CA - 13 victims, ages 2 to 29, shackled in home by parents, Perris, 15 Jan 2018 #5

[Shelby2]

https://www.today.com/video/riversi...en-have-spoken-to-investigators-1142584387801

 

[dancemom]

Yes, I don't see why there's so much antagonism towards L's sister Teresa. Those weren't fake tears; she's in a state of misery. The background sexual abuse seems only too likely, and she's not presenting it as an excuse. The phasing out of contact, first in person then by Skype/phone is something she couldn't possibly have controlled. The fake "we're doing so well" stories were an effective way of blowing her off. And there's no way that she could have considered a rather seedy story of consenting-adults activity between her sister, bro-in-law and A.N. Other as in any way indicative of child abuse. She probably also feels to some extent that she needs to go to the media to defend the family from endless accusations of "they must have known". In my view, she's giving a pretty clear account of how they were prevented from knowing, and I for one feel sorry and sad for her.

I think that when we hear statements from LT's sister Teresa and brother Billy, we have to keep in mind that these are mostly based on 1) their interactions with a much older sibling, so that much of what they know about LT's life comes from what they have been told by other family members and a little of what they remember as children; and 2) things that LT told them which were often for the purpose of portraying a much more ideal life than she was actually living (re: reality show, no financial problems, buying a school bus, etc). I think that their statements are credible in that they believe them to be true, even if some of the facts are debatable. It seems to have been very important to LT that her parents and siblings believed that she had a great life and family of her own.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

There's a link in the media thread (post #13).

The charge is #13 in the complaint.

The wording is the (act alleged) took place on (a specific date in 2012) through AND INCLUDING (a specific date in 2013).

I found it interesting that the complaint included very specific dates and date range, so early in, and given the info must have been provided by a very traumatized #8 , & possibly supported by her journals?

In any case, the specificity of the dates and range excludes the possibility of it being one instance on an undetermined date.

ETA: Here is the pdf - it's in Count 13:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RUPpC-zwgDidg6AnP5bd1MioY8o80d9V/view

"That the above named defendant [DAT] committed a violation of Penal Code section 288...that on or about 11/16/2012 through and including 11/15/2013, in the county of Riverside, State of California, the defendant did willfully, unlawfully, and lewdly commit a lewd and lascivious act..."

(bbm)

I'm stilll thinking that is one count, a charge for one incident happening on an as yet unspecified day within that time period, but am hoping someone with legal expertise can weigh in.

 

[Spice]

These people never deal with what they have created. They continually start from scratch.

Get a home in good condition, simply not maintain it even in terms of basic cleaning or throwing out trash, and then abandon it and start from scratch in a new place.

Get an animal, care for it until the newness wears off and/or it becomes an adult, discard it with the home, and start from scratch with a new pet.

Have a baby, care for it until it becomes an individual separate from the mother (perhaps around the time it is no longer breastfeeding and is eating real food), discard it (probably consigning any care of it to the older ones), and start again with a new child.

Spice, what does this say, psychologically?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I can't give my professional opinion to a direct question like that without getting verified.

Only my " I am human and have a head, two eyes, and two ears" opinion. LOL.

 

[bestill]

I love this DA.

I do too! I love that he put the defense on notice that when it goes to trial he thinks the victims will testify against their parents. And he's not sensationalizing this one bit!

 

[Zelda1010]

"They were ordered to smile and dance and clap to celebrate their torturers, to celebrate their torturers having what they were all being denied, and to do all this in the name of "love." "
Sounds like North Korea!

They were so stoic, never breaking character. Even as "Elvis" sang about being caught in a trap with no way out because I love you too much.

I get light headed typing that. I had to turn it off after that song finished and "Elvis" had them clapping for Daddy and agreeing that Daddy loves them. I thought I saw the briefest shadow cross whom I believe is the 2nd eldest girl's face. I might be getting the details wrong why Elvis had them acknowledging DT at the end. I'm not an Elvis fan, so I had to Google the song and see if my mind was playing tricks on me about the whole thing.

I have to admit I almost thought it was sweet, the first bit of video I watched from the 2015 one. Maybe the kids enjoyed the music and attention, I reasoned. But I didn't really, really grasp their ages. The depth of their acting resonated more and more each time I viewed and I had to stop.

I spent a lot of time gazing at unblurred faces and comparing. The earliest one I found is the red shirts pic where they all have tubes of some sort. Rolled up posters maybe? LT holds #12 who appears in that 2-3 age range. The girls have hair ties and a few with bangs and other cute little styles. I think the crossed arms with the Jasmine-type princess was next. Then the Disney castle pic with extended family present. Then there were some other red shirt pics. Seeing the age progression side by side that way really let it sink in. My brain couldn't stop seeing them as stair step kids from 2-19 (with the tallest boy as 19) until I saw them actually at those approximate ages and the eerie pause button effect in all the pics. It is easy to mistake one girl for another....even the boys maybe, when viewing the pics randomly.

Do we have a chronological picture post? I know they'd be blurred here, but it could be useful for newcomers none-the-less.

 

[PeggyAnnMcKay]

"Riverside County District Attorney Michael Hestrin discusses on Megyn Kelly TODAY the latest details about the horrific treatment of the 13 children who were chained to their beds and held captive inside their California home. He tells Megyn Kelly that the children are “providing significant information” and that he thinks “they’ll be witnesses” in their parents’ trial."
From the Today show link above.

So could this mean that the DA isn't willing to accept any kind of a plea deal? I really hate that the kids would have to testify, but at the same time it could be very therapeutic for them to face their parents in court.

From a selfish point of view, I want a trial. I want to hear from the parents. My brain is trying so hard to make sense out of all of this - to find some reasoning, or something that helps it makes sense. But it just doesn't compute.

 

[Niseyg123]

Forgive me if this had already been posted. Came across searching the web for more info. Not to let DT off the hook at all, but def lends some credence to the idea that LT was indeed the primary instigator of abuse... " 70% of victims mistreated by the mother, the large majority of those times without the participation of the father..."
thought the brief discussion of possible psychiatric issues interesting. Beyond bipolar schizophrenia was not even on my radar... what says u, those who are delving into the psychiatric side of things?
http://time.com/5109959/turpin-parents-children-torture/



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[December]

If this is the case though, my goodness where were the poor children kept during the trip cross country?

(While parents were in Alabama)

Hmmmm... Good question. I think there is another factor to this case we don't know. I do not really know what.

But, there are only 3 possibilities (if it happened as described):
1. The kids could be left alone.
2. There was someone watching the kids.
3. The kids went to Alabama and were stashed somewhere while the parents met some dude.

 

[Corina]

From your link (though it is the DM) WTF -

Teresa Robinette, the younger sister of California 'house of horrors' mom Louise Turpin, appeared on Megyn Kelly Today on Monday
Robinette revealed a startling conversation she had with her sister, around 2009
She says her sister called her up and told her about how her husband, David, was driving her to Alabama to have sex with a man she met online
A year later, Louise allegedly told her sister that her husband was driving her back to Alabama so they could have sex together in the same hotel room

I still have several pages to catch up but wanted to observe that I was struck by how dates, anniversaries, and re-enactments seem to have been *so important* to this couple... Re-creating stuff...

Will not try to comprehend.

 

[gitana1]

Just to clarify. Once they pass age 19, the adult children would not be dependents unless they are in college full time (to age 26) or legally declared disabled. Since they haven't been to the dr in years, it's likely that they aren't legally defined as disabled.

It sounds to me that the oldest male took a music class at a local college. I doubt he was attending full time.

There are different interpretations for "dependant adult" depending on context. In this context the DA means that they are adults with an intellectual or other disability:

What Is Elder or Dependent Adult Abuse?

Abuse of an elder or a dependent adult is abuse of:

• Someone 65 years old or older; or
• A dependent adult, who is someone between 18 and 64 that has certain mental or physical disabilities that keep him or her from being able to do normal activities or protect himself or herself.

The law says elder or dependent adult abuse is:

• Physical abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction (taking the person out of the state against his or her will), or other behavior that causes physical harm, pain, or mental suffering; OR
• Deprivation by a caregiver of things or services that the elder or dependent adult needs to avoid physical harm or mental suffering.

Read about the law in Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.07.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-elder.htm

ETA: They don't necessarily have to have had a diagnosis prior to the abuse or neglect to be legally declared a dependent adult. However, I am sure that these young people were diagnosed in the hospital as dependent.

Sadly, the abuse and neglect as children likely made them that way which then created new crimes when the maltreatment continued into adulthood.

 

[rsd1200]

I'm thinking a bizarre sense of humor, or an inside joke. For it to be an inside joke, he'd have to have friends, though.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I'm so far behind. I've been under the weather and had family over yesterday, but trying to catch up. The odd sense of humor. I have a bit of an odd sense of humor, I'e been told, as does a sibling. Maybe DT is Nikola Tesla fan and liked to discuss different ways of harnessing light into a new light bulb. I think that's what we also see when she, or he, cracks wise with the obgyn, back in TX, and comments that they'e missed her, and her staff, and had "no desire to reproduce" without her (loosely quoted). I'm going off track a bit, but, if you'll note, while in TX she had a child almost annually! That obgyn had to almost be like a friend.

The first child came in 1988. Then, there was a lapse. Then she had a child in
'92, '93, '95 ,'97 based on birth certs on file. Below are guesstimates by OP based on ages.
'98, '99, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and, finally, in 2015, the only child born in CA.

From what I've read, the children were not held captive in TX. They were kinda Free range, but kept close, though. I have a theory that mom was happy while expecting a child, and, while the new child was an infant. It seems that the shackling and starving and actual torture type of conditions, didn't begin until around 2010. This would coincide with four years and NO successful pregnancy and NO infant. DT may have gone into a huge downward spiral. Hence, the recent Vegas Vow renewals, every two years. Hoping it would spark something? It could have even been his idea, in an effort to get her amorous, and ultimately, pregnant and happy. (Weird I know, but, some women love to be pregnant. I'm not one of them though.)

It would also explain why, in 2011, when DTs parents and brother visited, the kids may have seemed thin, and somewhat small, but didn't look, like they apparently look now, 7 years later, which was horrible enough to cause hospital staff, to start weeping. The T.s could have brushed it off as allergies. I've seen some thin kids who had severe allergies.

 

[Spice]

ETA: Nevermind.

 

[Hope4More]

ETA: Here is the pdf - it's in Count 13:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RUPpC-zwgDidg6AnP5bd1MioY8o80d9V/view

"That the above named defendant [DAT] committed a violation of Penal Code section 288...that on or about 11/16/2012 through and including 11/15/2013, in the county of Riverside, State of California, the defendant did willfully, unlawfully, and lewdly commit a lewd and lascivious act..."

(bbm)

I'm stilll thinking that is one count, a charge for one incident happening on an as yet unspecified day within that time period, but am hoping someone with legal expertise can weigh in.

I'd be interested as well in having an attorney who is familiar with CA code interpret that charge.

But, absent that for the moment......compare the language of that charge with the other charges relating to abuse/torture. Those other charges also cite a specific date range- in each case, the exact period of time in CA from day 1 through the date of arrest, but each cites a single violation of a specific law.

 

[Shelby2]

So could this mean that the DA isn't willing to accept any kind of a plea deal? I really hate that the kids would have to testify, but at the same time it could be very therapeutic for them to face their parents in court.

From a selfish point of view, I want a trial. I want to hear from the parents. My brain is trying so hard to make sense out of all of this - to find some reasoning, or something that helps it makes sense. But it just doesn't compute.

I feel the same. But I wonder if we will ever really get any answers.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Researcher here. Nope, they will not be used for research purposes. Too many ethical issues for any institution to want to even touch them, and they would not be considered to have enough value or benefit to risk harm to the subjects. The only way someone could use them is if they enter the public record. But even then, they wouldn't be considered valid data unless the researchers had access to the original sources, which, again, isn't going to happen. I don't know where you heard academics use personal journals. It's more in the context of important historic figures who have entered their notes and journals into the public record. There's always permissions and consent involved though, and in particular with vulnerable populations, minor children and those who are institutionalized or otherwise compromised. You can't just claim personal journals for research purposes without consent of the owner. I think you might be thinking of the Genie case, which happened in the early 1970s before institutional review boards and international research ethics standards were created to protect research participants particularly as a response to cases like Genie, and other children/babies, racial minority men and women, and prisoners were used as research subjects without proper consent and ethical standards of confidentiality, risk/benefit and minimization of harm being considered.

I believe that there was an interview in which someone with legal expertise was discussing how the journals could and could not be used. Example, if any of the offspring testify in court, they could use them to refresh their memory. The journals themselves could not be entered as evidence, as that would deny defense the opportunity for cross examination. Then there was something of a ramble off in the direction of the journals having potential value to researchers. Not implying that anyone was intending to hand them over. Could envision a scenario in which the journal creators might be willing to hand them to a researcher (or perhaps leave them in a will?), or even collaborate in publishing them at some point--which would have value to the research community.

 

[JaneEyre]

Ergh tapatalk keeps taking the media links page off my followed discussions page. Can someone please give link to that again. Search not pulling it up either. [emoji36]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Make sure you are viewing subscribed pages and not timeline or participated pages. Easy to do on accident. Look at the banner across your tapatalk to check.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[gitana1]

I'm so far behind. I've been under the weather and had family over yesterday, but trying to catch up. The odd sense of humor. I have a bit of an odd sense of humor, I'e been told, as does a sibling. Maybe DT is Nikola Tesla fan and liked to discuss different ways of harnessing light into a new light bulb. I think that's what we also see when she, or he, cracks wise with the obgyn, back in TX, and comments that they'e missed her, and her staff, and had "no desire to reproduce" without her (loosely quoted). I'm going off track a bit, but, if you'll note, while in TX she had a child almost annually! That obgyn had to almost be like a friend.

The first child came in 1988. Then, there was a lapse. Then she had a child in
'92, '93, '95 ,'97 based on birth certs on file. Below are guesstimates by OP based on ages.
'98, '99, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and, finally, in 2015, the only child born in CA.

From what I've read, the children were not held captive in TX. They were kinda Free range, but kept close, though. I have a theory that mom was happy while expecting a child, and, while the new child was an infant. It seems that the shackling and starving and actual torture type of conditions, didn't begin until around 2010. This would coincide with four years and NO successful pregnancy and NO infant. DT may have gone into a huge downward spiral. Hence, the recent Vegas Vow renewals, every two years. Hoping it would spark something? It could have even been his idea, in an effort to get her amorous, and ultimately, pregnant and happy. (Weird I know, but, some women love to be pregnant. I'm not one of them though.)

It would also explain why, in 2011, when DTs parents and brother visited, the kids may have seemed thin, and somewhat small, but didn't look, like they apparently look now, 7 years later, which was horrible enough to cause hospital staff, to start weeping. The T.s could have brushed it off as allergies. I've seen some thin kids who had severe allergies.

They were indeed held captive in TX. They were hogtied and then shackled there.

 

[Margo/Mom]

I hope the District Attorney's office appoints a guardian ad litem for the children to represent them in any hearings. I don't know the law in this matter, but since there's adult children and minor children, there might have to be two guardians ad litem appointed.

Props for knowing that plural of guardian ad litem is guardians ad litem (not guardian ad litems).

 

[margarita25]

The Corona Chamber of Commerce will deliver cards to the children at the hospital.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh yay! :heart: