CA - 13 victims, ages 2 to 29, shackled in home by parents, Perris, 15 Jan 2018 #4

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Looking at the case so far, the surface is just being scratched. I suspect the abuse had been going on before 2010.

I saw 20/20 about David and Louise Turpin. I think they could be injustice collectors.

Injustice Collectors
http://www.psybersquare.com/family/family_injustice.html

Characteristics of Injustice Collectors:
1.) Injustice Collectors are convinced that they are never wrong. How is it possible that they are never wrong? It is simple: They are always right.

2.) Injustice Collectors never apologize. Ever. For anything.

3.) Injustice Collectors truly believe that they are morally and ethically superior to others and that others chronically do not hold themselves to the same high standards as the injustice collector does.

4.) Injustice Collectors make the rules, break the rules and enforce the rules of the family. They are a combined legislator, police, and judge and jury of

5.) Injustice Collectors never worry about what is wrong with themselves as their "bad list" grows. Their focus is always on the failings of others.

6.) Injustice Collectors are never upset by the disparity of their rules for others with their own expectations of themselves.

7.) Injustice Collectors rationalize their own behavior with great ease and comfort.

David and Louise Turpin show all seven characteristics.

Here are more with 20 characteristics
http://www.lisaescott.com/forum/2009/11/25/are-they-injustice-collector

Characteristics of Injustice Collectors

1. Injustice collectors are never wrong. How is it possible that they are never wrong? It's simple: They are always right.

2. Injustice collectors never apologize. Ever. For anything.

3. Injustice collectors truly believe they are morally and ethically superior to others and that others seem incapable of holding themselves to the same high standards as the injustice collector does.

4. Injustice collectors make the rules, break the rules and enforce the rules of the family. They are a combination of legislator, police, judge and jury to those they consider their subjects. They forever banish from their kingdom any subject they deem disloyal, and only grant clemency if there is sufficient (in their eyes) contrition.

5. Injustice collectors never worry about what is wrong with them as their "bad" list grows. Their focus is always on the failings of others.

6. Injustice collectors are never troubled by the disparity between their rules for others and their own expectations of themselves. Injustice collectors rationalize their own behavior with great ease and comfort.

7. Injustice collectors have an external orientation; the problem always exists in the world, outside of themselves, and in their view, the world would be an acceptable place if their rules and standards were followed at all times.

8. Injustice collectors do not have a capacity for remorse, empathy or guilt.

9. Injustice collectors scoff at the idea of therapy, therapists, self-help books, and other tools used by people who struggle to live with them.

10. The phrase "walking on eggshells" describes life with an injustice collector.

11. The IC (injustice Collector) will prey upon your weaknesses to frame all issues in their terms.

12. IC's will always cry foul when you are 'mean' to them and accuse you of being nasty when you are confronting them with their negative behavior.

13. They are titanically insecure and cannot trust anyone. All relationships they have, even with their own parents and children and trustless and must be reinforced by subordination over and over.

14. They can only strengthen relationships through imprisoning their mates and banning behaviors and other relationships. Friends and family are a huge threat to the IC.

15. They must repetitively revisit situations where you service them, give in to them and agree with them. They will over time shrink your world to a small plot of empty activities that only they like. They are terrified of travel, meeting new people, understanding new concepts and paroling you from any punishment they have previously 'convicted' you of.

16. They do not care about you at all, they care about aggrandizing themselves with you as an assistant producer.

17. They will occasionally do something for you, but if you are not completely brainwashed, it will be a negative experience for you in the end. Example is throwing you a birthday party. I guarantee you will not have fun at your own party.

18. They will force you to choose between them and other things you like or love. The more you choose them, the more they will make you choose them over and over. They do not understand the concept of loyalty at all.

19. Hypocrisy is their modus operandi for debating and arguing with you. Everything they say about you is true about them. (aka Projection) It makes it so you try to 'win' fights by getting them to agree with you, which they never can because their whole position is false.

20. Your life will disappear into their lives. Your hopes and dreams will fade, even in your own mind. You will eat what they want, you will watch what they want on TV, you will vacation where they want, or not at all.

David and Louise Turpin show all twenty characteristics.

Injustice collectors are often very controlling as they are paranoid. They are prone to extreme anger and in some cases extreme violence.

Injustice collectors are usually seen in mass killers and terrorists like Stephen Paddock, Devin Kelley, Omar Mateen, Seung-Hui Cho, Adam Lanza, Eric Harris, Elliot Rodger, and Osama bin Laden. There are many abusers who are considered injustice collectors like Gertrude Baniszewski, Lori Drew, Eliza Baker, Kayla Narey, and Theresa Knorr.

This what I think. I am sure we will hear more about them.

I have not heard of a motive yet for David and Louise Turpin.

Many injustice collectors are driven by envy and revenge. They come hand in hand. Elliot Rodger, Eric Harris, Adam Lanza, Seung-Hui Cho, Devin Kelley, Stephen Paddock, Omar Mateen, and Osama bin Laden are driven by extreme envy and revenge. They are really determined to get revenge.

It is unknown of David and Louise Turpin were driven by jealousy. It could be possible.

On Wound Collectors
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201509/wound-collectors

Murderous Envy
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/keeping-kids-safe/200905/murderous-envy

The Dangerous Injustice Collector: Behaviors of Someone Who Never Forgets, Never Forgives, Never Lets Go, and Strikes Back!
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/vio.2014.1509

Identifying The Next Mass Murderer—Before It’s Too Late
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...ntifying-the-next-mass-murderer-it-s-too-late

Psychology of Terrorism - National Criminal Justice Reference Service
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/208552.PDF

Terrorists are injustice collectors. It is not the sole reason, but a major factor.

Revisiting Adam Lanza: The Official Sandy Hook Report
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...ing-adam-lanza-the-official-sandy-hook-report

Lanza is consumed by pathological envy.

Elliot Rodger-My Twisted World
http://abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/kabc/My-Twisted-World.pdf

Envy is a major theme in Rodger's manifesto.

Seung Hui Cho’s Manifesto
https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/cho_manifesto_1.1.pdf

Like Rodger and Lanza, envy consumes Cho.

Websleuth Radio Interview Tina Meier
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleuths/2013/09/30/tricias-true-crime-radio-adult-cyber-bullying

It starts at the 20:40 mark from September 2013 Websleuths Radio Interview. Tina Meier, Megan Meier's mother. She is describing Lori Drew as a very talkative person who complained nonstop. She is described as a very unhappy and bitter person in a unhappy marriage. Drew wanted everyone to know her plight and suffering in life. Meier's description of Drew is typical of an injustice collector. We do not know if David and Louise Turpin are constant complainers at this point. They are likely very negative people as they abused their children. Drew and Turpin are abusers, one being psychological, while the other is physical and psychological. Meier's description of Drew is more like Stephen Paddock, Devin Kelley, Omar Mateen, Seung-Hui Cho, Adam Lanza, Eric Harris, Elliot Rodger, and Osama bin Laden. I would not be surprised to see that describes David and Louise Turpin.
 
Which survivor in the Dr Seuss shirts is the one who escaped? Is it #8? I'm so glad she continued on..she no doubt saved her elder sisters life, who seems as if she was very sick.

i really hope LE checks into if they have had more kids and if any of them have died or disappeared.

Yes, #8 is the one who escaped.
 
If I remember correctly, it was in a Daily Mail article. Don’t have the link right in front of me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Got it. Thank you for helping me narrow it down.
 
In the photo of the kids sitting on the couch in red shirts and barefooted...the girl on the right looks sickly..looks emaciated and looks like she can barely sit up

I thought the same thing when I saw that photo :(
 
I have never seen the couch picture. Any idea where I can view it?

RSBM

Link at my post, # 81. Hth. :)
Just scroll down a bit to the photo of the brown sectional sofa.
 
Surely, we can replace "Thing #1 with Sibling #1" and the "Thing Picture" with The "Numbered Picture". It upholds their humanity and their dignity as victims. Language is so important. Especially when it comes to victims.

Also, the innocence of Dr. Suess's "Thing #1, Thing #2, is absolutely lost here.

In this context, when these children where tortured, starved, strangled, taunted with food, beat and abused for decades, THING takes on an extremely dark meaning. I do not believe it is a coincidence. These "parents" did not view their children as human. They viewed them as things. And they paraded them around for photo ops at Disney Land and at their creepy biannual vow renewals to fool the world and present normalcy on social media.

Thing # ! and Thing #2 lost their Suess innocence in the context of this case. In this case, it is not benign. It is meaningful. And not in a good way. MOO

No disrespect to anyone. Definitely not towards the 13 victims. Again I see it as description of which photo referencing. Matter of fact there are 2 different ones with those shirts on.

My grands have same type shirts and while I am not saying it same situation, we are not referring to the victims as Things, only their shirts. More important stuff to discuss jmho.
 
If there is a photo of one of their children hog tied, they are going up the river forever and ever Amen.
Hog tied children. Anyone. WTF.
 
No disrespect to anyone. Definitely not towards the 13 victims. Again I see it as description of which photo referencing. Matter of fact there are 2 different ones with those shirts on.

My grands have same type shirts and while I am not saying it same situation, we are not referring to the victims as Things, only their shirts. More important stuff to discuss jmho.
BBM

Respectfully, it is important to discuss. The sensitivity of members (and victims/survivors) should be respected and not discounted IMO. Although it may just seem like a convenient descriptive reference, if it makes members cringe when the expression “Thing” is used, it would be respectful to the sensitivities of members and victims/survivors to find another way to reference those photos.

Words have power and those children were degraded and were treated like “things.” If they ever read here, I hate for them to see us calling them that just because it’s easier. We can’t really split hairs and say we are only talking about their shirts. We have no idea how they felt about those shirts. Not everything Dr Seuss wrote was fun. They are all victims and thankfully, survivors. Let’s honor them. Personally, I would like to see them called “Survivor 1, 2, etc.”
JMO
 
I've been trying to catch up since day 2 and I'm still only near the end of thread #3

This post stands out at the moment

posted by enelram

LT's sister, the red head, E.J. was the first to come out and make her TV appearances. She claimed after
LT married and left home, daddy started "picking on her" sexually. So we all wondered is LT was the victim before she
left. It would explain her 'allowing' it to happen in her own home. Generational Abuse and Ignorance go together.
Instead of learning from their own past abuse they simply perpetuate the dysfunction.

I was curious who was the abuser of EJ, and this post says it was the father and that it started after LT left home. I think EJ was only about 9 at the time, which suggests to me that the father had lost his usual victim and had to move prematurely onto the next girl even though she hadn't yet hit puberty. That would be a very good reason for LT to want to elope. It would explain the father's attitude that was given in one of the newspaper interviews with the sister TR (I think it was the Daily Mail).

I suspect a number of girls who have had less than ideal childhoods/teen years have a deep desire for a baby, and I think maybe that contributes to LT's behavior, along with the religious 'ideal' of having a huge family of numerous 'blessings'. LT doesn't look very comfortable with her eldest daughter in the photo where the eldest daughter is about 18 months old? LT still doesn't look very comfortable in the picture with her newborn baby #13, she's not really cuddling the newborn baby but sort of holding it more like I associate non-parent males who are handed a baby to hold for a few moments and they don't really know how to hold the baby or what to do with it.

So I think all this behavior has very deep roots, with this deep need for a large and perfect family, but absolutely no emotional or life skills to achieve that. Instead we hear from the sister EJ that even when there were only a smaller number of younger children in the home that the children were strictly taught to only spoke when spoken to etc (which reminds me a little of the alphabetized DVD's...a control issue). LT's mother looks anorexic in the picture of that family prior to LT's elopement, though LT looks a very healthy weight, but does that somehow impact LT's thinking on food issues and how she perceives the looks of her children and their height/weight? The eldest daughter looks anorexically ill in all the pictures of her, but getting worse as time goes on, but does LT actually consider this some kind of 'ideal' based on what her mother looked like at the time she left? And if the mother was dealing with a husband who was abusing his daughters that could be a cause for eating disorder in the mother of LT. Thinking about what I'm saying, maybe I am effectively suggesting some kind of Munchhausen by proxy in that LT might be using the children's weights and feeding as a proxy for her own issues instead of starving herself (and maybe part of her knows she can't starve herself if she wants to be pregnant every year or two) but it also combines with controlling the lives of the children and presumably punishment.

This abuse must have started to get very severe before the eldest was 16-18 years old, because somehow they've made a subconscious or conscious decision to not allow their children to grow into adults in the normal way, to go to college, get a job, move out, marry and have their own families. LT and DT are adding to their own life problems by holding onto these adult children, but once they'd made that decision with the eldest, they'd dug this hole that they couldn't get out of... assuming they could have got out of it before. They could well have fallen into this decision due to the fear of the elder children leaving home and telling someone about the conditions in the home....which we have heard may have precipitated the move to California from Texas.

When we think of the so-called Quivering families, most of us think of the Duggars as a 'model'. There's a lot of things that go into it, the homeschooling, the religion, the beliefs against contraception and the more children the better, the Gothard way, and the borderline to actual abuse that can go on in some of those families, yet there's a particular presentation to the 'public' (whether that's neighbors, church friends, whatever) of well-dressed, often identically-dressed in home-sewn dresses for the girls that wouldn't look out of place many decades ago but do look out of place on a child over five in this era, and polite, well-behaved children who don't talk back, and maybe don't even initiate a lot of conversations (don't speak unless you're spoken to). But even if you compare to a family like the Duggars, there are a whole host of differences that seem far more important than the similarities. Like the health of the children, and that the Duggar children actually get to grow up!

So, to DT's elderly parents I think that's the image they have of their son and his brood, and to them they'd probably see something very positive (of course there are positives in the image of well-dressed, well-behaved children!). But it can't be just his elderly parents, other people saw those pictures of skinny children, anorexic-looking children, grown adult women dressed like five-year old girls. Did any relatives who knew the ages of those 'children' ever ask what the adult children were doing with their adult lives? Living at home would not seem unusual in this culture, it would likely seem normal for an unmarried adult child, but what about college or jobs or courting? What about any of the children doing things other than posing for occasional full-family photos?

I don't know what else to say other than I hope these young people continue to get amazing support, both on the physical and emotional levels and that somehow they can figure out, and be supported in achieving, a positive outcome for themselves.
 
No disrespect to anyone. Definitely not towards the 13 victims. Again I see it as description of which photo referencing. Matter of fact there are 2 different ones with those shirts on.
My grands have same type shirts and while I am not saying it same situation, we are not referring to the victims as Things, only their shirts. More important stuff to discuss jmho.

With all due respect, your grands may have the same shirts, but the context is innocent and has nothing to do with the horrific experience of these siblings and their sadistic parents' view of them as things to be abused in the most inhumane ways.

Referring to the photo as "the numbered picture" rather than the "thing" picture, and referring the the actual human beings and victims in the photo as "sibling #1, or sibling #2" rather than "thing #1 and so forth is the more important stuff to discuss.

Upholding their humanity and dignity is the of the utmost importance and is a profound way of contributing to their healing. Posts on the internet live forever. Someday they will google themselves.

Sorry. I cannot see what can be much more important than that. Their parents certainly didn't.

We should.

This isn't about us. It's about them.
 
They were brainwashed and had no resources. This seems a little harsh.

Didn't an older one try to escape long ago? One report said a neighbour offered the girl a ride and she asked how to get a job and a drivers license.
After some head cracking, starving and some choking your ambitions may shrink a bit.
 
BBM

Respectfully, it is important to discuss. The sensitivity of members (and victims/survivors) should be respected and not discounted IMO. Although it may just seem like a convenient descriptive reference, if it makes members cringe when the expression “Thing” is used, it would be respectful to the sensitivities of members and victims/survivors to find another way to reference those photos.

Words have power and those children were degraded and were treated like “things.” If they ever read here, I hate for them to see us calling them that just because it’s easier. We can’t really split hairs and say we are only talking about their shirts. We have no idea how they felt about those shirts. Not everything Dr Seuss wrote was fun. They are all victims and thankfully, survivors. Let’s honor them. Personally, I would like to see them called “Survivor 1, 2, etc.”
JMO

Survivor in lieu of Sibling...YES. YES. and YES!!!!
 
I've been trying to catch up since day 2 and I'm still only near the end of thread #3

This post stands out at the moment

posted by enelram



I was curious who was the abuser of EJ, and this post says it was the father and that it started after LT left home. .

SBM

Did anyone else watch 20/20 tonight? I thought I heard EJ say tonight that the abuse was by a trusted family friend. Is this another changed story or did I misunderstand?
 
In the photo of the kids sitting on the couch in red shirts and barefooted...the girl on the right looks sickly..looks emaciated and looks like she can barely sit up...is that the eldest?

I wish I could see their faces to see their expressions because I wouldn't be surprised if her face looks very ill too.

If you mean the second sibling from the right, that's boy #2. He is leaning back on the couch as if he's too weak, I agree. The boniness of his feet and ankles in particular is horrifying. I believe he would be between 22-24 now. The photo is with the baby, so it must be less than 3 years ago or so when it was taken.
 
BBM

Respectfully, it is important to discuss. The sensitivity of members (and victims/survivors) should be respected and not discounted IMO. Although it may just seem like a convenient descriptive reference, if it makes members cringe when the expression “Thing” is used, it would be respectful to the sensitivities of members and victims/survivors to find another way to reference those photos.

Words have power and those children were degraded and were treated like “things.” If they ever read here, I hate for them to see us calling them that just because it’s easier. We can’t really split hairs and say we are only talking about their shirts. We have no idea how they felt about those shirts. Not everything Dr Seuss wrote was fun. They are all victims and thankfully, survivors. Let’s honor them. Personally, I would like to see them called “Survivor 1, 2, etc.”
JMO

God Bless You Lilibet :loveyou:
 
:peace:
With all due respect, your grands may have the same shirts, but the context is innocent and has nothing to do with the horrific experience of these siblings and their sadistic parents' view of them as things to be abused in the most inhumane ways.

Referring to the photo as "the numbered picture" rather than the "thing" picture, and referring the the actual human beings and victims in the photo as "sibling #1, or sibling #2" rather than "thing #1 and so forth is the more important stuff to discuss.

Upholding their humanity and dignity is the of the utmost importance and is a profound way of contributing to their healing. Posts on the internet live forever. Someday they will google themselves.

Sorry. I cannot see what can be much more important than that. Their parents certainly didn't.

We should.

This isn't about us. It's about them.

I made a post and self reported for clarification for others. I have respect for all victims and especially these kids. This isn't about "them" it is about the dang shirts they are wearing. No where referenced the victims as things.
And the context again is only identification of photo and I not first to bring it up.
And respectfully, describing some of things about any and all would upset me more than someone referencing name of a shirt from Dr Seuss theme. Describing opinions of what think of how dressed, features, some comments make me cringe but I scroll and roll. Again no disrespect respect ever intended towards any of the 13 victims.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
54
Guests online
2,508
Total visitors
2,562

Forum statistics

Threads
602,490
Messages
18,141,142
Members
231,409
Latest member
relaxininaz
Back
Top