Found Deceased TX - Sherin Mathews, 3, Richardson, 7 Oct 2017 #8 *Arrests*

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Karinna said:
My point was that some parents have difficulty with their child having a disability and don't want to discuss it with other people, but do still love their child regardless. Whether they have photos displayed all over their house is up to them i guess.
Not anything to do with the Mathews though because they are in prison for criminal acts.
Click to expand...
Nobody said they are discussing whatever the "disability" is. In fact, it's kind of the opposite. They simply post pictures of the kids the same way they do with their other children because they do not see their kids as different or as oddities to be discussed.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
vmmking said:
This is what their children look like, period, and they and their friends find them beautiful. That's how it should be for mentally healthy and normal people. We don't hide kids in attics anymore if they have a physical oddity or disfigurement.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly.
 
vmmking said:
Nobody said they are discussing whatever the "disability" is. In fact, it's kind of the opposite. They simply post pictures of the kids the same way they do with their other children because they do not see their kids as different or as oddities to be discussed.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I would never post pictures of my children on the internet and other people feel the same way about that, and i don't do facebook either.
 
Karinna said:
I would never post pictures of my children on the internet and other people feel the same way about that, and i don't do facebook either.
Click to expand...

But it's not about whether you wouldn't post pictures of your kids or not.

It's about posting one child because they look a certain way and then choose not to post pictures of the other child because they don't fit the image that the other child does.

My sister is the same way. BUT she would never choose to post a picture of one daughter and keep the other hidden. She just doesn't like any of her children being exposed online. And that's fine, I get that. That's not what is being discussed here.
 
JMHO

In their eyes, the baby was damaged goods - as suggested by the questioning of the parents during the custody hearing. They wanted a healthy, normal child,the orphanage gave them one that was neither and they resented her and the attention she demanded which took away from their perfect bio-child.

Obviously, they were beating her with objects as evidenced by the many broken/healing bones revealed by x-rays. Equally obvious is that Sini knew what had been happening and that the baby was dead as evidenced by her unemotional response to the 'missing' child and her callous desire to attend a baby shower on the very day the baby went 'missing'.

The fact that the baby didn't attend daycare on Thursday tells me that her ordeal started much earlier than reported and likely on Wednesday night. I believe she was fatally injured that night, and kept in the garage for the next 48 hours until she died. They needed a break from having to wait around for her to die, they were impatient that it was taking so long, so they went to dinner.

They hated this child, they thought she had ruined their perfect life with her little imperfections. They were ashamed of her and her imperfections would negatively impact the other child's ability to marry into a 'good' family.

I believe the one driving the hatred was Sini who never wanted this child. Wesley did, but grew to hate her as Sini made life miserable for him for accepting this child and trying to make her whole.

I so wanted for this to be just Wesely and for Sini to be innocent and reunited with their other child for the child's sake. Now, this child is damaged for life as she is too young to comprehend what has happened and knows only that her parents have abandoned her. In reality, they killed both kids.

JMHO
 
AnaPisces said:
But it's not about whether you wouldn't post pictures of your kids or not.

It's about posting one child because they look a certain way and then choose not to post pictures of the other child because they don't fit the image that the other child does.

My sister is the same way. BUT she would never choose to post a picture of one daughter and keep the other hidden. She just doesn't like any of her children being exposed online. And that's fine, I get that. That's not what is being discussed here.
Click to expand...

But the discussion isn't about photos posted online of Sherin and her sister either. It's about a CPS person that noted there were no photos of Sherin in the living room of the Mathews home, whereas there were photos of the other child.
 
Karinna said:
My point was that some parents have difficulty with their child having a disability and don't want to discuss it with other people, but do still love their child regardless. Whether they have photos displayed all over their house is up to them i guess.
Not anything to do with the Mathews though because they are in prison for criminal acts.
Click to expand...

I have an eye deformity that looks very similar to Sherin's which, thankfully, my parents addressed very early on. Seven surgeries later, it is barely noticeable. My mom is AMAZING, but there are very few pics of me when I was little, especially before my surgeries. Hundreds of my sister; very few of me. I know that my deformity was very difficult for her to accept. She was very particular about our appearances. It breaks my heart that she felt that way, but she did.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Karinna said:
But the discussion isn't about photos posted online of Sherin and her sister either. It's about a CPS person that noted there were no photos of Sherin in the living room of the Mathews home, whereas there were photos of the other child.
Click to expand...

Right, so it's still not about whether you would or would not post photos of your kids.

I think the example of posting photos online is just being used in comparison to around the house.

I think vmmking was just saying that their friends would not discriminate with photos around he house and they also wouldn't discriminate against photos online. Which the Mathew's probably would.

You can choose to not put pictures up of your children, just as my sister does, but to discriminate and only show photos, either online or in your house, of one child is disgraceful.

The Mathew's had photos up of bio. They did not have photo's up of Sherin because they didn't like the way she looked. There is no excuse for that disgusting behavior IMO.

ETA.. Adding IMO, because that's all it is & removing the ending. I've said my part.
 
Reba said:
I have an eye deformity that looks very similar to Sherin's which, thankfully, my parents addressed very early on. Seven surgeries later, it is barely noticeable. My mom is AMAZING, but there are very few pics of me when I was little, especially before my surgeries. Hundreds of my sister; very few of me. I know that my deformity was very difficult for her to accept. She was very particular about our appearances. It breaks my heart that she felt that way, but she did.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Thankyou for sharing your story and i am glad your eye problem was treatable. And yes we can't say everyone reacts in the same way to these things because they don't. Some parents feel they did something wrong when a baby is born less than perfect, sadly, and that god is punishing them for some reason. I have heard of that too. And somehow this life also focuses on perfection, as if life is a competition.
 
Karinna said:
I would never post pictures of my children on the internet and other people feel the same way about that, and i don't do facebook either.
Click to expand...
Just FYI - Facebook allows you to post pictures that are only viewable to your friends or even a certain group of friends. It's not like these people are posting their children publicly at random on the internet, although there is no difference between that and them appearing in pictures in the local newspaper who then upload the images and stories to the internet.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Karinna said:
But the discussion isn't about photos posted online of Sherin and her sister either. It's about a CPS person that noted there were no photos of Sherin in the living room of the Mathews home, whereas there were photos of the other child.
Click to expand...
And I am comparing that to my friends who display photos of their children, and pointing out that they display just as many photos of one kid as another no matter what the kid looks like.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Reba said:
I have an eye deformity that looks very similar to Sherin's which, thankfully, my parents addressed very early on. Seven surgeries later, it is barely noticeable. My mom is AMAZING, but there are very few pics of me when I was little, especially before my surgeries. Hundreds of my sister; very few of me. I know that my deformity was very difficult for her to accept. She was very particular about our appearances. It breaks my heart that she felt that way, but she did.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
My older brother had CP and several other issues. He was bullied by kids and eventually sexually-abused by one kid for years. That was in the 1970s. My parents did the best they could for him and never put him in a closet. My dad and mom had VERY different coping skills however and they are pretty normal people. My dad did not talk much about him to others but he was always a very private man. Mom tried to get sexual abuser arrested.

There were fewer pictures of him younger than age 4 because he only would look out of one eye at the camera until he had eye surgery.

OT: My brother is dead now (RIP bro [emoji173]) but I do know that I am forever wired to jump in and defend anyone I think is being bullied. I will always be protecting my brother... [emoji20]
 
watergirl62 said:
My older brother had CP and several other issues. He was bullied by kids and eventually sexually-abused by one kid for years. That was in the 1970s. My parents did the best they could for him and never put him in a closet. My dad and mom had VERY different coping skills however and they are pretty normal people. My dad did not talk much about him to others but he was always a very private man. Mom tried to get sexual abuser arrested.

There were fewer pictures of him younger than age 4 because he only would look out of one eye at the camera until he had eye surgery.

OT: My brother is dead now (RIP bro [emoji173]) but I do know that I am forever wired to jump in and defend anyone I think is being bullied. I will always be protecting my brother... [emoji20]
Click to expand...

My heartfelt sympathy for what you and your family have endured watergirl. Your brother will always be in your heart until you see him again one day, <3
 
Amonet said:
Pleading the 5th is just a legal thing. I think that in this situation it's being advised by their lawyers in order to defer any discussion of those questions until criminal trial for the charges against them for Sherin.

I don't completely understand the legal implications of pleading the 5th, though, because to a non-legal person it sounds very much like admitting that they've got something to hide. Invoking the 5th is surely to say "if I answer this I risk implicating myself", and we 'know' it's not that they're going to implicate themselves in something unconnected.

After hearing the last Maria Guerrero FB live I am torn about the milk story. I am going back to something I wondered earlier, and that is whether Sherin was fed something to make her choke, something gritty in the milk? But in the Maria Guerrero Q&A FB Live, she said something about WM giving Sini the choice to either go out to dinner as a family or for Sini to stay home with Sherin? Does that imply that Sherin was alive and either well or sick at that time? And the 'new' timeline of 10pm to midnight for WM trying to get Sherin to drink her milk, shouting at her and Sherin taking a sip each time she was shouted at and procrastinating in between being shouted at. I can imagine that scenario happening in Sherin's life, but I don't know if it happened that particular night or if he's recalling a situation that happened another time to try to explain how Sherin died during a fight for her to drink her milk. That story also makes me question whether WM is just as nasty with Sherin when he is the one doing the parenting and why that might be? Is he emulating Sini's treatment because he's following her lead, is it because he's been brainwashed to feel this is how Sherin should be treated, or is he describing fights that Sini had with Sherin and just inserting himself into the power position in order to take the blame for Sini?

The back story that's coming out in the custody hearings does not make me feel that WM is the primary abuser, but even someone who's been psychologically abused can be convinced to abuse someone else, and that can even be a part of psychological abuse, the power of forcing someone else to abuse another person can feel very 'empowering' to an abuser, especially to force them to abuse something/someone that they're attached to and care about and in the normal way would want to protect.
Click to expand...
Something gritty in her milk
^^this^^ is what I am leaning towards.
MOO

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Pamela_Brewer said:
Something gritty in her milk
^^this^^ is what I am leaning towards.
MOO

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Whey powder can be pretty lumpy in protein drinks, enough to make you gag if you are 3, but I thought she was drinking Pediasure?
 
Karinna said:
LOL, He has to tread a bit carefully though IMO because if he manages to get his client convicted at trial then WM could claim ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal a few years down the track.
Is he also SM's attorney as well or does she have a separate defense attorney to her husband?
Click to expand...

She has her own
 
My beliefs only ... I know others have different beliefs:

Sherin is now in the most beautiful place she has ever known, surrounded by all those who have gone before her.

Love unimaginable, happiness abounding, and memory of this earth erased.

THAT is her forever home now .... for all eternity.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
O/T: I don't know if any of the sleuths here are CA based, but if so, I hope you are safe and away from the wildfires. I am continually checking for check-in's from all of our CA sleuths in the wildfires thread. I'm trying to stay in as much contact as possible with a friend and her family that are in Santa Barbara (they are now on the move as it's getting too close and her sister-in-law's family home did not fair well in VC). I'm praying for anyone nearby and anyone who has family in CA. :heartbeat:
 
watergirl62 said:
Whey powder can be pretty lumpy in protein drinks, enough to make you gag if you are 3, but I thought she was drinking Pediasure?
Click to expand...

There are calorie enhancers that come in a powder form. We used one for a period of time with Katie. Some are silky like in texture and mix well in beverages or disappear when sprinkled on food, others not so much they can lump and thicken the liquid especially if they are left for an extended period of time. They could have added some of this to her milk and after the hours long battle the milk was more like lump gravy. I would prefer this be the case and it is a possibility but I fear it was not.
 
Amonet said:
Pleading the 5th is just a legal thing. I think that in this situation it's being advised by their lawyers in order to defer any discussion of those questions until criminal trial for the charges against them for Sherin.

I don't completely understand the legal implications of pleading the 5th, though, because to a non-legal person it sounds very much like admitting that they've got something to hide. Invoking the 5th is surely to say "if I answer this I risk implicating myself", and we 'know' it's not that they're going to implicate themselves in something unconnected.

After hearing the last Maria Guerrero FB live I am torn about the milk story. I am going back to something I wondered earlier, and that is whether Sherin was fed something to make her choke, something gritty in the milk? But in the Maria Guerrero Q&A FB Live, she said something about WM giving Sini the choice to either go out to dinner as a family or for Sini to stay home with Sherin? Does that imply that Sherin was alive and either well or sick at that time? And the 'new' timeline of 10pm to midnight for WM trying to get Sherin to drink her milk, shouting at her and Sherin taking a sip each time she was shouted at and procrastinating in between being shouted at. I can imagine that scenario happening in Sherin's life, but I don't know if it happened that particular night or if he's recalling a situation that happened another time to try to explain how Sherin died during a fight for her to drink her milk. That story also makes me question whether WM is just as nasty with Sherin when he is the one doing the parenting and why that might be? Is he emulating Sini's treatment because he's following her lead, is it because he's been brainwashed to feel this is how Sherin should be treated, or is he describing fights that Sini had with Sherin and just inserting himself into the power position in order to take the blame for Sini?

The back story that's coming out in the custody hearings does not make me feel that WM is the primary abuser, but even someone who's been psychologically abused can be convinced to abuse someone else, and that can even be a part of psychological abuse, the power of forcing someone else to abuse another person can feel very 'empowering' to an abuser, especially to force them to abuse something/someone that they're attached to and care about and in the normal way would want to protect.
Click to expand...

While pleading the Fifth may lead a rational person to conclude that there could be something in their response that indicates guilt, no one is under a legal obligation to hand a case to their prosecutors.

At trial (and this was a custody hearing, not a trial), the defense has the choice whether to put their clients on the stand to testify. Should they choose not to, the judge will include in the jury instructions that this cannot be taken as an admission of guilt. There can be many reasons for not putting a client on the stand (where they would not only get to tell their version of events, but also be subject to cross examination). While the client may well be the only (living) eye witness to an event, they may also appear less than credible--for lots of reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the crime they are accused of. Juries, despite all the best efforts to screen out obvious issues, carry with them all kinds of biases, based on gender, on race, on all kinds of other subtle things (manner of dress, voice, age, occupation, tone of voice). Many here have been saying for some time that Sini is "cold," or "evil" or controlling or a murderer, based primarily (before this latest hearing anyway) on how she appeared in pictures. All of that is the kind of thing an attorney has to take into account when considering how to present their case. A person with a glass eye, for example, may be wholly innocent of a crime, but still appear untrustworthy to a jury based on their not being able to "look them in the eye."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 166 more.
Total: 4,610 (members: 167, guests: 4,443)

Online statistics

Members online
167
Guests online
4,443
Total visitors
4,610
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,485
Messages
17,969,539
Members
228,783
Latest member
Smokylotus
Back
Top