CA - 13 victims, ages 2 to 29, shackled in home by parents, Perris, 15 Jan 2018 #9

[Shelby2]

If that's the case, then it illustrates that she lacks a certain filter in her head about what things are appropriate to discuss and what things are not. Whether the tryst happened or not.

But discussing something like that with her sister is a lot different than discussing it with someone she's only acquainted with.

 

[Midgie2]

I don't think this has anything to do with anyone being lazy. With a lazy parent I would expect to see neglect, not supervising children, etc. This took work, what they did to those kids. Hiding them, making them march in circles, appearing normal on FB, among other things-they are just sadistic people and one is as bad as the other.

They are definitely sadistic also. What I mean by "lazy" is the filth and feces, the family living in it then just up and leaving to greener pastures. Plus, I think her answer to everything that she couldn't control with the kids, possibly even the "terrible twos", was to tie or lock them up. The marching them around at night was just outright warfare tactics. The children could have at least spent more time doing there schoolwork. I know homeschooling parents, and it's mostly taught on the computer, with the parent checking in at the end of a lesson, etc.

 

[Zelda1010]

Unsure about #12 at this point. The initial reports were that "a 14-year-old and an 11-year-old were freed from restraints" when the authorities arrived, which would indicate that she wasn't yet 12. But that would make her birth year 2006, not 2005. If other (bankrupcy) records say 2005, then the initial reports would be wrong. Do those reports actually say #12 was born in 2005?? I haven't seen them.
I take the "10 years" with a grain of salt, as in an approximation. Somebody could have said "almost 10 years" and it got passed on as "10 years".

Perfect.

If an 11 year old was restrained in January 2018, she had to be born in 2006, or first two weeks of 2007.

The same child, born in 2006 would turn four in 2010 (turning five sometime after early January 2011)

Sorry, life happened while I was typing...hope this isn't dead horse territory already.

 

[ilovepierre]

BBM: How do you and I know that? I don't have links, myself, but seem to think I know that too. For me, could be lazy media reporting er artistic license.

Another poster seems to think he or she knows the youngest child was 4 in 2011, concedes bankruptcy docs could be wrong, but seems more comfortable with the documentation until other proof is found. That does seem pretty reasonable to me, too.

I'm just going by the listed ages of the children.
But again, I could be wrong about the ages.
It's possible I misread something...
I know in earlier threads, there was discussion about how strange it was that LT had another child 10 years after #12 was born.
That's what I've been basing my info from.
:gaah:

 

[Midgie2]

But discussing something like that with her sister is a lot different than discussing it with someone she's only acquainted with.

I think a lot of what LT said to her sisters was said so LT could feel superior or get a rise out of the sisters. She wanted nothing more than her family back home to think she left home and she led a fabulous life in TX, CA. So she could feel better than the rest of her siblings.
JMO

 

[WestieMom]

Im catching up so it may have already been said but IMO there is a 12th child with back to the camera between the other children as indicated by my very poorly drawn arrow.

MOO

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I saw that too and think it’s another child as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gae]

I've lived in the rural South, where there are lots and lots of folks who are religious fundamentalists. Let me share some insights from my own observation.

It is true that the fundamentalist model for the family is that the man (husband, father) is the head and religious leader of the household, and that the woman (wife, mother) ought to submit to the husband and obey him. The biblical authority for this (for a fundamentalist doesn't believe anything unless there is biblical authority) is Ephesians 5:22-24: "[FONT=&amp]Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.[/FONT][FONT=&amp]For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."]

In theory, this is a patriarchal arrangement, since the man is the leader of the household. In practice, however, many times you have a more matriarchal situation, where the woman is the spiritual and actual leader---the stronger personality in the home--and the man goes along to get along. It is the woman who voluntarily wears dresses and has her daughters do the same; who drags the children and the husband to church on Sunday, though you would be surprised to know how many women carry the children to church when the father sleeps in.

So the ideal is to have the husband/father as the spiritual leader of the household, and I have no doubt that LT's preacher father was a very strong and dominant figure in her household, to the extent that it was abusive. That is the only kind of family that LT knew when she left home at sixteen to start her family with DT. And I think that she set out to establish that traditional hierarchy in her own home, and expected DT to lead, and taught the children to greet him in certain ways and to defer to "his authority." Notice that the sister said that LT made the children greet DT in certain ways, and she made the children smile before they could eat and all of that. She was the one in charge.

So I do think that LT was the dominant personality in the household, and that DT was the breadwinner and was more passive. THIS DOES NOT EXCUSE DT FROM CULPABILITY, because, even if he deferred to LT for 30 years, he knew better, he knew what she was doing was wrong, and he could have and should have stopped it.

[BTW, I bet we would find that DT's mother had a strong personality, too. A man is often attracted to a woman that reminds him of his mother.]

All MOO.[/FONT]

As someone who was raised in a fundamentalist religion environment, you are correct in your analysis of how often self-proclaimed patriarchal families are actually matriarchal in practice. Spot on, Bill Carson.

 

[Deleted member 278]

I know the children deserve their privacy, but I wish we would hear something as to how they are doing. Mind me, I don't want to hear of any problems they are having. I just want to hear, "They are doing well."

 

[Midgie2]

But discussing something like that with her sister is a lot different than discussing it with someone she's only acquainted with.

Something that I don't understand is, LT, her sisters and her mother were allegedly sexually molested/abused, by a family member who is quite old now. I think one sister has even written a book that included this. Why was this person never ARRESTED? And they kept having contact with the abuser! I really don't understand this.

 

[Deleted member 158085]

Something that I don't understand is, LT, her sisters and her mother were allegedly sexually molested/abused, by a family member who is quite old now. I think one sister has even written a book that included this. Why was this person never ARRESTED? And they kept having contact with the abuser! I really don't understand this.

This happened in my family as well during roughly the same time period. Back then people did not know that offenders could likely not be rehabilitated/change, and that prosecution was crucial to protecting others in the future from that person. And back then there was a lot more shame associated with it for the victims. People did not pursue a legal route because they did not want their kids to go through more hell when what they suffered became public knowledge. Even with minor's names withheld, someone being prosecuted for molesting a family member narrows the field, creates gossip, and area people will know who the victim is.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[bellesnwhistles]

I know LTs father is deceased but is her mother still alive?

 

[SkipperKey3]

I think a lot of what LT said to her sisters was said so LT could feel superior or get a rise out of the sisters. She wanted nothing more than her family back home to think she left home and she led a fabulous life in TX, CA. So she could feel better than the rest of her siblings.
JMO

If I remember correctly, the sister was surprised to hear that they had been through bankrupcy, because the picture LT painted for her was that they were and had always been quite well off.

 

[SkipperKey3]

As someone who was raised in a fundamentalist religion environment, you are correct in your analysis of how often self-proclaimed patriarchal families are actually matriarchal in practice. Spot on, Bill Carson.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It would be a mistake to generalize either way. Each family has its own dynamics.

 

[ilovepierre]

I know LTs father is deceased but is her mother still alive?

Both her parents are deceased.

 

[ocgrad]

I know LTs father is deceased but is her mother still alive?

No. She died the same year her father died but they were not married at the time. LT has step brothers with 2 different last names so it appears she was married at least 2 more times. I do not believe she was not married at her time of death as her obit gives no mention of a spouse at all.

 

[vlpate]

Because as a society we expect much more of women in parenting roles - well, in most roles, pretty much. They are either the angel or the devil, the virgin Mary or the wh*re. Even as we think of ourselves as modern and forward thinking, even feminists can fall into the trap of blaming the woman more. It's ingrained in us to think this way. It's damaging us as we do so, IMO.

Look at the Sherin Mathews thread and you will find the same thing. Seriously, people are convinced that the mother is more responsible, and they will be unless they see an actual video of the father killing her while the mother slept. And even if they saw that, I believe people would still find reasons to say she was more responsible and the cause of the father doing it.

The woman is nearly always blamed more, even if for just "allowing" it to happen. She is supposed to be the nurturing one, the moral one, having those supposedly "feminine" qualities, while also having the strength of superwoman to overcome any man's actions toward her children. Posters will call it "being mama bear," which is the ability to be both nurturing and loving while also having some kind of super human strength (physical and mental) to fight off any danger towards her children.

I find myself "almost" going there in my mind, and the only reason I don't is because of my background in Women's Studies and my amazing literature professors who highlighted the angel/wh*re tropes in literature throughout the ages.

Please don't think that I am criticizing anyone here. It is a hard thing to do to get past how we are indoctrinated from birth on to view the world. We live in a patriarchal world, and even with my specific education that is geared towards recognizing this way of thinking, I have found myself going there before. But at this point, I could write an analysis paper on the propensity of WS posters to take threads in this direction in just about every case.

They are at least equally responsible here in my mind. Both had a responsibility to love and protect their kids and to nurture them.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

In a perfect world parents equally love, protect, and nurture their children, however, sometimes one of the parents becomes emotionally, physically, or sexually abusive...and in a vast majority of these cases, it is the father metting out the abuse. The abused children grow up resenting the mother for not protecting them from the abuse...sometimes more angry at her than the abuser. In many of these cases on WS, the abused children are victims of a poor choice their mother made in a relationship.

I do expect mothers to be super human, and I expect mothers to be mothers, to love and protect her helpless children more than she loves and protects an abusive significant other. JMO

 

[Deleted member 158085]

In a perfect world parents equally love, protect, and nurture their children, however, sometimes one of the parents becomes emotionally, physically, or sexually abusive...and in a vast majority of these cases, it is the father metting out the abuse. The abused children grow up resenting the mother for not protecting them from the abuse...sometimes more angry at her than the abuser. In many of these cases on WS, the abused children are victims of a poor choice their mother made in a relationship.

I do expect mothers to be super human, and I expect mothers to be mothers, to love and protect her helpless children more than she loves and protects an abusive significant other. JMO

Sure, but we often expect less of fathers than mothers. And we often blame a mother more for her lack of judgment, even in the face of clear manipulation and abuse, than we do when a man is responsible for death/damage.

This is well-documented and is not something I pulled out of thin air. It's been studied psychologically, philosophically, historically, etc. It is the truth, whether we want to explore our own complicity in carrying it forward or not. I choose introspection and study when I find myself thinking this way.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[ocgrad]

If that's the case, then it illustrates that she lacks a certain filter in her head about what things are appropriate to discuss and what things are not. Whether the tryst happened or not.

Ya think?
If the tryst happened or even if it just was said, and I don't have a reason to doubt it was, she thought it was something to brag about. She spat when arrested!? I still don't get that. Definitely something is lacking in her head.

 

[disgruntled]

At about 28.50 on the long youtube video, the eldest boy says his name. We know his names is Jos***, but the name sounds nothing like it, not even a nickname or variant of his name.

Its his initials. First and middle name.

 

[aThousandYearsWide]

Somewhat OT, but since we are studying pictures, something odd always strikes me about LT's nose. Anyone else? See comparison pictures, has she had a nose job? If so, for cosmetic reasons? Or broken at some time?

Depending on how old she was in these pictures (personal guess pre-16) she may have simply grown into her nose. I remember my nose sticking out like a sore thumb at 15.

Sent from my LG-M153 using Tapatalk