CA - 13 victims, ages 2 to 29, shackled in home by parents, Perris, 15 Jan 2018 #11

[SATA]

Is the post about JD the last post she makes on that blog? Or am I looking at it all wrong.

I too wondered about that. I think it is her last blog.

 

[ilovepierre]

Thinking out loud.

I am still wondering about the escaping to place the call. They could made the same call at any time from within the home when the parents were asleep. The DA said they all slept through out the daytime.

RSBM for space.
IMO, she didn't want to take the risk of DT and/or LT waking up and seeing her on the phone.

 

[DakotaMayi]

RSBM for space.
IMO, she didn't want to take the risk of DT and/or LT waking up and seeing her on the phone.

Agreed. They could have easily heard her. And maybe, she just wanted the hell out of there.

 

[SkipperKey3]

Thinking out loud.

I am still wondering about the escaping to place the call. They could made the same call at any time from within the home when the parents were asleep. The DA said they all slept through out the daytime.

Maybe that she not know the address?

If I understood correctly the LEO came to her then went to the home. Did she find the phone while they were packing? It needed to be charged to use so she would have had to charged it recently at least. So much misreporting -

PEOPLE January 17, 2018 12:13 AM
"Prior to leaving the house, the teen – whom has been described as looking like a 10-year-old – had found a deactivated cellphone and used it to take photos of her and her 12 siblings’ living conditions, Fellows said. When she left the home, she used the phone to call 911, showing police photos allegedly depicting her siblings chained to pieces of furniture and malnourished.

“I wish I could come to you with information to explain why this happened, but we do need to acknowledge the courage of the young girl who escaped from that residence to bring attention to get the help they so needed,” Fellows told reporters.

The photos the teenage girl showed police allegedly depicted the children as malnourished, with “very dirty” surroundings, which Fellows described as “horrific.” http://people.com/crime/police-reve...e-where-her-siblings-were-allegedly-tortured/

This quote from Fellows makes it appear the 17 yr old was chained.
JAN 15, 2018
"If you can imagine being 17 years old and appearing to be a 10-year-old, being chained to a bed, being malnourished and [having] injuries associated with that — I would call that torture," Fellows told reporters. http://kuow.org/post/couple-arrested-after-children-found-shackled-their-beds-california-home

He was still employed with Northrop!
Originally published on January 16, 2018 2:06 pm
Trahan said David Turpin had worked as an engineer for Northrop Grumman. A spokesman for the defense contractor confirmed to the Times that he was employed there until 2010. http://kuow.org/post/couple-arrested-after-children-found-shackled-their-beds-california-home

Tuesday, January 23, 2018
Multiple sources have confirmed that David Turpin, 57, was getting a job transfer from California to Oklahoma with defense contractor Northrop Grumann. As a result, the family was preparing to move "within days" of Jan. 14, when the couple's 17-year-old daughter climbed out of a window and used a deactivated cellphone to dial 911 for help, according to police. http://abc7.com/perris-torture-case-turpins-were-ready-to-move-source-says/2981198/

I am guessing the fear of being caught talking on the phone was too great to chance making a call from inside the house. Since it seems some (if not all) were in on the planning of the escape, it seems they agreed that it was necessary for one of them to get away from the house so that they could talk freely. (Did DT have listening devices set up in the bedrooms? He is an engineer, after all. Who knows?) They had to be sure this worked - the consequences were too great - so the plan was to get clear of the house.

As for knowing enough to charge the phone but not knowing simple things like medications, that's not that hard to understand. To begin with, there is reason to believe that the 17-year-old did not act alone. She could easily have had help taking the pictures, and the older siblings probably knew enough to charge the phone. Actually, it's not unreasonable to think that she knew enough to charge it as well, if she had seen her parents using cell phones. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on this point. They obviously had a very selected exposure to the outside world. And simply because she lacked basic knowledge of things like medication does not mean that she isn't a smart person. Don't confuse lack of knowledge with lack of intelligence!

Did she or one of her siblings find the cell phone while packing? That has been theorized before and it remains a strong possibility.

The bit about making it sound as if the 17-year-old was also chained - to me, that indicates that she told the authorities that while she wasn't chained that night, it was a punishment she was very familiar with. It reads more like she indicated that she had in the past also been chained, not that she was chained that night.

BTW, the additional charge against LT for intended harm to #8 - do you suppose this has to do with the choking incident that #8 apparently told the authorities?

 

[arkansasmimi]

I am guessing the fear of being caught talking on the phone was too great to chance making a call from inside the house. Since it seems some (if not all) were in on the planning of the escape, it seems they agreed that it was necessary for one of them to get away from the house so that they could talk freely. (Did DT have listening devices set up in the bedrooms? He is an engineer, after all. Who knows?) They had to be sure this worked - the consequences were too great - so the plan was to get clear of the house.

As for knowing enough to charge the phone but not knowing simple things like medications, that's not that hard to understand. To begin with, there is reason to believe that the 17-year-old did not act alone. She could easily have had help taking the pictures, and the older siblings probably knew enough to charge the phone. Actually, it's not unreasonable to think that she knew enough to charge it as well, if she had seen her parents using cell phones. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on this point. They obviously had a very selected exposure to the outside world. And simply because she lacked basic knowledge of things like medication does not mean that she isn't a smart person. Don't confuse lack of knowledge with lack of intelligence!

Did she or one of her siblings find the cell phone while packing? That has been theorized before and it remains a strong possibility.

The bit about making it sound as if the 17-year-old was also chained - to me, that indicates that she told the authorities that while she wasn't chained that night, it was a punishment she was very familiar with. It reads more like she indicated that she had in the past also been chained, not that she was chained that night.

BTW, the additional charge against LT for intended harm to #8 - do you suppose this has to do with the choking incident that #8 apparently told the authorities?

I think it could have been as that she may have been afraid they would have heard her speaking. I think about watching reports where someone was in the home and someone had to whisper. And too many movies. I could see that and I probably would be in that category. I wonder if the sibling actually got out? That window looked to be up a ways. Maybe if so the 17 yr old helped get back in. Bless them.

 

[BooBooTheFool]

I had to finally join this site after lurking for years off and on. I started reading with thread 1 and read every single post up until thread 5 when I got frustrated and started to skim. It's very interesting how the perception of LT (from various threads) seems to be of a different character than the perceptions of DT. That is logical, as women are viewed more harshly when they act against the gendered role of (supreme)* protector bestowed on us from our ability to give birth.

*when abuse stories pop up where the mother was the abuser a lot of people say they expect it from a male relative and not a female one for the very same gendered/sexist reasons people go into hyper-blame overdrive on the mom in a non-abuse situation.

I haven't read threads 6-11 as intensely as 1-5 but I wonder did anyone bring up LT's age when she married DT or the fact that they had a botched elopement 2 years prior. IMHO, that smacks of grooming, the predatory need of men over the age of 18 to seek out young girls, girls much younger than themselves. I found it really strange that a lot of people have a good grip on psychological pathology but only one post remarked upon the grooming of LT. That squares with unfortunate and negative opinions a lot of people have about (female) victims of hebephilia. The "willful" child and the diagnosis of BPD on LT remind of how people usually say since the girl is not a child that she is somehow an equal partner in her abuse (they believe it's not abuse because the girl is so "fast") and was acting "too mature".

Not accusing anyone of anything (except the defendants- i hope they are put under the jail); it's just something odd I noticed.

ETA: I saw someone mention Sarah/Abraham/Hagar "god's will" thing and I wanted to add, it's not pertinent, but via ancestry.com I found several ancestors (mid to late 1800s) named either Hagar or Tamer. It just so happened to be in the families (no such naming in families who don't appear to have this going on) with 15+ kids where if the mother died, the oldest daughter became the new wife and had children with her father. Things like this are very long lived and inter-generational.

ETA again: idk if i'll find anyone else talking about this as I read the other threads but only DT's parents were allowed to see the kids. That's telling to me. I bet he cut her off from her family. That's classic in adult male-teen female marriages.

 

[SATA]

I had to finally join this site after lurking for years off and on. I started reading with thread 1 and read every single post up until thread 5 when I got frustrated and started to skim. It's very interesting how the perception of LT (from various threads) seems to be of a different character than the perceptions of DT. That is logical, as women are viewed more harshly when they act against the gendered role of (supreme)* protector bestowed on us from our ability to give birth.

*when abuse stories pop up where the mother was the abuser a lot of people say they expect it from a male relative and not a female one for the very same gendered/sexist reasons people go into hyper-blame overdrive on the mom in a non-abuse situation.

I haven't read threads 6-11 as intensely as 1-5 but I wonder did anyone bring up LT's age when she married DT or the fact that they had a botched elopement 2 years prior. IMHO, that smacks of grooming, the predatory need of men over the age of 18 to seek out young girls, girls much younger than themselves. I found it really strange that a lot of people have a good grip on psychological pathology but only one post remarked upon the grooming of LT. That squares with unfortunate and negative opinions a lot of people have about (female) victims of hebephilia. The "willful" child and the diagnosis of BPD on LT remind of how people usually say since the girl is not a child that she is somehow an equal partner in her abuse (they believe it's not abuse because the girl is so "fast") and was acting "too mature".

Not accusing anyone of anything (except the defendants- i hope they are put under the jail); it's just something odd I noticed.

I agree - STRONGLY!

There are so many red flags with David that tend to be overlooked, and I don´t understand it.

The fact that he, a grown man, signed Louise out of school when she was 16 being one of them. She was not underage in WV, but close.
The fact that one of the counts against him is a lewd act upon one of his underage daughters.
The account of Louise´s younger sister from when she visited them as a teen. He made remarks about her body that were inappropriate. And the couple breaking into the bathroom while she was showering.

He has the hallmarks of a paedophile, but Louise seems to be the main target of people´s comments and disgust.
I am not talking about Websleuths in particular, but comments in general that I see here and there.

Women always get judged harder, by men and by women.

 

[Bill Carson]

Thinking out loud.

I am still wondering about the escaping to place the call. They could made the same call at any time from within the home when the parents were asleep. The DA said they all slept through out the daytime.

SBM.

I suspect that the "Escapee" was afraid that if she called the police from inside the house, then the police respond to the house, knock on the door, the parents wake up, answer the door, and give the police some explanation ("we're fine" or "the 17yo is a prankster" or whatever), and the police go away. Maybe Escapee never gets to speak to police or show them the pictures.

Escapee thought she had to get out of the house to call, to speak to the police first--and show pictures--before police have a chance to talk with parents.

All MOO and pure speculation.

 

[BooBooTheFool]

I agree - STRONGLY!

There are so many red flags with David that tend to be overlooked, and I don´t understand it.

The fact that he, a grown man, signed Louise out of school when she was 16 being one of them. She was not underage in WV, but close.
The fact that one of the counts against him is a lewd act upon one of his underage daughters.
The account of Louise´s younger sister from when she visited them as a teen. He made remarks about her body that were inappropriate. And the couple breaking into the bathroom while she was showering.

He has the hallmarks of a paedophile, but Louise seems to be the main target of people´s comments and disgust.
I am not talking about Websleuths in particular, but comments in general that I see here and there.

Women always get judged harder, by men and by women.

Yes!

The signing her out of school thing set off all kinds of alarms in my head then verified the age difference. It's like yeah LT's sister is ...an attention seeker but I think she's telling the truth on this. And I think LT's parents may have not totally approved of DT but later in life just wanted to see their grandkids which is really, really sad.

I'm a millennial, and I'm in the American south and all my family is from "the country"/small towns and I really do believe people at the school (in a small, isolated, "backward" town) would allow a man to sign a teen girl out of school back then. Especially if he was well regarded in the community. Culturally these kinds of things weren't considered "bad" until much later...like in the 90s or 00s and never in some places.

 

[JulieNMM]

BTW, the additional charge against LT for intended harm to #8 - do you suppose this has to do with the choking incident that #8 apparently told the authorities?

What choking incident? I must have missed hearing about that.

 

[BooBooTheFool]

What choking incident? I must have missed hearing about that.

I believe strangulation is in the charges.

 

[Satch]

Yes!

The signing her out of school thing set off all kinds of alarms in my head then verified the age difference. It's like yeah LT's sister is ...an attention seeker but I think she's telling the truth on this. And I think LT's parents may have not totally approved of DT but later in life just wanted to see their grandkids which is really, really sad.

I'm a millennial, and I'm in the American south and all my family is from "the country"/small towns and I really do believe people at the school (in a small, isolated, "backward" town) would allow a man to sign a teen girl out of school back then. Especially if he was well regarded in the community. Culturally these kinds of things weren't considered "bad" until much later...like in the 90s or 00s and never in some places.

Exactly!

Add to the fact that I don't think Louise was "the sharpest knife in the drawer." David knew this, and used her gullibility and vulnerability to get what he wanted. To control her by promising things that she wanted. Louise became so involved in this behavior. David loved that he could manipulate her, and she loved all the attention that he gave her. Two fanatical, narcissistic, religious, nuts who formed their own controlling rules and rituals over time. They formed their own religion.

David and Louise used the basis of several religions to practice what they liked and reject what they didn't like. As control became more important to them they began to instill their beliefs upon their children. Any outside influence from others was a violation of control. Expectations in the homes years ago, went from rigid firmness, to neglect, to abuse, as the children grew and became less and less cute, and more and more of a burden and increasingly repulsive to David and Louise..

The more of a burden and uglier you became the more difficult the Turpin's thought you would be able to control. In their sick minds, the Turpin's had to increase the abuse to maintain their level of control. The kids, knowing very little of the outside world, many thought that this behavior was although painful, the way that children were raised in society, and that anyone else who tried to interfere with their family structure was"doing the devil's work." Those views that did not fit the Turpin's isolated and introverted lifestyle were considered "Satanic."

However, to avoid questioning from authorities, (this is proof that they were not insane, and knew that what they were doing was wrong.) they had to create just enough minimal outside contact to do two things. One was to create an illusion of normalcy to prevent questioning, such as the Disneyland trips. The other was to flaunt their family values through organization and manipulation of the kids, demanding the highest accolades of manners and systematic structure when in public. Lining up by age to do things, wearing matching outfits. But ordered not to say anything to people who did not like their value system, or showed resentment to their value system. Doing everything at night as much as possible would allow the parents to do whatever they wanted, without the outside looking in to see the horror that manifested over time.

Satch

 

[JulieNMM]

I believe strangulation is in the charges.

Yes, I had heard that but never heard any more specifics on the beatings or chokings, like who, against whom, when, why, how often, etc. Just thought maybe there was more info on that.

 

[msphilosopher]

I had to finally join this site after lurking for years off and on. I started reading with thread 1 and read every single post up until thread 5 when I got frustrated and started to skim. It's very interesting how the perception of LT (from various threads) seems to be of a different character than the perceptions of DT. That is logical, as women are viewed more harshly when they act against the gendered role of (supreme)* protector bestowed on us from our ability to give birth.

*when abuse stories pop up where the mother was the abuser a lot of people say they expect it from a male relative and not a female one for the very same gendered/sexist reasons people go into hyper-blame overdrive on the mom in a non-abuse situation.

I haven't read threads 6-11 as intensely as 1-5 but I wonder did anyone bring up LT's age when she married DT or the fact that they had a botched elopement 2 years prior. IMHO, that smacks of grooming, the predatory need of men over the age of 18 to seek out young girls, girls much younger than themselves. I found it really strange that a lot of people have a good grip on psychological pathology but only one post remarked upon the grooming of LT. That squares with unfortunate and negative opinions a lot of people have about (female) victims of hebephilia. The "willful" child and the diagnosis of BPD on LT remind of how people usually say since the girl is not a child that she is somehow an equal partner in her abuse (they believe it's not abuse because the girl is so "fast") and was acting "too mature".

Not accusing anyone of anything (except the defendants- i hope they are put under the jail); it's just something odd I noticed.

ETA: I saw someone mention Sarah/Abraham/Hagar "god's will" thing and I wanted to add, it's not pertinent, but via ancestry.com I found several ancestors (mid to late 1800s) named either Hagar or Tamer. It just so happened to be in the families (no such naming in families who don't appear to have this going on) with 15+ kids where if the mother died, the oldest daughter became the new wife and had children with her father. Things like this are very long lived and inter-generational.

ETA again: idk if i'll find anyone else talking about this as I read the other threads but only DT's parents were allowed to see the kids. That's telling to me. I bet he cut her off from her family. That's classic in adult male-teen female marriages.

:welcome:

And yes, yes, yes to your post. And to SATA and Satch's contributions. I wanted to talk about the LT grooming aspect but pretty much got shut down on the thread. (thread 7, post 105).

I've followed recent cases and learned about the grooming process from the TN student who was groomed by her teacher... she runaway/abducted by him for over a month.

Exactly what you said, this was more acceptable back then but not in today's world. We didn't know what we know now about grooming but that does mean it didn't happen!

These victims are usually vulnerable and abused, making them perfect prey to be controlled and manipulated by perverts. It's so fascinating to discuss this element in the case with a modern day lens.

 

[cady]

I hope that escapee was the only one who was sexually abused,but I find it hard to believe that she was the only one. Prosecutors can only charge if they have a witness...so anyone who doesn't want to divulge that type of abuse upon themselves, won't say anything about it and it can't be charged. I wonder about the boys, too. JMO

 

[leyash]

I am only on thread 2. I'm having a really hard time keeping up... gah. I am trying to read a whole thread each day, but that'll still take two weeks to get caught up and then you guys will have 3 more threads for me to read! lol

I do sincerely hope that these children/adults are getting the help they need and thriving more than they ever have before.

 

[Bill Carson]

I am only on thread 2. I'm having a really hard time keeping up... gah. I am trying to read a whole thread each day, but that'll still take two weeks to get caught up and then you guys will have 3 more threads for me to read! lol

I do sincerely hope that these children/adults are getting the help they need and thriving more than they ever have before.

Nah, the threads have slowed way, way down. There's not really much to talk about at this point until there's some more news.

 

[ocgrad]

Nah, the threads have slowed way, way down. There's not really much to talk about at this point until there's some more news.

I was just catching up on the latest news reports after the Friday hearing. That they are adding even more charges against them. But the stories of how the adult kids are adjusting to freedom, choosing what they wear and read, going to the beach and mountains and playing soccer and basketball, guitar, choosing subjects to study and jobs they may want, thinking of having a family of their own someday! It sounds like the center where they are staying is staffer by great doctors who are giving these people their best.

 

[ilovepierre]

There probably won't be much news now until/if there's a criminal trial.

 

[leyash]

Almost to thread 3... good grief.

Has the 911 call been released? I'd be really interested to hear that.