Again, I don't know. Nobody outside of the situation can really tell what happened.

In my small town 2 years ago a couple was out for a walk. The wife was shot in the head and killed while the husband was shot in the leg. He claimed it was a hate crime (the couple was Muslim) and that it was 2 black men who did it and shouted "Terrorists!!!".

It came out within a week or so that he and his girlfriend had conspired to kill the wife and make it look like an attack. The girlfriend knew they'd be walking, shot the wife and then just injured him.

Newlywed couple from India took a drive into Soweto "so the husband could see the local sights." Taxi was hijacked, wife shot in the head and dumped, husband survived unscathed. A lot of press about how dangerous the neighborhood was, how tragic, those savage criminals, etc. Then it turned out the husband had hired a hitman to kill his bride.

I'm not sure about this case. My spider sense is tingling.

But you are right, no one can know for sure.

And the car that drove from the scene had someone crouched in the back (as reported anonymously in a phone tip).

So did the shooters run away, or did they jump in a car and drive away? Which is it? Which witness do we believe? The mother, or some anonymous phone tip that reported the car, which apparently led to the arrest of the teens?

Spidey senses SHOULD be tingling.

of white people making up black perpetrators. Think Susan Smith or Charles Stuart. However, I've been suspicious of purported crimes where a white person falsely accused other white people of crimes.

Why being mindful of history enrages so many here, is beyond me.

You cannot be serious.

The last sentence reads "The boy who loved Mickey Mouse and fried chicken was cremated, and West had them dispose of the ashes." I find that very odd.

I've also read that this is her second child to be killed. Her 18 yr. old son was stabbed to death in 2008.

There are several things about this situation that are odd enough to make you wonder if we're hearing the truth.

The first child's death was a result of the victim fighting to save his own life.

That makes me suspicious as hell. That is not a normal question for a grieving parent to ask on the day their child is killed.

For some poorer families this is a common way to handle funeral expenses.

I don't know.

with funeral expenses from another child, her thinking might be different about having an insurance policy on this child.

So many "funny" things about this. Mostly because it is so recent.

My husband and I have had this very discussion about an appropriate length of time to wait before filing for insurance. We would need that money for funeral and living expenses. So, what is appropriate, one month, two months, a year? I don't see anything ghoulish at all in someone filing for money that may very well be needed.

They don't have money in the bank to pay for a funeral otherwise.

Due to the odd nature of the death, the co is probably waiting for a police report before paying. Thus the cremation.

DUs lack of cultural diversity is showing up here.

the claim forms for life insurance, social security, etc., and there can even be an assignment of some of the benefits to that funeral home to cover all/part of the expense.

That's what we did when my dad died. Funeral parlor took care of getting the money to pay for the funeral. Very normal.

When a friend of mine died the crematorium insisted on being paid immediately. They didn't care that his widow needed to get his funeral benefit from the VA or wait for his life insurance. They would not cremate him until she could pay them. She had to borrow from friends to do it - and if she had not been able to get the money together, they would have charged her a storage fee.

She selected cremation because it was cheaper than any other way - I think she said it cost her $650. VA paid $350. His life insurance was only $10,000. Their total net worth not counting the life insurance was a minus figure, which could be why the crematorium would not work with her to arrange payment.

For his wake his friends got together at his house and sat outside. We all brought our own chairs, tables, food, and plates. No religious observance, just a lot of people remembering a good friend. She had wanted to do it inside in case of bad weather, but she couldn't afford to pay for a place. If they had been a member of a church, they still would have had to pay at least a gratuity for the use of their facilities and to the minister.

That's the reality if you have no money at all.

So, yeah, the death businesses can assist but for people with no financial reserves they may decide not to.

true that some will not. That does not mean they cannot, just won't.

There are two funeral homes in my small town. Both will, and do. One of them has attended to my sister, mother in law, father in law, and two other in laws. In every case, the representative assisted with all the paperwork for ins., SS, VA. No money was asked for up front, and no payment was requested until after all the ins etc was finalized.

It is a shame that your experience was not the same as mine, and there was even a respondant to my earlier post who agreed with me. Perhaps the funeral home you used was simply a mean-spirited exception.

My final arrangements have already been made and paid for. At the same place we've used before.

My friend and her husband had lived very close to the edge of poverty for a very long time. AS I said, they had a negative net worth at the time he died. That's probably why the crematorium would not extend a hand.

They likely would have been eager to assist me to arrange for a high end funeral with a fancy coffin since I have much better credit and sufficient assets to go after if I defaulted on the payment.

I think it is the difference between having a perceived ability to pay or no ability to pay more than the absolute minimum.

As for the mother in this case, I suspect she would be perceived as having little or no ability to pay for expenses given that she is disabled.

right away when their daughter died. She was hit by a car and killed. It was one of the practical things that my mother in law focused on during the week that followed. She had lists, did all the tasks on them, trying to distract herself.

And yes, that money was there to cover the costs of a funeral.

After Susan Smith we should wait for the facts. Looks like this woman loves money

That trying to be objective no matter the emotional content of a story is always admirable.

the role of the mother in this case.

the truth until all of the facts come out, premature to reach any hard and fast conclusion.

I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate, though. There is no question that it's kind of odd that a teenage thug would be cold-hearted enough to shoot a baby in the face, yet leave the mother alive and able to identify the assailants. Not saying that it's impossible, in the heat of the moment, anything could happen, just that it's kind of odd, not something that you would expect.

I hope that our justice system works the way it's supposed to and that the guilty parties are brought to justice.

several years ago where a man and his pregnant wife were shot "by a black man"; the wife died- and when the husband himself ultimately became the top suspect he committed suicide.

I'm with the OP on this.

Whomever is the actual culprit, a toddler was shot in the head- which is revolting enough.

These things do occur - watch Court TV or ID or the like and there are examples.

Dont hold your breath for any of the sensational personalities to grab up on this one. Color of the hair and eyes are all wrong for it to get any air time.

The father is in grief and lashing out in anger. And to the ghouls of DU, that's proof that we should blame the mother for the child's death.

There is nothing ghoulish or depraved in this post or thread. There are a group of people wanting to find out what happened as opposed to jumping to emotional conclusions.

Way to seriously misconstrue what is really going on in this thread.

I'm raising issues that are unpleasant and as I said I could be wrong, but calling that depraved and ghoulish is fucking ridiculous, neurotic and silly, hon.

He just lost his son, and yes when people grieve they lash out like that. You know, the "anger" stage of grieving.

Note that he does not agree with your conspiracy theory that the mother arranged for the shooting, but rather for showing poor judgment.

But, they just lost their son, so the judgments of Internet ghouls is probably the least of their concerns.

... It is factual. As in the fact is that is what he said. His motive is conjecture on your part. Seems like there are certain facts you don't like. Internet ghouls, indeed.

The father is angry at her for taking the kid through a bad neighborhood.

Two different things.

This case is nothing like the Susan Smith case, in which investigators were onto her in the beginning, and there were no arrests made of other suspects.

the op is about suspicions that have been raised.

and what about the daughter, dear?

Who has psychological issues regarding her mother?

You were beating the blame-the-mother drum within hours of this murder making the news.

and do tell, sweetiepie, how YOU would know about the daughter's state of mind? Crystal ball? Mind reader are you?

Seems about the same damned thing to me.

I make it fucking crystal clear to anyone whatsoever with any fucking reading comprehension skills whatsofuckingever that I don't know and that I could be wrong. There is a huge difference between saying I don't feel sure of the mother's innocence and claiming one knows she's guilty, dearie. I most certainly did not fucking say that. duh.

... as the OP stated exactly the OPPOSITE of your imagining.

gee, maybe the daughter knows more than YOU- baggage or not.

residue, and had her home searched. Ditto for the father.

They were cleared of suspicion. By the police.

The fact that you do not approve of the way she shows grief is not evidence of guilt on her part.

But, go ahead and argue she hired these kids to kill her baby. Based on jack shit of evidence.

And please provide a link to a police statement clearing Sherry West.

Daughter's statements about her mother:

from being cleared by them. Duh. And YOU stated she'd been cleared.

More misleading crapola, hon.

in the direction of her guilt.

Zero.

Any evidence that has been gathered has pointed away from her guilt.

Meanwhile, the two young angels who shot the baby now have company--the older one's mom and aunt are in jail for giving a false alibi to police.

The only 'evidence' that she did anything wrong is the emotional reaction people have to her reaction.

Which is worth . . . nothing.

You realize that that's ludicrous, right? Oh, you don't. Well, it fucking well is.

You don't know. I don't know.

her guilt?

There's quite a bit towards the two young angels in custody--down to the bragging on Facebook about the murder and their family members lying about their alibi.

Is there any link between them and this woman? That's a condition precedent for any conspiracy.

We just don't know at this point.

You're just admitting that your suspicions aren't based on facts but rather your personal feelings.

Hardly unusual for suspicions to be rooted in such. And as I've repeatedly said, I could well be wrong.


So, of course, could YOU. You just can't admit that possibility.

What history?

And, you're suspecting guilt because of how she's reacting to the death of her child?

I certainly hope no one ever shoves a camera in my face while I'm grieving and then dissects my performance to determine my moral and legal guilt.

And she invited the press into her house hours after her baby was killed and chose to go on Piers Morgan's show. I don't claim that indicates culpability. I am claiming it is odd and unusal behavior.

she was victimized by black men/boys is automatically suspect?

Otherwise, not sure what the Susan Smith angle is.

I really hope you never have to be judged for how you grieve in such a situation.

Of course I said nothing of the sort. I pointed to a history (hardly one that be challenged) of white folks who commit crimes blaming the "black boogeyman" for the crime they committed. It's happened numerous times in this country. Or are you going to deny that, dear?

And you have no fucking clue what I've grieved in my life. And I have no intention of sharing with the likes of YOU.

Now you're claiming one of the reasons you suspected her is the history of white people to kill someone and then blame it on the 'black bogeyman.'

So, which is your honest opinion and which is your self-serving b.s.?

1) That you never suspected her of shooting the baby; or

2) That you thought this might be a Susan Smith scenario, where a white woman kills her children and then blames it on black kids to deflect from her own guilt?

I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility that she hired the kid to shoot at her. And yes, of course, I could be 100 percent wrong as I've said repeatedly. Do try and follow, honeypie. It's really not that hard- at least for most people.

For one, she didn't actually do the killing.

For another, the actual triggermen were pretty much who she described them as.

In other words, the scenario that happened is exactly as she described it.


So, I guess it's possible she could have hired some kids to kill her baby, and then positively ID'd them, with zero financial gain at stake (any life insurance on the kid would cover funeral expenses and that's it), without worrying about the kids testifying against her.

But that is much more bizarre and unlikely than some thug shooting a baby.

and just how the fuck do YOU fucking know that life insurance on the kid would only cover funeral expenses? You have access to that info? Yeah, sure you do. You just claim to know one thing after another that you couldn't possibly know. I have expressed doubt but I sure haven't made the absurd claims of inside knowledge that YOU keep making. And btw, she had her son cremated and told the funeral home to dispose of the ashes so the cost of that was about as minimal as you can get.

In plain language, dearie: You don't have a clue as whether the scenario happened as she claimed- anymore than I do.

Child Life Insurance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Child life insurance is a form of permanent life insurance that insures the life of a minor. It is usually purchased to protect a family against the sudden and unexpected costs of a child’s funeral or burial[1] and to secure inexpensive and guaranteed insurance for the lifetime of the child.[2] It offers guaranteed growth of cash value, which some carriers allow to be withdrawn (collapsing the policy) when the child is in their early twenties.[3] Child life insurance policies typically offer the owner the option to purchase, or in some cases obtain additional guaranteed insurance when the child reaches maturity.[4]

Child life insurance policies typically:[5][6]

Are issued with face values between $5,000 and $50,000.
Are always issued without a required medical examination.
Have zero investment and zero interest rate risk associated with cash value growth.
Provide insurance coverage for a designated beneficiary.

Child life insurance should not be confused with Juvenile Life Insurance, which is issued with much larger face values (normally $100,000 -$10,000,000) and is generally purchased for college savings, lifetime savings, estate planning and guaranteed insurability.[7]

Child life insurance has been criticized for causing a motive for murder of insured children. 45 coroners have stated that child life insurance is a motive to murder.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Life_Insurance

Charles Stuart is PROOF of that.

The "the mom arranged for herself and her baby to get shot in order to collect that fat $5-10K children's life insurance policy" scenarios are most certainly implausible.

But they are not impossible. Sometimes the implausible does happen. Otherwise it would be impossible.

not letting go? Ever think that there were legitimate reasons for her being removed? And that her 'baggage' might be very real anger at her mom for whatever caused her to lose custody? This mom seems like one crazy fuck. I agree with the OP 100%.

the mom arranged for the kid to be shot.

You are the one saying that she was cleared by the police when she was not. YOU are the one suggesting that her daughter has an axe to grind when it seems like the daughter is the one who knows how fucked up the mom is. Perhaps stop flinging bullshit around if you don't want people to call you on your bullshit.

to demonize the mother.

Making bullshit claims like there being "zero evidence" implicating the mother. And you know this how, Nostradamus? Are you part of the police investigation? All you've provided this whole thread are ridiculous, emotional outbursts. Start providing something in terms of facts rather than ignorant ranting and you might find people a little less likely to call bullshit on your posts.

have provided zero evidence to back up their claims.

And you've provided NOTHING to discredit any of the information provided in the OP. In fact, you've just thrown out a ton of easily disprovable bullshit. You've said that the mother has been cleared by the police. Surely you should be able to provide at least a bit of evidence to support your claim. Unless you are utterly full of shit and just like to see how your words look on screen.

It's confirmation for those who desperately want to believe she's guilty.

But nothing provided is remotely probative of the mother's criminal involvement.

The OP provided tons of information which should have the cops all over her (and they probably are still). You've provided nothing but utterly inaccurate information. Information which is easily checked. That makes your knowledge of this issue less than worthless.