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

[SATA]

I had to stop following this case for a while when I found myself having to defend Louise. Not that I want to defend her either.

Don't stop following this case. I need to catch up on some of the posts and then I will start piping in.

So you understand.

And Satch, thank you for your understanding too.

It is a very emotional case, difficult to deal with, but also difficult to let go.

To say something positive for once:
The youngest child was well nourished and well taken care of.
That is a blessing for her, but also an indication that hopefully all of the siblings were well taken care of the first year or two, which is the most important formative period.

Most are under 25 years of age, which means they can still recover, change and move on to better things.
You cannot change much after you are 25, I believe.
But I hope that the siblings over 25 had better treatment for longer early in their lives, which can possibly compensate somewhat.

I hope they all gain strength, physically, emotionally and intellectually and reclaim their rights to develop their full potentials, each and every one of them!
They are precious individuals who happened to fall into the wrong hands.

 

[SkipperKey3]

California does have the death penalty. However, it would not be applied unless there were evidence of an actual death, which, considering the frailty of the children and the prolonged abuse combined with the filth found in the Turpins' former homes, is a possibility.

You can imagine that a child who receives poor nutrition and undergoes the physical stresses of beatings is more likely to be immunosuppressed. When that child is exposed to human feces and prevented from maintaining good hygiene, as well as deprived of Vitamin D due to lack of sunlight, you have a perfect storm that greatly increases the chances that such a child would develop infections and die from sepsis or organ failure. Investigators should conduct a search of all the Turpins' former premises in order to explore this possibility. To my knowledge, this has not occurred. Were human remains to be found, the couple might be charged with crimes to which the death penalty could be applied.

At this point I would be mildly surprised if it went that far. I believe she had all her children in hospitals and birth records are easily accessible to the authorities. Between that and the siblings and their journals, I think if there were any missing siblings, it would be known by now. At least I think so.
However, your point on proper human needs and hygiene is well taken.
I do expect more to be revealed, but I don't think it will be along those lines.

 

[msphilosopher]

Based on the family photos that I studied immensely. I can see the age progression of each child. I was specifically looking for whether all the kids where accounted for and the possibility of being replaced by potentially an abducted child. I'm certain there were no deaths during the time period of the photos I studied.

However, I haven't been able to see or find any photos of the older children (JEN, JOS, JES, JON, JOY) when they were younger, say 10yo or younger. I would be very interested in studying family pictures taken during the 90s and also in the early 2000s around the time JEA, JUL, JOR were babies and toddlers.

It is interesting to note that you can see very similar resemblance between some of the children more than others.
Most similar in resemblance:
- JOY & JEA
- JUL & JOA

Outliers in resemblance to others: JES, JOR, JOL

This is all IMO.

 

[SATA]

Based on the family photos that I studied immensely. I can see the age progression of each child. I was specifically looking for whether all the kids where accounted for and the possibility of being replaced by potentially an abducted child. I'm certain there were no deaths during the time period of the photos I studied.

However, I haven't been able to see or find any photos of the older children (JEN, JOS, JES, JON, JOY) when they were younger, say 10yo or younger. I would be very interested in studying family pictures taken during the 90s and also in the early 2000s around the time JEA, JUL, JOR were babies and toddlers.

It is interesting to note that you can see very similar resemblance between some of the children more than others.
Most similar in resemblance:
- JOY & JEA
- JUL & JOA

Outliers in resemblance to others: JES, JOR, JOL

This is all IMO.

I have some photos of them from they were younger, but faces are blurred, so you can´t really see them.

 

[Satch]

California does have the death penalty. However, it would not be applied unless there were evidence of an actual death, which, considering the frailty of the children and the prolonged abuse combined with the filth found in the Turpins' former homes, is a possibility.

You can imagine that a child who receives poor nutrition and undergoes the physical stresses of beatings is more likely to be immunosuppressed. When that child is exposed to human feces and prevented from maintaining good hygiene, as well as deprived of Vitamin D due to lack of sunlight, you have a perfect storm that greatly increases the chances that such a child would develop infections and die from sepsis or organ failure. Investigators should conduct a search of all the Turpins' former premises in order to explore this possibility. To my knowledge, this has not occurred. Were human remains to be found, the couple might be charged with crimes to which the death penalty could be applied.

FYI: Found this online regarding the Death Penalty in California doing a Google Search. (First thing that shows

On July 16, 2014, federal judge Cormac J. Carney of the United States District Court ruled that California's death penalty system is unconstitutional because it is arbitrary and plagued with delay. The state has not executed a prisoner since 2006.

Satch

 

[sunnybree]

So you understand.

And Satch, thank you for your understanding too.

It is a very emotional case, difficult to deal with, but also difficult to let go.

To say something positive for once:
The youngest child was well nourished and well taken care of.
That is a blessing for her, but also an indication that hopefully all of the siblings were well taken care of the first year or two, which is the most important formative period.

Most are under 25 years of age, which means they can still recover, change and move on to better things.
You cannot change much after you are 25, I believe.
But I hope that the siblings over 25 had better treatment for longer early in their lives, which can possibly compensate somewhat.

I hope they all gain strength, physically, emotionally and intellectually and reclaim their rights to develop their full potentials, each and every one of them!
They are precious individuals who happened to fall into the wrong hands.

Respectfully, I don’t believe the younger child was well taken care of. Refer to the original indictment and you will see they have charged David and Louise with child abuse of the youngest child as well. Authorities are alleging she was abused, but she wasn’t starved. They have not charged torture or false imprisonment against this child, but that doesn’t mean her care was of good standard. In my view, the baby was just a prop who existed to fulfil Louise’s needs until Louise found her burdensome. The prop isn’t resented so she gets food and taken out for photo opportunities, but I doubt Louise and David provided her with nourishing and stimulating care. She still lived in a filthy house, she would have seen or heard her siblings be assaulted, chained up, crying, distressed. How terrifying for a tiny person.

Would Louise and David really develop a secure attachment to this child? That requires constant attunement (the process of meeting her physical, emotional, psychological needs over and over). Children need secure attachment to feel safe. All the toxicity of that family life and those relationships would be absorbed by her. The first 1000 days of life are the most crucial for brain development, and each one of her experiences is coded into the brain, even with no conscious memory of it. Her journey may be hard one, too. Even a young victim of child abuse is likely to have developmental delays and behavioural challenges. I believe this child would show disorganised attachment - I can believe the baby didn’t suffer the severity of abuse the older ones did but I can’t believe there would be such a gap in parenting that she would be psychologically healthy.

https://www.psychalive.org/disorganized-attachment/

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...-disorganized-attachment-and-dissociation?amp

 

[Philigumbo]

We don't know for sure it was Louise. But when married one of their crazy religions, that they BOTH seemingly followed out of about four different faiths was "God says, your supposed to have a big family." They both believed that. Both wanted kids, but Louise wanted no responsibility associated with them once they were no longer cute to her. David followed that same belief so went along with that. The older and more repulsive the kids became, the harder they were to control in the minds of both parents. That's why the abuse intensified over time. It is also why the oldest of the children likely suffered the most, and why the baby was not abused at all. To David and Louise, ugly things need harsh discipline to be able to be controlled. As they aged, the children became more and more like objects and less and less seen as emotional people with feelings and hearts.

I think the oldest adult male taking classes was likely at the demands of his parents and likely not be free choice. Male JT #1 was being groomed to be the next David Turpin as another poster discussed, but not without the strictest of demands for what he would do or not do during classes. Louise being outside the hall in every one of his classes shows her domination.

Satch

Perhaps the parents thought he could become a money-maker for the family.

 

[MsGazette]

California does have the death penalty. However, it would not be applied unless there were evidence of an actual death, which, considering the frailty of the children and the prolonged abuse combined with the filth found in the Turpins' former homes, is a possibility.

You can imagine that a child who receives poor nutrition and undergoes the physical stresses of beatings is more likely to be immunosuppressed. When that child is exposed to human feces and prevented from maintaining good hygiene, as well as deprived of Vitamin D due to lack of sunlight, you have a perfect storm that greatly increases the chances that such a child would develop infections and die from sepsis or organ failure. Investigators should conduct a search of all the Turpins' former premises in order to explore this possibility. To my knowledge, this has not occurred. Were human remains to be found, the couple might be charged with crimes to which the death penalty could be applied.

They mentioned they were going to search the current property with cadaver dogs. Then we heard nothing about it. Just that they were in there cleaning. That’s why I eluded to the Blackstone, MA (Erika Murray) case in my area a few weeks back that happened a few years ago. They found deceased animals and human remains/fetuses. I think this case might be different. It’s like the siblings were made weak or their growth was stunted on purpose to maintain control over them. I know this is kind of all over the place! I just wish there was more information - hopefully LE have it to build a BIG case against them!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cafemalyn]

Again, David "went along" - lessening his responsibility.
I can´t believe it! His interest in Louise started when she was 10! 10!!!!!
He is a paedophile, yet everything is on Louise!

I am close to wanting to stop following this case, I get more and more upset and find myself in the position of defending Louise, which I don´t really want to do.

I need a break, for sure!

Everyone here is speculating. No one knows what went on, really, so we are just throwing out different scenarios. Not all see David as the less dominant party.

One person suggested that maybe David wanted lots of daughters to molest them and Louise tortured them out of jealousy. That does not sound to me as blaming Louise more than David.

Others have suggested that DT and LT got their jollies in a sado-masochistic way and extended that to the children. This sounds like sharing the blame.

As several people have pointed out, our culture assumes mothers will be loving and gentle. We are readier to accept indifference from fathers. This doesn’t mean we blame one more than the other necessarily, only that we are more surprised when it is the mother is indifferent/cruel than when it is the father. (As an analogy, teenage boys statistically have more car accidents than girls, but that doesn’t mean it is “worse” when it’s a teen age girl runs into a little-old-lady than if a boy had. But parents might say, “I am surprised that Susy has had more wrecks than Johnny,” and wonder why Susy is not as good/careful a driver as “teenage girls are supposed to be.”) Sexist generalizations are NOT okay, but to generalize that certain bad actions are more likely among men is not the same as excusing the bad actions when commited by men or blaming women for things that are excused in men.

Returning to the Turpin parents, I think that most of the scenarios suggested so far are plausible. David could be the monster mastermind. David could be a wimpy sort of narcissist who manipulates others into initiating and taking the lead on things which the narcissist wants. David could be an amoral predator or he could be so enthralled with Louise that he lets her call the shots. David could have physically abused Louise so that she could not judge for herself and lost the ability to act to protect herself and her kids. Or it could be the other way around. We don’t know.

As I have said before, it is probable that each had a particular set of things on which s/he led while there were things that met both of their needs. They were both twisted and “sick.” It is not very useful to quarrel over which one was worse or who initiated which torture.

 

[gitana1]

Someone with more knowledge of the law than I should address this issue, but my understanding is that it is unlikely that she will be found “legally insane.” As various people have noted, she seems to have known that what she was doing was against the law.

However, I guess a lot depends on how the psych evaluation is done in California.

Someone has to request a psych evaluation. If a defendant uses mental illness as a defense, then a psych eval is ordered. Otherwise, it is ordered when determining competency, if that's in question.

Being found legally insane is almost impossible. She seems very, very personality disordered. Like casey anthony, jodi arias, the grandmother in the missing baby William Gouchenour case (he has been found), etc. These people are evil and disturbed. They know right from wrong but twist things in their heads and create justifications. Sometimes, they can have episodes of psychosis though.

I don't think either of these people will be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Not close.

Why is Louise taking the brunt of people´s disgust?
We don´t know how things went down in that home yet.
I see it everywhere and it depresses me that it ALWAYS is the women that are harsher judged than men.

It puzzles me. David was there too!

It is very, very simple - the relatives giving a ton of detail are louise's relations and most of the detail is about her. yes, there was the part about david watching his sister in law as she came out of the shower, but it was coupled with the allegation that louise laughed and participated, and got the key.

Other than that, everything that's come out is about the mother - how she treated her eldest. Combine that with her creepy, evil smile in her booking photo and there's just more to bash and talk about.

I do not think either one of these humans are victims of the other in this. She may have been preyed on years ago by him, but they've had years to abuse their children together and she was a grown adult for much of that time, and seemed to have her own, twisted issues when it came to how to raise her kids, that were independent of her disgusting husband.

IMO, both are revolting, evil human beings who egged each other on and enjoyed what they did to their captives. It's not about mother/father, male/female, for me. But we do have more detail about Louise and the sinister way in which she controlled her eldest child, so there will be more to talk about with regard to her.

I think they are 100% equally responsible.

On part 2 of Dr. Oz, LT's sister and cousin went to the hospital to try to see the eldest kids but they were DENIED! They were able, however, to leave some pillows they had decorated with 'positive messages'.

It's a shame they didn't show as much interest/initiative when the kids needed it the most.

So happy these opportunists were denied!!!!! Keep them the hell away from the siblings. They don;t need these exploiters anywhere near them.

Have any of you considered whether the Quiverfull movement could be a source of inspiration for the Turpin´s way of "bringing up" their kids?

Oh yes. Absolutely. First thing I thought.

Here are the lyrics to the song "Never Felt" originally posted on the 17-year-old survivor's secret YouTube account.

This particular video had background music digitally added in, and many visual effects such as scrolling and the singer spinning upside down. Unintelligible parts are marked in purple.

_Never Felt_
Oh, can't speak
Baby, I'm hopeless
Hopeless
Take my hand, a know a fen
I love you for who you are
Don't throw me away just because I'm
a fen
close a
I can't wait any longer
for you babe / for your blame

I keep thinking
Will I ever meet you?
I love you
Not for your talent
Love you for who you are

I felt a connection
I never felt before
No, I never felt before
Never felt
Never felllllllt!
A connection like this one

I keep thinking
Do you even care?
I hurt so bad, I love you
I hurt so bad
I love you
I love yoooou!

Cold up
Hands die
I can't wait any longer for fate

I keep thinking
Will I ever meet you?
I love you
Not for your talent
I love you for who you are

I feel a connection
I never felt before
No, I never felt before
Never felt
Never felllllllt!
A connection like this one

I know this love
Always love
I know this love
Always love
Don't say that it's love

Hold on
I love you
Not for your talent
Love you for who you are

I feel a connection
I never felt before
No, I never felt before
Never felt
Never felllllllt!
A connection like this one

Thank you so much for doing this.

I feel nervous about what I am about to say and please forgive me if it sounds bad. I hope this young girl wasn't so destroyed by the abuse that she became fixated or felt she had a real relationship with a celebrity. I hope none of them have problems with reality.

 

[Cafemalyn]

To continue with my point about not knowing enough and considering different possible scenarios, the issue is not just what data we have but how we evaluate it and how we put it all together.

Specifically, some of us are giving more weight to the fact that David is much older and “kidnapped” Louise when she was a teen than others do. If we assume that a man over 25 who is attracted to a 15-16 year old is essentially a pederast, this is going to influence how we see everything else.

Others are giving more weight to the fact that it seems to have been Louise who “talked” for the family (with neighbors) and her siblings have affirmed that she was more assertive and determined than other girls her age.

Still others look at signs of a weird fantasy life (the Vegas trips, the Disney stuff, etc.) and a pattern (at least on the part of Louise) of pretending to be better off than they were. If you assume that any fantasies/lies in the past were self-delusional, you are likely to see Louise differently than if you think she was just telling self-serving lies.

And so on.

Truly, I don’t know what drives people to do what DT and LT did. I believe most people like to see themselves as “right” and “moral” so I believe that DT and LT told themselves that what they were doing was justified in some way. But that is just me. Maybe they actually enjoyed causing pain and being at odds with morality. Who knows?

Edited to add that I agree completely with @gitana1’s post. And to share, on the subject of “quiverful,” that Wikipedia’s entry on the Turpins identifies them as Quiverful. FWIW.

 

[gitana1]

That would be wonderful!

As of now, she is the only relative we know of who has not exploited those kids and is trying to guard their privacy. So maybe a visit from her would be good.

I agree that both David and Louise are equally responsible for their children's many horrors,

With the issue of extreme control as the culprit for punishment and exclusion from any social contact that questioned the parents' sick and satanic value system, do you think that Louise was always the dominant one and broke David down over the years to get what she wanted? Or do you think that both David and Louise were always the way they were and equally punished the kids with neglect, abuse, and torture that intensified over time?

Was David really this little "wuss" that Louise could manipulate? People have said David was big and looked intimidating, but was also very quiet. Do you think that Louise could have abused him? And David could have abused her? You wonder if maybe they accepted physical abuse to each other and the kids, because one of their sick cult-like religious obsessions that they followed, could have, (not necessarily did) permit evil behavior?

I feel that they are both equally to blame. It seems that David through breaking down in jail at least has stronger emotional faculties. However, he could have stopped the abuse and chose not to do that. Louise is a complete psychotic nut-job who has no sense of reality, emotions, or care for anybody other than herself. You wonder who manipulated whom?

There is so much anger toward Louise, certainly justified. People want to beat her because of what she did to those poor kids. But there is much less reports on David and there should be more information, much more. Louise is the ultimate horror devil. But David is the top runner up, that's for sure. It's too late for you to cry now David in your cell. Where were your tears for thirty plus years, when you married a despicable wife that allowed to bring kids into both of your horrific worlds? I wish California had the Death Penalty, because that's what they both deserve!

Satch

I don't think either was more "dominant". I think both are "sick" in their own way and they both enjoyed what they were doing, but may have been motivated differently.

From the very little we have heard about them, my first impression is that Louise seems to enjoy control and punishment and David enjoys sexual assault and secrecy. I think they both thoroughly enjoyed dominating and isolating their kids.

They're both sick pieces of work.

 

[gitana1]

Something very eerie about those videos of the 17 year old singing - there are 12 other children in that house. But you can hear a pin drop for most of those videos. Not a hint of the 12 other siblings that inhabited that house.

Anyone with kids knows how noisy they are and how much life they bring a home. You feel them. You definitely hear them. But in these videos, it is as if she is solidly alone.

That house isn't that big.

 

[Confusion]

I'm not going to address most of the issues being discussed, but I do have a thought about what may have motivated the parents. I think that LT always loved babies, I believe it was said (by a sister, maybe?) that she had always wanted a lot of kids. I think she took care of each of them at first, but as soon as another one came along, she doted on that one and totally ignored the other/s most of the time. I know there's more to it than that, her methods of punishment were totally unacceptable, but maybe just exaggerations of the way she was punished when young. As for DT, I do believe he was interested in young girls, but I don't know if he acted on his feelings with all of them. I keep thinking they tried to keep them looking 10-12 years old for as long as possible.MOO

 

[mtnlites]

I feel nervous about what I am about to say and please forgive me if it sounds bad. I hope this young girl wasn't so destroyed by the abuse that she became fixated or felt she had a real relationship with a celebrity. I hope none of them have problems with reality.

I get what you're saying and I had the same thoughts. I'm not real sure what we can post in regards to the alleged SM accounts (guess it's hard to know for sure that they really belonged to the daughter) but I immediately thought of Justin Beiber when I read the lyrics. If their social interactions were severely limited and the extent of their outside communication came through radio/television then I could totally see how, over time, one could start thinking that the people they were watching/listening to were "communicating" with them. It does happen.

I know that many have been happy that the "kids" are apparently talking about wanting to be doctors and nurses now, but I am tentatively positive about that. It wouldn't surprise me if the kids didn't have some kind of attachment disorder in that they form strong and close attachments to anyone who gives them positive attention and reinforcements. (In some ways, I see this as similar to the celebrity thing.) I hope their therapists are really good and that they're working with them on forming healthy relationships with the people they encounter.

 

[FelicityLemon]

Agreed. And I don’t think they should be allowed any contact with each other.

I agree. I don't understand why or how if they have separate legal representation, they would be allowed to communicate at all!

Ooh, new charge possible - witness tampering? :thinking:

 

[SkipperKey3]

To continue with my point about not knowing enough and considering different possible scenarios, the issue is not just what data we have but how we evaluate it and how we put it all together.

Specifically, some of us are giving more weight to the fact that David is much older and “kidnapped” Louise when she was a teen than others do. If we assume that a man over 25 who is attracted to a 15-16 year old is essentially a pederast, this is going to influence how we see everything else.

Others are giving more weight to the fact that it seems to have been Louise who “talked” for the family (with neighbors) and her siblings have affirmed that she was more assertive and determined than other girls her age.

Still others look at signs of a weird fantasy life (the Vegas trips, the Disney stuff, etc.) and a pattern (at least on the part of Louise) of pretending to be better off than they were. If you assume that any fantasies/lies in the past were self-delusional, you are likely to see Louise differently than if you think she was just telling self-serving lies.

And so on.

Truly, I don’t know what drives people to do what DT and LT did. I believe most people like to see themselves as “right” and “moral” so I believe that DT and LT told themselves that what they were doing was justified in some way. But that is just me. Maybe they actually enjoyed causing pain and being at odds with morality. Who knows?

Edited to add that I agree completely with @gitana1’s post. And to share, on the subject of “quiverful,” that Wikipedia’s entry on the Turpins identifies them as Quiverful. FWIW.

I know what you are saying, but let's keep what facts we do know straight. He wasn't over 25. When they ran off he was 23 and she was 16, I believe. That's a 7-year difference. A lot? Yes, but not alarming so perhaps. Now I hadn't heard anything about him courting her when she was 10 - is there a link to that? He would be 17 at that point, and that would be creepy. I'd like to know the reference. It may be simply that they first met when she was 10. So... link please, if possible?
Not trying to excuse him. The whole episode of them running off was bizarre enough as it is, and they are equally to blame for what has happened.

 

[SkipperKey3]

I agree. I don't understand why or how if they have separate legal representation, they would be allowed to communicate at all!

Ooh, new charge possible - witness tampering? :thinking:

People incarcerated are allowed to communicate with the outside world through post.

 

[FelicityLemon]

People incarcerated are allowed to communicate with the outside world through post.

In the state of Washington co-defendants are often court ordered from having contact with one another during the case.

 

[MsJosie]

People incarcerated are allowed to communicate with the outside world through post.

I would think, inmate mail, would be read before the inmate would get it. It is done in prisons so it most likely done in jail. However, an inmate may beable to give a letter to their lawyer saying it is “court business”. The first lawyer could give it to another lawyer. This 2nd lawyer could let his client/inmate read it at their meeting saying it was “court business” but not let the client/inmate keep it. A sly way and maybe illegal way to communicate.

Any lawyer on here that can put in their knowledge?