CA - 13 victims, ages 2 to 29, shackled in home by parents, Perris, 15 Jan 2018 #7

[arkansasmimi]

California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 1382
http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-1382.html
(a) The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, shall order the action to be dismissed in the following cases:

(1) When a person has been held to answer for a public offense and an information is not filed against that person within 15 days.

(2) In a felony case, when a defendant is not brought to trial within 60 days of the defendant's arraignment on an indictment or information, or reinstatement of criminal proceedings pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1367 ) of Title 10 of Part 2, or, in case the cause is to be tried again following a mistrial, an order granting a new trial from which an appeal is not taken, or an appeal from the superior court, within 60 days after the mistrial has been declared, after entry of the order granting the new trial, or after the filing of the remittitur in the trial court, or after the issuance of a writ or order which, in effect, grants a new trial, within 60 days after notice of the writ or order is filed in the trial court and served upon the prosecuting attorney, or within 90 days after notice of the writ or order is filed in the trial court and served upon the prosecuting attorney in any case where the district attorney chooses to resubmit the case for a preliminary examination after an appeal or the issuance of a writ reversing a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty prior to a preliminary hearing.  However, an action shall not be dismissed under this paragraph if either of the following circumstances exists:

(A) The defendant enters a general waiver of the 60-day trial requirement.  A general waiver of the 60-day trial requirement entitles the superior court to set or continue a trial date without the sanction of dismissal should the case fail to proceed on the date set for trial.  If the defendant, after proper notice to all parties, later withdraws, in open court, his or her waiver in the superior court, the defendant shall be brought to trial within 60 days of the date of that withdrawal.  Upon the withdrawal of a general time waiver in open court, a trial date shall be set and all parties shall be properly notified of that date.  If a general time waiver is not expressly entered, subparagraph (B) shall apply.

(B) The defendant requests or consents to the setting of a trial date beyond the 60-day period.  In the absence of an express general time waiver from the defendant, or upon the withdrawal of a general time waiver, the court shall set a trial date.  Whenever a case is set for trial beyond the 60-day period by request or consent, expressed or implied, of the defendant without a general waiver, the defendant shall be brought to trial on the date set for trial or within 10 days thereafter.

Whenever a case is set for trial after a defendant enters either a general waiver as to the 60-day trial requirement or requests or consents, expressed or implied, to the setting of a trial date beyond the 60-day period pursuant to this paragraph, the court may not grant a motion of the defendant to vacate the date set for trial and to set an earlier trial date unless all parties are properly noticed and the court finds good cause for granting that motion.

(3) Regardless of when the complaint is filed, when a defendant in a misdemeanor or infraction case is not brought to trial within 30 days after he or she is arraigned or enters his or her plea, whichever occurs later, if the defendant is in custody at the time of arraignment or plea, whichever occurs later, or in all other cases, within 45 days after the defendant's arraignment or entry of the plea, whichever occurs later, or in case the cause is to be tried again following a mistrial, an order granting a new trial from which no appeal is taken, or an appeal from a judgment in a misdemeanor or infraction case, within 30 days after the mistrial has been declared, after entry of the order granting the new trial, or after the remittitur is filed in the trial court, or within 30 days after the date of the reinstatement of criminal proceedings pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1367 ).  However, an action shall not be dismissed under this subdivision if any of the following circumstances exists:

(A) The defendant enters a general waiver of the 30-day or 45-day trial requirement.  A general waiver of the 30-day or 45-day trial requirement entitles the court to set or continue a trial date without the sanction of dismissal should the case fail to proceed on the date set for trial.  If the defendant, after proper notice to all parties, later withdraws, in open court, his or her waiver in the superior court, the defendant shall be brought to trial within 30 days of the date of that withdrawal.  Upon the withdrawal of a general time waiver in open court, a trial date shall be set and all parties shall be properly notified of that date.  If a general time waiver is not expressly entered, subparagraph (B) shall apply.

(B) The defendant requests or consents to the setting of a trial date beyond the 30-day or 45-day period.  In the absence of an express general time waiver from the defendant, or upon the withdrawal of a general time waiver the court shall set a trial date.  Whenever a case is set for trial beyond the 30-day or 45-day period by request or consent, expressed or implied, of the defendant without a general waiver, the defendant shall be brought to trial on the date set for trial or within 10 days thereafter.

(C) The defendant in a misdemeanor case has been ordered to appear on a case set for hearing prior to trial, but the defendant fails to appear on that date and a bench warrant is issued, or the case is not tried on the date set for trial because of the defendant's neglect or failure to appear, in which case the defendant shall be deemed to have been arraigned within the meaning of this subdivision on the date of his or her subsequent arraignment on a bench warrant or his or her submission to the court.

(b) Whenever a defendant has been ordered to appear in superior court on a felony case set for trial or set for a hearing prior to trial after being held to answer, if the defendant fails to appear on that date and a bench warrant is issued, the defendant shall be brought to trial within 60 days after the defendant next appears in the superior court unless a trial date previously had been set which is beyond that 60-day period.

(c) If the defendant is not represented by counsel, the defendant shall not be deemed under this section to have consented to the date for the defendant's trial unless the court has explained to the defendant his or her rights under this section and the effect of his or her consent.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

I've seen pictures in articles with both THIS look, and the smiling, because both happened. I didn't see any articles that stated that she smiled through the entire thing.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

It looked like she was grinning ear to ear like she knew she was in a fantastic photo op with the media. She even smiled in that mugshot of hers. I don't think the fact that the media is reporting that she smiled in the hearing is the fault of the media. If the defendant wants to portray a particular emotion at a public hearing, then that is purely on the defendant. If the defendant wants to smirk in that mugshot of hers, that is the defendant's fault. She probably gained pleasure and smiled as she tortured these children. It is no surprise that she continues to smile in court. And she will probably continue to do so.

 

[vlpate]

IMO it is partly because we are obsessed with the idea of liberty and freedom in this country. That in itself is not a bad thing. But many of our biggest failures in American society can be traced at least somewhat to the fact that we don't want to infringe on other's rights or privacy.

Hence, we don't pass legislation that might be seen as infringing on the rights of people to homeschool, the rights of people to operate private religious schools and institutions how they see fit, the rights of people to own guns, the rights of people to keep their animals (technically their property) any way they choose, etc. - anything that would require regulation if the individual. This country hates regulations.

This country hates authority to an extent. We will fight tooth and nail against people in authoritative positions abusing power (LE shootings and the metoo movement, for instance), but when it comes to individual rights, we freak out.

People see the problems, want them to be magically fixed, but when anyone suggests that part of the solution is more regulations, they balk. And their answer is nearly always that the problem lies with people being mentally ill (whether it's gun violence, child abuse, animal abuse, etc.)

BUT then when we say, ok, let's do something about the mentally ill having some sort of restrictions, they balk again because they fear those restrictions may affect them somehow.

There is a pervasive fear of loss of liberty or freedom in our society that is so ingrained in us that we would rather continue to see stories like this instead of allowing authorities to regulate some of our activities.

It's insane, IMO, doing the same thing over and over again with the same results.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I agree with everything you wrote...but I would point out, children have rights too, and there are plenty of laws that address abuse and neglect, they just aren't enforced because there is so little awareness and almost no public outrage. We see animal abuse ads all the time, but very rarely do we see child abuse ads.

I don't see mental illness as the main culprit in child abuse...just as I don't see it as a culprit in most domestic violence cases - IMO it's more about power and control...traits passed down from (most often), the father...submission is the (most often), mother's contribution. Vicious cycle of unchecked human ownership abuse. JMO of course.

 

[webaddict]

Finland here!

Lähetetty minun G3121 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

INDIA here!

 

[arkansasmimi]

I don't mean this to be rude to you, it's just how I feel. But I don't really care when she smiled. There is no point in time when this crazy *advertiser censored** should be smiling.

Not vlpate, but jmho point is just what has happened, all the discussion of opinion by one ss in court as if she was all smiles. Just like the ss of -DT. How many times have we seen a ss from a video or shot where someone looks horrible or some way that when you see the whole thing in full of context is totally different. People have formed opinions of these people by headlines and ss. Those are not evidence. Jmho

 

[msphilosopher]

I keep seeing the age disparity being mentioned.. Actually, if numbers that have been presented are accurate, LT and DT have 6 years and 7 months age difference. Not ten years, or eleven as suggested by '27 or 28yo'.
DT was 23 yrs 4 mos, and LT was 16 yrs 9 mos when they married 2-11-85.

Currently DT is 56, and LT is 49.

(I am sensitive to the age thing.. My late husband was 17 years older than me. We were together happily for 24 years. I have never thought that someone would think about us what you are suggesting about them based on age difference, Perhaps they did and I never knew it.)




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

THANK YOU for correcting me! I totally recalled him being 59 and her 47-48, so either news report was wrong or I remembered incorrectly. Most likely the later

I am sensitive to the age thing as well.... My great gma was 20+ years younger than my great gpa and they lived happily for 25 yrs until she left him for a younger man. My great gma was not groomed and she ran the show so to speak.

However! I am also sensitive to the fact that we didn't really know about "grooming" like we do now. But this does not excuse her actions as I've stated

Either way, I'm sure we're going to find out a lot more about these dynamics. These poor kids. Breaks my heart.

 

[dixiegirl1035]

(O/T: I love the little WS census that is going on here)

Unfortunately, it reminds me of another case where there was so much going on outside the case in Chief, that nobody focused on the charges itself. I have gone through the last page of threads and see it is a majority of the post. IMHO.

 

[TickettyBoo]

Another from Scotland here!

:loveyou: Happy Burns night x

 

[Deleted member 158085]

I agree with everything you wrote...but I would point out, children have rights too, and there are plenty of laws that address abuse and neglect, they just aren't enforced because there is so little awareness and almost no public outrage. We see animal abuse ads all the time, but very rarely do we see child abuse ads.

I don't see mental illness as the main culprit in child abuse...just as I don't see it as a culprit in most domestic violence cases - IMO it's more about power and control...traits passed down from (most often), the father...submission is the (most often), mother's contribution. Vicious cycle of unchecked human ownership abuse. JMO of course.

Right. And at some point in time I guess this country decided all children have a right to be educated, despite any family or financial circumstances, thus they have to be enrolled in school. However, instead of making sure that right is not denied, and that they are in fact being educated in a safe environment, we have allowed parental rights to not be interfered with in some states, and so there is little to no oversight of homeschooling. It seems parents' rights are overshadowing the rights of the children that we long ago decided they have.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[sar2them1984]

England here!

Isn't it amazing how people,strangers from all over the world can be touched by these children, concerned about their welfare and yet their own blinking parents couldnt?!

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Rocco]

With regards to family members wanting to adopt the younger children: Six of them are now children, by next year one of them will be 18 so will be an adult. Of the 5 remaining children, 4 of them will be teenagers. I would think they would have some input as to where they want to live and I highly doubt they would want to live on the other side of the country, away from their other 8 siblings.

 

[laikawolf]

It looks like the rodeo photographs were taken at a place called Billy Bob's in Fort Worth Texas. It's a sort of honky-tonk, bar, rodeo, music venue type of place. So I think it's speculation to think this had anything to do with the alleged trip to Huntsville for a little husband-approved polyamory. However, I do think this could have likely been one of those nights when LT was "sowing her wild oats." She looks plastered.

 

[Pug09]

I need to catch up!! These threads are so long, which is great! Just need to find the time to catch up.

Do we know when the adults and children will be transferred from the hospitals to assisted living and the two foster homes?

 

[ElizabethAnne]

I agree with everything you wrote...but I would point out, children have rights too, and there are plenty of laws that address abuse and neglect, they just aren't enforced because there is so little awareness and almost no public outrage. We see animal abuse ads all the time, but very rarely do we see child abuse ads.

I don't see mental illness as the main culprit in child abuse...just as I don't see it as a culprit in most domestic violence cases - IMO it's more about power and control...traits passed down from (most often), the father...submission is the (most often), mother's contribution. Vicious cycle of unchecked human ownership abuse. JMO of course.

I believe that one of the big problems with child abuse in the public schools is that it is usually done by a school teacher or coach and then the school district tries to protect the school teacher or coach and then harasses the victim. This also happens when a student is the perpetrator and another student is the victim. If you Google the Palo Alto Unified School District you can find horror story after horror story. Also this is one of the most expensive school districts in the country, but for some reason, sexual abuse seems to permeate the place. When a student reports it, they are then harassed by the District lawyers and staff until they eventually drop out of school. They treat the victim like the criminal. If the victim sues the school district, the school district then files briefs saying it was the victim's fault.

I personally think that child abuse happens with more frequency in public schools and institutions that are supposedly highly regulated than in home schools. I don't know how many times in Northern California there is every couple of weeks some story about teachers molesting students in all sorts of public school districts. This goes on for years. Also, how can we explain how Nassar got away with it so long at various high schools, the University of Michigan, the Olympic team, etc? A lot of these so-called regulated institutions completely enable or justify the abusers and then attempt to hush those that speak out and silence the victims/survivors. Nassar got away with this for 20 years which I would suspect is about the same length of time the Turpins abused their children.

 

[Deleted member 158085]

Apparently the media is being tried in this thread. I'm not saying it's not a valid issue, but the truth is that it could be tried in every single thread in WS, and if that is an overriding concern for folks, then I would suggest starting a media thread.

I'm not saying we shouldn't mention it here, but at some point it does become like beating a dead horse once it's been explored already a good deal. It becomes a battle of wills between posters to prove their point, and takes the focus off of the crime and the victims. JMO.

IMO, it's on us to be critical thinkers. We all know just from watching the nightly news that they try to grab us with headlines. Most of us have the ability to further research online if we determine a source is all about headlines. We often have access to more photos and videos.

Regarding the photos of LT smiling, first, it is newsworthy that she was smiling at all (especially when she is grinning in her mugshot - there is a pattern here). And second, most of the articles I saw had a variety of photos with a variety of expressions on her face, not limited to her grinning. I do not feel mislead, partly because none of the sources indicate she was grinning the entire time, and common sense says she probably was not.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Gae]

All the headlines today declare Louise Turpin smiled as the judge told her and DT they would be barred from seeing or contacting their children...the worst case of deception on this, The weekly Standard - instead of actually showing LT's reaction, overlaid the still of her smiling as the judge reads the RO.

After searching all over for the entire hearing video, I could only find this clip, which shows she is, in fact, not smiling at all:
https://youtu.be/WDA1DH6LbD0

The American press has been reduced to click-bait, and a disturbing number of their audience eats it up, without question. These parents, as horrible as the allegations are, deserve a fair trial in a courtroom, not in the media.

Yes, I saw a headline yesterday claiming Louise "smiled through the hearing" which definitely implies she sat there with a smile on her face the whole time - which she didn't. I'm not defending Louise, but like you say, the media circus and sensationalism running amok does nothing for justice.

 

[vlpate]

I've seen pictures in articles with both THIS look, and the smiling, because both happened. I didn't see any articles that stated that she smiled through the entire thing.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I stated "headlines". Most people don't bother with the article. Regardless, what point was there in mentioning she smiled (at her lawyer once before the judge read his order)? Of course it would be downright diabolical had she smiled at the judge. There is no point other than to sensationalize a narrative that is horrible enough on its face. Most of the MSM refrained, to their credit.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

It looked like she was grinning ear to ear like she knew she was in a fantastic photo op with the media. She even smiled in that mugshot of hers. I don't think the fact that the media is reporting that she smiled in the hearing is the fault of the media. If the defendant wants to portray a particular emotion at a public hearing, then that is purely on the defendant. If the defendant wants to smirk in that mugshot of hers, that is the defendant's fault. She probably gained pleasure and smiled as she tortured these children. It is no surprise that she continues to smile in court. And she will probably continue to do so.

I think what the OP was trying to say was, if LT did both, both should be reported on (not one exclusively, and not one with headline implying one expression was the exclusive expression). At least, that's where I stand. Putting all the bits and pieces together, I believe both smiling and sober expressions happened--just wish there was a reliable media source that would consistently stay the middle ground and report all the truth instead of camping out on extreme ends.

JMO

 

[Deleted member 158085]

Unfortunately, it reminds me of another case where there was so much going on outside the case in Chief, that nobody focused on the charges itself. I have gone through the last page of threads and see it is a majority of the post. IMHO.

Those were not gratuitous posts. They were in response to the point that this case has reached a great number of people outside the country. I find it easy to scroll past simple one sentence posts if I am not interested.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Pug09]

Yes, I saw a headline yesterday claiming Louise "smiled through the hearing" which definitely implies she sat there with a smile on her face the whole time - which she didn't. I'm not defending Louise, but like you say, the media circus and sensationalism running amok does nothing for justice.

Yeah..it’s calles exaggerated/fake news. She shouldn’t have even smiled an ounce. She’s pathetic. I hope they both burn in h***.