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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not sure why we're assuming that LT is the primary instigator of the abuse and DT is a less culpable participant. I see no evidence so far that they aren't BOTH psychopaths with equal motivation, capability and culpability in abusing their kids.

Can someone explain where the theory that LT was the leader and DT the follower, when we know next to nothing at the moment about who did what to whom and for what reasons (except that DT committed a lewd act on one of the daughters) comes from?

Her behavior when she was arrested, her behavior in court, observations from the Elvis videos, she was the only one ever seen with the kids in public besides trips they were all taken on. Her attempt to look 'normal' on FB. IMO
 
Respectfully disagree for two reasons. One is that the Turpins have been a family in development for nearly three decades. Their behavior has been characterized as beginning with neglect, escalating to abuse and finally arriving at torture. I don't think even the sickest of folks one day decide to raise their children in a house of horrors. There may have been a point at which official intervention might have turning things in a different direction. Maybe not and maybe they would have just packed up and run to another county or state. But that ought not prevent making the effort.

The other is that even should they decide to "fly under the radar," by not registering their kids with the local school board (or whomever), that act alone would provide an actionable offense. In fact, a similar offense on the part of the Stanleys in Arkansas provided a part of the justification for removal and investigation. If CPS got one of those neighbor calls, along the lines of "I don't know, but something just isn't right," could prompt a database search to see if they are enrolled in school anywhere. Apparently there are even some locales where such database searches are being conducted by computer to provide an additional risk assessment (additional to the call screener) which helps to determine whether or not an in-person visit is called for.

Beyond all that, there is also the very real issue of "educational neglect." So long as there are no minimum requirements, home schoolers will include some really excellent families providing a solid education, but also some folks who are in too deeply over their heads to even recognize the harm they are doing. Kids deserve better from us.
I can't imagine any of the homeschoolers I know objecting to any of this anyway - not even my very religious and fairly private neighbors who are raising 5 kids this way. I don't think they have anything to hide and they all seem to want the best for their kids' future.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Thanks, bestill. Sister E has also said in a subsequent interview that the abuse, while done by a close family member, was *not* perpetrated by their parents, though they were instructed to keep quiet about it. (Not excusing this behavior, simply clarifying what we've been told so that rumor is not taken for fact at this stage.) If you were to read the obituary she wrote for her dad, as well as other comments she's written, it's clear she felt very close to him and admired him greatly. So it would probably grieve her as a family member to read people's comments implying that he had done so when she has stated, in fact, that he did not.

The other thing I've been mulling over--and please correct me if I'm wrong, I may have missed something. But I thought I read that there is "1 count" of lewd behavior that DT is charged with, that happened sometime during the span of a year in regards to one of their daughters. From what I've read, DT has not (yet) been charged with periodically or daily perpetuating those lewd acts upon his children "for a year." (Though we might feel logically inclined to make that conclusion.) So, while there may well be more instances and more charges coming...right now, that's where that charge stands (unless I missed a press release this morning). It's still reprehensible, all if it. It's a horrible case. But JMO, it doesn't diminish things at all to keep the facts in the forefront of the discussion, especially as there are new people coming into the threads who haven't caught up, yet.

JMO...


I have posted that Survivor #8 was sexually abused over the period of at least one year because that is what is written in the criminal complaint, explicitly, and with a very specific date range: from November (11? IIRC) 2012 on through an exact day in November, 2013.

That is info LE provided, not supposition or speculation.
 
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
 
Maybe someone could start a separate thread where people could go to debate the pros and cons of homeschooling, and leave the sleuthing to everybody else.

Great idea! Hope they will start one and move to that thread.


For those asking about LT and another man, it's in the video with the sister speaking.
 
I've been wondering about the kid's birthdays. Did they know their ages or DOB 's? I doubt they were given birthday parties or presents.
 
Probably so. It's a small thing, but in the list that the father put in his grandmother's obituary guest book message, he spells that name differently -- with a "u", not an "o".
http://www.engleshookfuneralhome.com/guestbook/1146841

p.s. There are some other typos in that court document too, though. I hope it doesn't matter.

From her obituary and his comment, it appears she had 10 children and 3 step children and David is one of eighty grandchildren, 167 great grandchildren and 63 great great grandchildren at her death in 2011. Her first husband (1932-1977) was a reverend and would have been in David’s life for many years. She is described as deeply religious. All of this impacts his life, choice of Louise at 16 and their pursuit of off spring. The obituary is a stark contrast to the realty of his own ‘family’.
 
I was thinking the exact opposite. In the photos where the girls appear to have breasts, I wonder if they were provided "stuffed" and padded bras so they appeared as thought they were progressing normally through puberty and young adulthood.
I don't think so. I was in a religious boarding school back in the 80's where I was starved down from a slim 5'9" teen with a bust (132 pounds) to between 86-88 pounds in just 4 months. My chest completely disappeared. Even my nipples regressed to a pre-pubescent state.
 
I have posted that Survivor #8 was sexually abused over the period of at least one year because that is what is written in the criminal complaint, explicitly, and with a very specific date range: from November (11? IIRC) 2012 on through an exact day in November, 2013.

That is info LE provided, not supposition or speculation.

My understanding of the wording in those documents is that the "1 count" refers to one incident that happened at some point in time during that year-long period (specific day not recalled or established by the victim, yet). If it happened more than once, it would seem to follow then that he would be charged with multiple counts of that behavior.

It could be that the legalese is confusing--and maybe I have it wrong. Does someone have a link handy? Maybe an attorney can weigh in?
 
I am confused by the whole Disney thing. Disney is a big no-no in many conservative religious families. LT could have choosen it as a form of rebellion but meeting family there is a little surprising.
Many of the pictures show clothing choices that would not be allowed in strict Pentecostal homes. There are many Pentecostal families that are not strict in this way, but a lot of the suggestion has been the family was very rigid. LT's hair is cut short in many pictures. She wears a strapless dress at the wedding. The girls wear jeans in several pictures. Of course, each local community is different in their definitions of "modesty" but those Facebook pictures were not meant to impress any strict Fundamentalist family members.
I did find it interesting that the children requested regular shirts not v-necks. V-neck shirts expose the collar bone and can be considered inappropriate in some communities.
 
I would assume that's the time period she gave them.
The rest is for the time that they came to Calif to present.

Maybe the timeframe has to do with the legal age of consent. If this is the 17 y o who is the victim, then lewd behavior prior to the age of 14 falls under a certain statute. The behavior may well have continued past the age of 14 (3 years ago), but could no longer charged as an offense against a minor.
 
The variation in animal care from one place to the next is probably this. It's unfortunately common for people to get pets, love on them, and then tire of them. Sometimes it's when puppyhood is over. Sometimes it's when the newness wears off. Often they end up chained once people tire of them. And this happens with people who otherwise live normal lives.

Now compare that to the kids and what happened when they began to grow up.

IMO, these dogs also would have eventually been abandoned/neglected just as previous dogs and cats were.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Excellent point. Sounds like she’s had them less than 2 years.
 
One of my concerns was since she is an adult, she was responsible for herself in the eyes of the law. However, they kept her, she stayed, they restrained her sometimes, is that kidnapping? Plus she didn't feel like she could leave/escape. I'm just wondering how this all plays out legally. I think there could be kidnapping here.

I don't know if it's kidnapping but I do know that you cannot hold someone against their will. And when they charged them, they charged them with torture, neglect and abuse of a dependent adult. So it doesn't really matter that she was not a minor. She and the other adult survivors were held against her will, held captive, abused and starved, and shackled their entire lives. I'm not sure of the exact laws, Gitana may be able to shed some light. But It makes sense that they are deeming them dependent adults. Because they were. It's kind of like the elderly and elder abuse. They are considered a vulnerable population and there are certain laws and legal protections around them. I feel like the court is viewing these adult survivors similarly.

IMOO
 
Post #593 by hope4more. I didn't want to post the entire thing. It's very long.

Thank you, but that post doesn't mention anything about Texas not investigating any crimes that took place there. My question was in reference to a post enelram made (below), which read that ABC News said they were not investigating. I still haven't seen a link for claim.

ABC News is reporting that there will be NO investigation done in Texas according to the Child Services organization there. Oh well.
 
I do believe the sister about Huntsville, AL. I don't know what else she said, but no one would make up some scenario about a hotel in Huntsville.

Did she also say she was abused? I am sorry that happened to her.


If this is the case though, my goodness where were the poor children kept during the trip cross country?
 
My understanding of the wording in those documents is that the "1 count" refers to one incident that happened at some point in time during that year-long period (specific day not recalled or established by the victim, yet). If it happened more than once, it would seem to follow then that he would be charged with multiple counts of that behavior.

It could be that the legalese is confusing--and maybe I have it wrong. Does someone have a link handy? Maybe an attorney can weigh in?


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.
 
"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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
105
Guests online
2,299
Total visitors
2,404

Forum statistics

Threads
601,746
Messages
18,129,204
Members
231,138
Latest member
mjF7nx
Back
Top