Monessen woman waives her hearing for locking mom, son in basement
A Monessen woman accused of locking her 75-year-old mother and 15-year-old son in the basement of her home waived her right to a preliminary hearing Friday before Magisterial District Judge Joseph Dalfonso in Monessen.
Sherry Kay Gillock, 53, of 938 Alexander Ave., had her bond lowered to $10,000, according to court documents.
Apparently unable to post bail, she was still lodged in the Westmoreland County Prison on Friday night.
Gillock returned home from a bar on Oct. 27 and locked the pair in the basement, saying she didn't want to deal with them, police said.
Another relative contacted police at 5 a.m. to report that she had been locked out of the home and discovered the pair locked in the basement.
While she was able to help the 15-year-old out of a window, the 75-year-old woman was unable to use that avenue of escape.
Gillock's mother suffered a minor injury to her arm as she tried to climb out of the basement window, police added.
Police said the pair spent nearly five hours locked in the basement.
When police attempted to wake up Gillock, she was still slurring her words and was unable to speak, they said.
Gillock is facing trial on two counts each of false imprisonment and unlawful restraint, as well as one count each of recklessly endangering another person and endangering the welfare of children-parent or guardian commits offense.
Jeremy Sellew is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at email@example.com or 724-684-2667.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.