CA - 13 victims, ages 2 to 29, shackled in home by parents, Perris, 15 Jan 2018 #3

[georgiajean]

Just wondering, why specifically no vneck?

I'm thinking with their very thin bodies, a v-neck would slip around, maybe off their shoulders. Crew neck would stay where it needed to be?

 

[enelram]

^^^^this.

If abuse can be shown, that these monsters were abused as children themselves, does/would/could this make any difference in court? Some serial killers, etc likely have used the same defense, but ultimately must be held accountable for their actions. Has prior childhood abuse of a perp ever affected the verdict in a case, and if so, on what specific grounds, tia.

I don't think that excuse flies nowadays, not like it did years back. It is a common defense tactic but not effective anymore.

 

[margarita25]

This gets crazier and crazier. All that chaos and horror in the home and then an organized DVD collection?

(Bestill, I recall your "Minnie Mouse in jail" avatar you used to use for Heather Elvis' case...it seems as though that could be fitting here as well.)

 

[DakotaMayi]

In the DM interview, the sister said she thought the girl who escaped, (the 17 year old) was the one who was named after her.

Here’s the quote and link:

“She also added that she thought the 17-year-old who had escaped was the same child named after her.”
https://www.google.com/amp/www.dail...3-kids-locked-California-home-speaks-out.html



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I am very well aware of her and her statements. But according to David (not that he's trustworthy) none of the children (1-12) are called Elizabeth. They all have J names. It doesn't appear any are named after her unless the baby is. But I would guess that baby also has a J name.

David wrote a message and signed it of with "[FONT=Segoe UI, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]David, Louise, Jennifer, Joshua, Jessica, Jonathan, Joy, Julianne, Jeanetta, Jordan, James, Joanna, Jolinda, Julissa." No Elizabeth. This is prior to baby #13.[/FONT]

 

[margarita25]

I'm thinking with their very thin bodies, a v-neck would slip around, maybe off their shoulders. Crew neck would stay where it needed to be?

( )

 

[georgiajean]

My hope is that aging simply meant she couldn't get pregnant as easily as she did before. I'm holding on to the hope that the youngest child is hers.

I do suspect the birth of the youngest is what sparked the kids to start planning an escape. The baby seems loved - and perhaps the siblings foresaw a future when the baby wouldn't be loved and they wanted to protect her from future abuse. I have no facts to back that up - just guessing. The 17yo escaped not to runaway and save herself, but to save her siblings.

jmo

And with that age gap between #12 and #13, all the siblings were old enough and aware enough to see the writing on the wall.... IMO

 

[KaaBoom]

I'm not caught up yet so forgive me, but it hasn't been brought up in the past 3 threads so I'm going to take a chance. I have no idea why everyone is talking about homeschooling vs. public schooling when that has NOTHING to do with this, this isn't home school this was a PRIVATE school, they registered in their home. There is a huge difference between homeschooling and creating a private school.

The Turpin's registered their private school, Sandcastle Day School, through the California Dept. of Education. This is very different than homeschooling, so the regulations and oversights that kept being brought up have literally nothing to do with this, this isn't home school this is private school!


Sorry to use your post JO, it was just a good one that I wanted to see again in the thread!!!!!

A private school in a home, aka a homeschool.

 

[verbonica]

I missed the obituary so will have to go back. But the were FB friends true, but the only photos available were profile and cover. Timeline and other photos if any were not viewable unless you were friends. And every comment was a few years back, at least 2 yrs. I think that one has been taken down now. LT had one with her maiden name and it was same.

I still happen to have David Turpin's grandmother's obituary handy:

http://www.engleshookfuneralhome.com/guestbook/1146841
(scroll down for his message)

 

[SCHMAE]

^^^^this.

If abuse can be shown, that these monsters were abused as children themselves, does/would/could this make any difference in court? Some serial killers, etc likely have used the same defense, but ultimately must be held accountable for their actions. Has prior childhood abuse of a perp ever affected the verdict in a case, and if so, on what specific grounds, tia.

If I was the DA I would love for them to use that in their defense! Then you know they KNOW how bad it hurts a child. I have not seen any cases ( not that I've seen that many) where history of abuse made a difference in guilty/ innocence. But I do know it is often used in the punishment phase and could be a factor in LWOP or DP.

 

[georgiajean]

Working with the ages of kids provided in the 2011 bankruptcy filing, dates of birth by year:

1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999 (the year they bought the rural farm house, so they had 5 children then & the eldest was 7 years old.

2000, 2001, 2002, 2004 (the year they bought the double wide trailer; they had 9 children then, ages newborn - 11 years old.

2005, 2007.

By 2007 they had 11 children, ranging in age from newborn to 14 years old.

When they left Texas and moved to Marietta, CA in 2010, they had 11 children, age 3- age 17.

Here's the question: when was it that they moved out and left the kids on their own, stopping by "occasionally" to feed them ( moved perhaps to that double wide, purchased in 2004)?

If they moved out in 2004, their eldest was just 11 years old, left with 8 siblings, all under 10 years old.

If they abandoned their children just one year before leaving for CA, the eldest would have been 16, left with 10 siblings, aged 2-15.

In presser, the DA said the living apart occured in Fort Worth. Prior to the farm house and the doublewide. DA said they lived in different homes. earlier someone posted they had found an apartment listed for Forth Worth, so maybe that was it?

 

[osu]

Yes, I am very well aware of her and her statements. But according to David (not that he's trustworthy) none of the children (1-12) are called Elizabeth. They all have J names. It doesn't appear any are named after her unless the baby is. But I would guess that baby also has a J name.

I totally agree..I was just jumping off your post to post the quote/link.
I saw all of the kids’ names listed in the obit also and none of them were named Elizabeth or Jane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Inthedetails]

I'm not caught up yet so forgive me, but it hasn't been brought up in the past 3 threads so I'm going to take a chance. I have no idea why everyone is talking about homeschooling vs. public schooling when that has NOTHING to do with this, this isn't home school this was a PRIVATE school, they registered in their home. There is a huge difference between homeschooling and creating a private school.

The Turpin's registered their private school, Sandcastle Day School, through the California Dept. of Education. This is very different than homeschooling, so the regulations and oversights that kept being brought up have literally nothing to do with this, this isn't home school this is private school!


Sorry to use your post JO, it was just a good one that I wanted to see again in the thread!!!!!

Not really.

I'm avoiding the homeschooling conversation (I've witnessed so many homeschooling success stories and the wide-sweeping criticism stings and doesn't match what I've known to be true)....but in California one of the options to homeschool is to register as a private school.

It doesn't mean anything other than that is the option you chose as a homeschooler. There were no other kids in the "private school," no outside funding, no income, no employees. Just a family who said they were homeschooling as their own private school.

There are other options in California, but I don't know the details.

A dear friend of mine homeschools in California and registers as a private school with the only students being her well-socialized, well-educated, well-fed children. She is the source of my knowledge about California homeschooling.


jmo

 

[DakotaMayi]

I totally agree..I was just jumping off your post to post the quote/link.
I saw all of the kids’ names listed in the obit also and none of them were named Elizabeth or Jane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I added the names from the obit to my post but I was too late before you had quoted me. Sorry!

 

[blue22]

I'm not caught up yet so forgive me, but it hasn't been brought up in the past 3 threads so I'm going to take a chance. I have no idea why everyone is talking about homeschooling vs. public schooling when that has NOTHING to do with this, this isn't home school this was a PRIVATE school, they registered in their home. There is a huge difference between homeschooling and creating a private school.

The Turpin's registered their private school, Sandcastle Day School, through the California Dept. of Education. This is very different than homeschooling, so the regulations and oversights that kept being brought up have literally nothing to do with this, this isn't home school this is private school!


Sorry to use your post JO, it was just a good one that I wanted to see again in the thread!!!!!

This was not an actual private school. There are several different ways one can homeschool in California.


1. File an affidavit to function as a private school.
2. Enroll in a private school satellite homeschool program.
3. Have home instruction provided by a certified tutor.
4. Enroll in an independent study program at home using homeschool curricula.

I suspect they chose #1, because the other options would require someone else being involved at some point.

 

[osu]

I added the names from the obit to my post but I was too late before you had quoted me. Sorry!

TY!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hope4More]

How in the F can you spend $2500 monthly on food for only two people? BS! Since we know the kids ate nothing, those two 'parents' were sure eating like royalty. There is a lot to be learned from those numbers

I really believe the BS amount was provided because to put down what they actually spent on food would have raised a gigantic red flag to everyone reviewing their bankruptcy application.

But (or also?): the monsters claimed to spend just over $1,000 per month more than (his) total monthly income, thus the bankruptcy filing. If they reported the actual amount they were spending on food, they probably wouldn't have been able to file for bankruptcy.

 

[Inthedetails]

I really believe the BS amount was provided because to put down what they actually spent on food would have raised a gigantic red flag to everyone reviewing their bankruptcy application.

But (or also?): the monsters claimed to spend just over $1,000 per month more than (his) total monthly income, thus the bankruptcy filing. If they reported the actual amount they were spending on food, they probably wouldn't have been able to file for bankruptcy.

Exactly. Those numbers are fantasy.

jmo

 

[kizzykat]

I hope the video below is okay to post. A friend, shared the video on FB. The person who shared it, has been trained to spot signs of human trafficking, ask questions, etc... While the Turpin case isn't human trafficking, I thought the video might still apply. It is geared toward teaching in-home technicians, to spot odd behaviour. I thought it might apply to both situations, and the general public, as well, because in each instance, you're spotting hidden children.

Info about the video:

MSP - Look Again
https://youtu.be/44EvOqCMrIE

RSBM
This is a great video! I was focused on watching the actors and I initially missed several red flags until they replayed it. It's worth the few minutes to watch, hopefully it gets shared many times over. Thanks for posting it.

 

[curiosityscat]

Ok, Question = I recall that in one of the Media reports, they discussed the Private School Registration, and that different oversight applied (little to none), but the Reporter did raise an interesting & Relevant Point:
Per the Reporter (Sorry I don’t recall the report/have a link), he said that CA Private Schools do require a Building Fire Inspection Annually.

It seemed to me that the Reporter was implying (and may have come out and said it, I do not recall)...

That, well, if an inspector was doing their job and inspecting then surely someone would have noticed something!!

THAT is the portion of all of that school situation, which I’m interested in:

1) Do Private Schools in CA require an annual Building Fire Inspection?

2) If so, was any ever performed? ..and IF YES, what were the results, by whom?, when?, and WTHeck was that person doing to NOT ‘see’ and/or Report the utter weirdness/possible unusual circumstances, and/or abuse?
== Although, it seems to me that many people here or there caught glimpses of odd things, but never tied it together or as is typical, they convinced themselves they weren’t seeing it or overreacting to it, so no one reported it..

3) IF NO, to #2 above: Why NOT? and who/dept administrator/inspector, should be held accountable for failing to do their job?

The above discussed news report & reporter DID happen and I think it was, tho not positive, linked in the early days and posted on this forum, but I can’t guarantee it as you know how going down the click-it critter hole goes..(click one, then one from that page takes you to another page, you click one there and..so on, and so on)...

As always, the above is just my own humble opinion, thoughts, feelings, views, assumptions, presumptions, and/or Big Fish Tales; unless otherwise, indicated by a Website URL and/or my reference to a specific source...Thanks!

The TRUTH WILL OUT!, and There will be a Reckoning, in this Life or the Next!

 

[arkansasmimi]

And Elvis in Vegas.

Matching clothes.

The father and son haircuts.

You couldn't write this as a script - just too strange.

Heroic ending by brave young woman - love that part.

jmo

Not sure if we are thinking the matching clothing is weird because of the situation. But looking through my own FB feed, I realised that many people do this. Especially going to Disney. I have a couple friends who just returned from Disney World. One was parents and all adult children and each of their families. And guess what all had matching shirts! Someone made comment on how cute and they replied easy to keep up with one another.

Also I saw many photos (again my own FB)that kids had matching clothing. Whether it was pajamas or whatever.

In looking through ss I saved there was a photo of parents and infant, with another couple who was tagged. The lady tagged in comment says "cuz". The cuz comment references David saying he has beautiful family. Cover photo posted Aug 21,2015.

And did anyone else notice on Circus Circus it is dated 2017 by CC?