CA - 13 victims, ages 2 to 29, shackled in home by parents, Perris, 15 Jan 2018 #11

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Great post!

Why do you think that David and Louise allowed a house full of human waste and filth that got worse over time? My theories are the following:

1.) She felt that she was too good to do housework.
2.) Wallowing in the kids own filth was added punishment for the kids.
3.) Her family may have believed "cleanliness is next to Godliness" and Louise wanted to rebel against her family.

As so many narcissists are neat freaks, her having no problems with a filthy house, I think was attributed to any or all of the above. I can't think of any other explanations.

Satch

4.) And/or DT felt that he was too good to help with housework or hire help (if LT was overwhelmed). I’m not letting the man off the hook when it comes to housework! :)

But all kidding aside, as is the case with hoarders, the non-hoarding partner is helpless to fix it. So if LT was the main cause of the disgusting mess, which is likely since she stayed home, there probably wasn’t much DT could do about it, even if he himself was a neat freak.
 
I hope all the reports of the kids thriving and doing all these fun things irks the “Turpins” jmo.
Funny they don’t like burritos. Lol. Love hearing these little quirks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I hope all the reports of the kids thriving and doing all these fun things irks the “Turpins” jmo.
Funny they don’t like burritos. Lol. Love hearing these little quirks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I also hope the elder Turpins are being kept informed of the huge public love for the children they threw away and the disgust for them.
 
Great post!

Why do you think that David and Louise allowed a house full of human waste and filth that got worse over time? My theories are the following:

1.) She felt that she was too good to do housework.
2.) Wallowing in the kids own filth was added punishment for the kids.
3.) Her family may have believed "cleanliness is next to Godliness" and Louise wanted to rebel against her family.

As so many narcissists are neat freaks, her having no problems with a filthy house, I think was attributed to any or all of the above. I can't think of any other explanations.

Satch

I don't usually comment but this is just my own experience. My mother was extremely abusive and Narcissistic. We lived in filth, but she just didn't let anyone in. Outside the house, infront of others, she OCD to the point she would not eat the crust off a sandwich (Because a baker would have touched it), she would not touch a coffee cup with bare hands, she would get out a wet wipe and hold it with that and clean the rim of the cup. She would be dressed up to the MAX everytime she went out but yet at home, we lived in Squalor.
 
Probably true, but I think that is somewhat true in most relationships. In this case, it is likely that they relied on each other's rationalization that what they were doing was the best thing for the kids. People tend to indulge in self-rationalization, but when somebody else rationalizes your actions, then it becomes a validation. I'm guessing that they fed off each other's praises, especially where their misguided (warped) sense of 'childcare' was concerned.

And there is reason to believe that this started back when #1 was little, and probably escalated over time.


Yes, most relationships rely on the people in the relationship valuing each other. The difference is that the narcissist values very little outside himself/herself except what validates and enhances an inflated sense of self.

I agree that David and Louise probably supported each other’s sadistic impulses and rationalized together that what they were doing was right and justified. (I am not sure they told themselves that it was “best” for the kids. That would imply that they felt some obligation to “do right” by the kids. I suspect they saw the kids as objects and felt entitled to do what they wanted.)

I agree also that the abuse began with J-1. My take on it is that she was disciplined from an early age, but that she may have had some form of maternal “affection” as an infant and small child before she began to develop as an independent person.

It seems likely that what began as the need to control/dominate became a twisted pleasure in the pain of the children who may have represented an outside world (the great “Not Me”) that was never going to be impressed enough with the importance of David-and-Louise.
JMHO
 
Great post!

Why do you think that David and Louise allowed a house full of human waste and filth that got worse over time? My theories are the following:

1.) She felt that she was too good to do housework.
2.) Wallowing in the kids own filth was added punishment for the kids.
3.) Her family may have believed "cleanliness is next to Godliness" and Louise wanted to rebel against her family.

As so many narcissists are neat freaks, her having no problems with a filthy house, I think was attributed to any or all of the above. I can't think of any other explanations.

Satch

As others have pointed out, not all narcissist are neat freaks. I would go further and say that there is a difference between being a neat freak and being a cleanliness freak. For example, a homeless person who comes to the support center where I volunteer is definitely a neat freak but not overly concerned with cleanliness. That is, her stuff always has to be in a particular order and she tends to straighten up public spaces (straighten the ketchup, salt and pepper in the middle of each table, square the ends of stacks of flyers, etc.) but she doesn’t bathe/shower regularly even though the shelter has showers, doesn’t seem to mind wearing dirty clothes, etc.

I don’t think either of the Turpins was much concerned with cleanliness, but they may have had “neat freak” aspects. I wouldn’t be surprised if DT’s desk at work was super-neat.

The cleanliness/neatness issue is complicated, as others have pointed out, by the “hoarding” tendencies of the Turpins. Hoarders sometimes lose the ability to control their own mess and they become disensitized to the level of mess and dirt.

You are probably right that they saw the children having to lie in their own filth as part of the punishment. They may also have been unable to see themselves as being the ones “responsible.” If a child is “bad” then the child is “asking for” punishment and therefore must “want” to be starved, beaten, tied up and forced to lie in his/her own waste. So they could actually blame the children for the filth, the stench, etc

What I don’t think was a big factor in the lack of cleanliness/order/hygiene is laziness or LT’s feeliing that she was “too good to do housework.” If that were all, she would have dumped the housework on the kids (especially the daughters) from the time J-1 was 5 or so. If cleanliness were a priority, she’d have punished the kids by making them scub every inch of their homes (think of Cristina Crawford’s account in Mommy Dearest) not by having them lie in their own filth.

Mostly I think you are right though that there were several factors in play. I think rebellion or reacting against her family may be part of LT’s problem. And both she and DT may have become apathetic and depressed as their lives didn’t seem to offer the satisfaction they’d hoped. The torture and increased starvation may have been a way to get some sort of satisfaction (linked to signs of power) that had begun to ellude them.
 

The article has it wrong that the younger children were treated and released from Corona. They were at Riverside. As far as I can tell, Corona is for profit and Riverside is the state facility that treats you even if you don’t have insurance. Corona was remodeled recently and as someone up-thread pointed out, the likelihood is that the older Turpin siblings are in the “skilled nursing” “subacute” area, not the hospital proper.

I hope when they are released they can all go into a large house with some social worker type “mentor” for a while intead of being sent to some “assisted living” meant for older people or mentally unstable people. And I hope their younger siblings can visit often.
 
The article has it wrong that the younger children were treated and released from Corona. They were at Riverside. As far as I can tell, Corona is for profit and Riverside is the state facility that treats you even if you don’t have insurance. Corona was remodeled recently and as someone up-thread pointed out, the likelihood is that the older Turpin siblings are in the “skilled nursing” “subacute” area, not the hospital proper.

I hope when they are released they can all go into a large house with some social worker type “mentor” for a while intead of being sent to some “assisted living” meant for older people or mentally unstable people. And I hope their younger siblings can visit often.

I'm not sure you aren't confused. Yo Yo Ma is a concert cello player that people pay lots of money to see. He gave them a free concert. He's a cellist.
 
I'm not sure you aren't confused. Yo Yo Ma is a concert violinist that people pay lots of money to see. He gave them a free concert. He's a violinist.
He's actually a cellist. Not to put too fine a point on it [emoji4]
 
I'm not sure you aren't confused. Yo Yo Ma is a concert cello player that people pay lots of money to see. He gave them a free concert. He's a cellist.

I wasn’t confused. I wasn’t talking about the concert. I was talkng about something else in the same article. We had already discussed the “news” about Yo Yo Ma’s private concert upthread, so I focused on a detail about where the young people had been hospitalized.

Specificallly, the Daily Mail article said that the younger ones had been released from Corona to go into foster care. They were never at Corona.

The error matters in the context of our earlier discussions about how the 13 (who asked to be together) have not been together since their rescue. It isn’t just that the younger children were released earlier, as the article seemed to imply.

In fact, many of us think that the Yo Yo Ma concert may have been a special treat, not only for the music but because they all got to be together. I hope they had a nice visit.

It was in this context that I was reminded that the future home of the older ones is still unclear and expressed a hope that it will be a place that meets their needs.
 
I wasn’t confused. I wasn’t talking about the concert. I was talkng about something else in the same article. We had already discussed the “news” about Yo Yo Ma’s private concert upthread, so I focused on a detail about where the young people had been hospitalized.

Specificallly, the Daily Mail article said that the younger ones had been released from Corona to go into foster care. They were never at Corona.

The error matters in the context of our earlier discussions about how the 13 (who asked to be together) have not been together since their rescue. It isn’t just that the younger children were released earlier, as the article seemed to imply.

In fact, many of us think that the Yo Yo Ma concert may have been a special treat, not only for the music but because they all got to be together. I hope they had a nice visit.

It was in this context that I was reminded that the future home of the older ones is still unclear and expressed a hope that it will be a place that meets their needs.

Indeed, that is the way I saw it as well - it was special because they got to be together​ - all 13 of them.
 
LTs sister Elizabeth and cousin Tricia just finished a live interview with Good Morning Britain in the UK. They went to visit LT and DT last week and say LT is living in la la land and thinks she has done nothing wrong while DT is ‘broken’ and was crying a lot.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
LTs sister Elizabeth and cousin Tricia just finished a live interview with Good Morning Britain in the UK. They went to visit LT and DT last week and say LT is living in la la land and thinks she has done nothing wrong while DT is ‘broken’ and was crying a lot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This would be consistent, IMO, with the way they appeared at the last court appearance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
90
Guests online
1,380
Total visitors
1,470

Forum statistics

Threads
605,789
Messages
18,192,164
Members
233,543
Latest member
Dutah82!!
Back
Top