldn't breathe. My husband pulled the car over and even the neighbors stopped to check on us when they spotted us down the road. Every time it happens I tell myself I can't die from aspirating so little fluid. However, now I know that's not true and it will likely make me even more scared the next time it happens.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

This is all from my experience and what I have been told by doctors. With aspiration the food or fluid goes into the lungs as opposed to something blocking the airway. Some aspirate all the time and it goes undetected until overtime the fluids build up and they get pneumonia. Even then it takes several bouts of pneumonia before a swallow test is given. That said if someone has this issue it can be deadly in one sitting if to much food or fluid is given at all at once because the lungs fill up and there is no air intake. It's more like drowning then choking I guess. My IA daughter had this and I never would have known if I hadn't had an excellent doctor that took into account her coughing may have been a result of being left to lay so long and being fed while laying. Her muscles didn't develop to swallow properly. I had know idea this could happen. All I saw were little coughs now and then. I was never told by the orphanage she had any eating/swallowing issues. You really should get checked out BTW. A swallow test is about as non-invasive as you can get. You sit in a chair attached to an xray machine and drink fluid, pudding, and crackers. They watch as you swallow and can tell if you aspirate. I wish you well!

 

[HIM_Darling]

I can think of quite a few new questions that LE could have from people who were close to WM and Sherin answered based on what we have been told of his new confession.

1) WM said that he had to physically assist Sherin with drinking milk, was this something Sherin regularly needed help with?

2)WM said they were in the garage to drink milk, was going to the garage a normal practice if one of the children was up in the middle of the night?

3)Before WM said that she completely refused to drink the milk, but is now saying she did drink the milk after first refusing, was it normal to have to convince/threaten her to drink it, as in it was normal that she would give in and drink after a tantrum?

4) Regarding where the body was found: Did they go on outings/walks that took them by this location?

I'm sure trained investigators can come up with many more, and they have more of the story than we do. They can't just take WM's word for what he says, they have to question every piece of his story to make sure they have a solid case against him to prevent him from getting away with it like Casey Anthony did.

 

[Margo/Mom]

You are so right. Neither did anything to search for her or to plead for help in finding her. They holed up until the body was found within walking distance of their home. If I believed there was ANY chance she might have wandered off after being placed outside at 3 a.m., you wouldn't be able to keep me from searching and pleading for help in finding my child. Sometimes, it's what you don't do that's more telling that what you do do, IMHO. Thanks, Karinna and so many others for your insight and for wanting justice for this little girl. We are all on the same page regarding that, I'm sure. :loveyou:

From the recent lawyer's statement it would appear as though she was "holed up" being interrogated by police during the time the neighborhood was being searched.

 

[TeaTime]

Mom doesn't ever have to talk to LE again. She doesn't have to assist them in building a case against her or her husband. That is her right. There is no upside for her and anything she says can and will be used against her. She has already answered questions about 3am feedings, where the baby slept, who did the day to day care of the children, eating disorders or not, developmental delays, WM's demeanor with the children, the types of punishment administered to the children, his history of abuse - if any - etc.

What can she add now? Just because he changed his story from the tree punishment to removing her dead body doesn't mean SM knows anything more than she has already stated. If she was asleep, she was asleep no matter what he admits to having done.

However, a person who can do what we know he has done and what he has admitted to doing isn't above implicated anyone involved.

JMHO

 

[Deleted member 158085]

This is all from my experience and what I have been told by doctors. With aspiration the food or fluid goes into the lungs as opposed to something blocking the airway. Some aspirate all the time and it goes undetected until overtime the fluids build up and they get pneumonia. Even then it takes several bouts of pneumonia before a swallow test is given. That said if someone has this issue it can be deadly in one sitting if to much food or fluid is given at all at once because the lungs fill up and there is no air intake. It's more like drowning then choking I guess. My IA daughter had this and I never would have known if I hadn't had an excellent doctor that took into account her coughing may have been a result of being left to lay so long and being fed while laying. Her muscles didn't develop to swallow properly. I had know idea this could happen. All I saw were little coughs now and then. I was never told by the orphanage she had any eating/swallowing issues. You really should get checked out BTW. A swallow test is about as non-invasive as you can get. You sit in a chair attached to an xray machine and drink fluid, pudding, and crackers. They watch as you swallow and can tell if you aspirate. I wish you well!

I did a swallow test, which was normal. Yet I continue to have issues swallowing anything from yogurt to granola bars, and occasionally aspirating small amounts of liquids. Thank you for that tip, though.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[HIM_Darling]

From the recent lawyer's statement it would appear as though she was "holed up" being interrogated by police during the time the neighborhood was being searched.

According to the attorney's statement she was with LE giving statements/being questioned for several hours during 3 out of 14 days that Sherin was missing. That leaves 11 days of supposedly believing that Sherin was missing and she was never seen out looking for her, never once, even through her previous attorney, made a statement asking for Sherin to be returned safetly(if she believed Sherin was kidnapped). On the day that the news media had video of her first attorney going inside the house, we know she was "holed up" inside the house, not being questioned by police.