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

[Lulu_la_Nantaise]

I doubt Louise cooked. I don't think she new how. The children were probably given just enough to stay alive with only one meal a day. The pies that they tortured the kids with leaving on the counter, I am sure were store bought. There were Vienna Sausage cans all over the house. I don't any fruits or vegetables or grains. What do you think they were given for their one meal?

Satch

BBM.

I'm not sure she couldn't cook. She was brought up in a family where women's role was first to be a homemaker. She was certainly taught to prepare meals. Then, she probably was also taught that "cleanliness is next to godliness" and we have seen the result... Possibly her refusal to cook (that we know of) and to clean were a revolt against her upbringing?

 

[SkipperKey3]

I agree, but I think that they had to have had some exposure, in life, to understand how wrong it was. They watch their sibs grow up and be put through the same thing that they have. Two years ago they started planning. They'd tried once before. I agree that they'd come to know life shouldn't be that way. Just curious as to what sparked the plan. Something caused them to draw the line in the sand. One is 29. That's a long time. We may have to wait awhile to find that out.

Yes, they had a little exposure. This is why I said previously that I felt that the plans to DisneyLand probably backfired on DT/LT - the siblings saw other people, kids and adults. They heard them talking. They saw them interacting. They saw caring and fun and love being shared by others. That might have given them more of a taste of what things should be like than DT/LT intended. BTW, it has been speculated about how they could have paid for such trips. I wonder if at least some of the DisneyLand trips weren't "work sponsered" thus giving them a discount. But I digress.

You said that "two years ago they started planning". From that there is an assumption that that is when things suddenly escalated. Yet I have serious doubts about that - I think they had already been bad before that, but it took that long for them to come to that mindset. Such conditioning can make one robotic. And fear can be paralyzing. But we know there was an escape attempt in Texas, although the sibling in question doesn't seem to have been able to adequately verbalize why there was a need to get away. I also mentioned before that one MSM article hinted that this wasn't the first escape attempt in California, either. I'm sure the consequences of those failed attempts put such fear in them that it took some time before they even dared think of it again.

I can't help but think that it isn't what sparked the plan two years ago so much as what finally spurred the 17-year-old into action now. Mere starvation and squalor? Or was there perhaps a beating that was particularly vicious (perhaps on one of the others that she witnessed) that just brought her/them to the point of "enough is enough!" Perhaps she saw #1 giving her portion of food to the younger ones and realized that #1 was in a bad way. Perhaps #1 herself knew that if she didn't do something soon, she wasn't going to last much longer, so she finally convinced the 17-year-old, who was in the front room and could most easily slip out undetected, into action. We have heard that between the siblings there is a strong bond, so I wouldn't doubt the caring between them in this way. But even so, I am speculating. We just don't know at this point. We don't know how long it has been this bad, even if we have signs of it going way back. And we don't know what might have triggered the 17-year-old to finally put the plan into action. We do know, however, that it took some planning, between the need to cut the screen and the photographic evidence.

So I don't think there was a sudden escalation 2 years ago, although I do think things gradually got worse and worse. There are just too many factors that we don't know at this point.

 

[jessie]

These people still had their adult children living at home, barely any education and apparently not expecting them to get a job, or get married, or live on independently. >> RSBM .

I don't expect an answer, but what could have been in their minds about a future for these children?
Know I'm not alone in looking for reasons for this and doubt we'll ever understand, but if they found the children such an 'inconvenience' why not encourage (or frankly kick them out) when old enough, but no, just keep having more babies - and were the babies to fulfill some deep psychological need or to provide more victims?. Why starve, chain, imprison them? Nothing can ever excuse the torture.
Isn't this the difference between a sadistic mind against overburdened parents/carers?

I'm probably not making sense here as I'm rambling in so much built up anger and of course I'm absolutely in favour of the law and fair trials but IMOO here there is no defense, this couple are not worthy of the money spent on a trial - they are so obviously and absolutely guilty of these charges.

 

[DakotaMayi]

I don't expect an answer, but what could have been in their minds about a future for these children?
Know I'm not alone in looking for reasons for this and doubt we'll ever understand, but if they found the children such an 'inconvenience' why not encourage (or frankly kick them out) when old enough, but no, just keep having more babies - and were the babies to fulfill some deep psychological need or to provide more victims?. Why starve, chain, imprison them? Nothing can ever excuse the torture.
Isn't this the difference between a sadistic mind against overburdened parents/carers?

I'm probably not making sense here as I'm rambling in so much built up anger and of course I'm absolutely in favour of the law and fair trials but IMOO here there is no defense, this couple are not worthy of the money spent on a trial - they are so obviously and absolutely guilty of these charges.

No, I agree, I think, if I'm understanding correctly.

Also, why send the eldest son to college for a while and get grades only to them imprison him and him not be allowed the freedom to work.

 

[Zelda1010]

Great and intelligent post. It's actually agains the code of ethics to put on a defense you know is a lie!

Excusing the abuse based on discipline gone wrong due to being overwhelmed or trying to cope with behavioral issues is 100% an absolute defense to the torture charges as torture necessitates that they were doing it for purposes of sadistic pleasure. Like they enjoyed harming the kids.

It is absolutely a valid defense.

I just don't think it will be effective at all in this case. I hope not. There hasn't been a great track record nation wide with prosecuting these kinds of cases. For example, only 7 years in this case: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2006/02/...rved-him.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

My opinion from decades of reading about torture child abuse cases is that our culture considers kids property and gives parents a ton of leeway.

Someone pointed out that a case here in California a few years ago, kmvoving a 16 year old who escaped, Kyle, resulted in long sentences for the culprits.

But none of them were the actual, legal parents of the child in question.

I go back and forth as to how this one will come out. I don't think they'll get off easy. I'm praying for 95 years. Nothing less.

Oh, that makes me so sad. To think they could claim they didn't "want" to do this but "had" to do it. Well-intentioned torture, great. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse any other time. But I suppose it is the laws themselves that are unclear and give parents a lot of leeway here, as you said.

Now I'm trying to picture a situation where I would want a parent who has unintentionally tortured their child, differently abled or not, to not be sentenced to the fullest extent of the law. I usually can play devil's advocate to my own thoughts. I usually can appreciate the need for a vigorous and creative defense. Maybe it is just too early, today.

 

[newsjunkie]

The earlier escape attempt in California could be why this one was planned so much better.

As the earlier escapee is being beaten, a parent could be ranting and raving about why their attempt wouldn’t have worked anyway.

You don’t even know where the police station is. You’re so stupid you didn’t know you could just call 911 and they would come here. Even if they came here, it would be just like in Texas. They wouldn’t believe you unless you had pictures. Don’t even bother trying again. It’ll never work.

Challenge accepted.

Random thoughts and IMO MOO and all that jazz.

 

[SkipperKey3]

The earlier escape attempt in California could be why this one was planned so much better.

As the earlier escapee is being beaten, a parent could be ranting and raving about why their attempt wouldn’t have worked anyway.

You don’t even know where the police station is. You’re so stupid you didn’t know you could just call 911 and they would come here. Even if they came here, it would be just like in Texas. They wouldn’t believe you unless you had pictures. Don’t even bother trying again. It’ll never work.

Challenge accepted.

Random thoughts and IMO MOO and all that jazz.

Interesting thought, but I doubt they would have supplied solutions, even unwittingly. More likely severe beating and a long time-out in restraints. "This is for your own good..."

 

[Amonet]

I don't expect an answer, but what could have been in their minds about a future for these children?
Know I'm not alone in looking for reasons for this and doubt we'll ever understand, but if they found the children such an 'inconvenience' why not encourage (or frankly kick them out) when old enough, but no, just keep having more babies - and were the babies to fulfill some deep psychological need or to provide more victims?. Why starve, chain, imprison them? Nothing can ever excuse the torture.
Isn't this the difference between a sadistic mind against overburdened parents/carers?

I'm probably not making sense here as I'm rambling in so much built up anger and of course I'm absolutely in favour of the law and fair trials but IMOO here there is no defense, this couple are not worthy of the money spent on a trial - they are so obviously and absolutely guilty of these charges.

I think they're valid questions. I think they developed their own logic in all of this. But I don't really think there can have been a lot of future planning involved. I would think it was more a case of answer each problem as it comes up.

Maybe hoarding the children like possessions is accurate. But do LT and DT ever have a point where they realize that they're not going to allow the eldest children have a 'normal' pathway to adulthood, getting a job, leaving home, developing their own lives? I don't get the sense they were preparing the siblings for that, but that might have been coincidental and not by design, at least for the older siblings. With the story of LT leaving home and her father's attitude to that, I wonder if she felt that she wouldn't let her children go as easily, that she would fight harder to keep them? And somehow, seeing the siblings more as possessions, maybe she ended up finding that she couldn't let them go...that would mean breaking up her dream, it would feel like she was being abandoned. Feeling that way doesn't preclude the control (to the point of cruelty) aspect over the siblings, I think it works well with it.

Maybe it depends what sadism means in this context? I don't think they were being cruel for the sake of being cruel, I think the cruelty is derived from the need to control, and DT and LT just became more inured to what they were doing over time. I imagine someone in that situation telling the 'child', the 'victim' that "you brought this on yourself" and even convincing themselves that they aren't really responsible for what they're doing because they *have* to do it to get the desired effect of control.

In the 2013 vow renewal video there's an interesting look from LT to her eldest daughters when Elvis asks them to go up on stage together. It's not a look of hate or loathing, it's almost like she wants these girls to be her sisters in this fun event? How does that match with how she's treating them?

But neither do I feel they were overburdened as carers, I think they were overburdened as the jailers that they had developed into. They had too few 'prison guards' for the number of 'prisoners' they had, that was their burden, so they had to develop new tactics just like any jailer would have to in that situation, but I don't think the desire is sadism, I think it's control.

JMO.

 

[jessie]

Interesting thought, but I doubt they would have supplied solutions, even unwittingly. More likely severe beating and a long time-out in restraints. "This is for your own good..."

Do we know they were physically beaten?. As if the chaining, isolation, psychological abuse and starvation weren't enough !

 

[DakotaMayi]

Do we know they were physically beaten?. As if the chaining, isolation, psychological abuse and starvation weren't enough !

Yes. I think "Beaten and Strangled" was the term used at the presser.

 

[Amonet]

Another thing is that in that 2013 vow renewal video, Elvis notices that LT and the three eldest girls are all wearing matching shoes, and LT looks so proud and happy. She apparently hasn't even observed that the girls can't walk in the shoes.

In other photos all the girls are not only wearing the same flip flops/sandals as each other, but LT is wearing the same ones. It's not just the whole family wearing matching clothes, it's right down to those sandals. I don't understand it and I'd be interested in learning the psychology behind it.

 

[SkipperKey3]

I think they're valid questions. I think they developed their own logic in all of this. But I don't really think there can have been a lot of future planning involved. I would think it was more a case of answer each problem as it comes up.

Maybe hoarding the children like possessions is accurate. But do LT and DT ever have a point where they realize that they're not going to allow the eldest children have a 'normal' pathway to adulthood, getting a job, leaving home, developing their own lives? I don't get the sense they were preparing the siblings for that, but that might have been coincidental and not by design, at least for the older siblings. With the story of LT leaving home and her father's attitude to that, I wonder if she felt that she wouldn't let her children go as easily, that she would fight harder to keep them? And somehow, seeing the siblings more as possessions, maybe she ended up finding that she couldn't let them go...that would mean breaking up her dream, it would feel like she was being abandoned. Feeling that way doesn't preclude the control (to the point of cruelty) aspect over the siblings, I think it works well with it.

Maybe it depends what sadism means in this context? I don't think they were being cruel for the sake of being cruel, I think the cruelty is derived from the need to control, and DT and LT just became more inured to what they were doing over time. I imagine someone in that situation telling the 'child', the 'victim' that "you brought this on yourself" and even convincing themselves that they aren't really responsible for what they're doing because they *have* to do it to get the desired effect of control.

In the 2013 vow renewal video there's an interesting look from LT to her eldest daughters when Elvis asks them to go up on stage together. It's not a look of hate or loathing, it's almost like she wants these girls to be her sisters in this fun event? How does that match with how she's treating them?

But neither do I feel they were overburdened as carers, I think they were overburdened as the jailers that they had developed into. They had too few 'prison guards' for the number of 'prisoners' they had, that was their burden, so they had to develop new tactics just like any jailer would have to in that situation, but I don't think the desire is sadism, I think it's control.

JMO.

Yeah, finding the motives in this has been perplexing right from the start. On the one hand, LT felt the need to leave home and establish herself (with DT) away from her parents at 16. On the other hand, she doesn't see that her children would have the same need even in their 20s? That screams self-absorption, not caring. It's one thing to give your children a better life than you had when you were growing up. It's quite another to completely suppress them, and never let them find their own way. Part of parenting is the gradual release. Sure, as a parent it hurts to see your children not need you. It also hurts to see them fail at things. But in the end it is about what is best for them, not what is best for the parent. And suppressing individuality and personality rather than nurturing them to be gradually stronger and stronger and able to care for themselves is just, again, a sign of self-absorption rather than proper nurturing. ("I'll treat myself to Taco Bell. But that's okay, I'll give them a few sips of Mountain Dew if they are good..." Sheesh, it boggles the mind.)

Okay, off my soapbox now.

 

[1&2&3]

Didn't think of that. I don't recall my kids having that test done when expecting. That's sorta sad.

It is a new blood test that can be done early in the pregnancy. IIRC, it specifically tests for Downs, and Trisomy 13 and 18. Also, it can determine the gender of the baby. This test is optional, therefore, not included in the price of a maternity package.

You no longer have to wait for the Amniocentesis test to be certain of a bad diagnosis.

As stated above, many women getting a diagnosis of a Down Syndrome baby do abort. The proper name now for Downs is Trisomy 21.

 

[SkipperKey3]

Another thing is that in that 2013 vow renewal video, Elvis notices that LT and the three eldest girls are all wearing matching shoes, and LT looks so proud and happy. She apparently hasn't even observed that the girls can't walk in the shoes.

In other photos all the girls are not only wearing the same flip flops/sandals as each other, but LT is wearing the same ones. It's not just the whole family wearing matching clothes, it's right down to those sandals. I don't understand it and I'd be interested in learning the psychology behind it.

Okay, I understand it in twins when they are very young, or even siblings, but at the ages these siblings are, forcing uniform dress at every outing seems to be nothing more than exertion of control. Did they really need to be dressed alike at DisneyLand? I know it served a purpose in LT's mind, but I just don't see that purpose as valid for teens and adults. This isn't the same as adults deciding to dress alike on a lark. This seems to be more of a forced regimen.

 

[Zelda1010]

I think they're valid questions. I think they developed their own logic in all of this. But I don't really think there can have been a lot of future planning involved. I would think it was more a case of answer each problem as it comes up.

Maybe hoarding the children like possessions is accurate. But do LT and DT ever have a point where they realize that they're not going to allow the eldest children have a 'normal' pathway to adulthood, getting a job, leaving home, developing their own lives? I don't get the sense they were preparing the siblings for that, but that might have been coincidental and not by design, at least for the older siblings. With the story of LT leaving home and her father's attitude to that, I wonder if she felt that she wouldn't let her children go as easily, that she would fight harder to keep them? And somehow, seeing the siblings more as possessions, maybe she ended up finding that she couldn't let them go...that would mean breaking up her dream, it would feel like she was being abandoned. Feeling that way doesn't preclude the control (to the point of cruelty) aspect over the siblings, I think it works well with it.

Maybe it depends what sadism means in this context? I don't think they were being cruel for the sake of being cruel, I think the cruelty is derived from the need to control, and DT and LT just became more inured to what they were doing over time. I imagine someone in that situation telling the 'child', the 'victim' that "you brought this on yourself" and even convincing themselves that they aren't really responsible for what they're doing because they *have* to do it to get the desired effect of control.

In the 2013 vow renewal video there's an interesting look from LT to her eldest daughters when Elvis asks them to go up on stage together. It's not a look of hate or loathing, it's almost like she wants these girls to be her sisters in this fun event? How does that match with how she's treating them?

But neither do I feel they were overburdened as carers, I think they were overburdened as the jailers that they had developed into. They had too few 'prison guards' for the number of 'prisoners' they had, that was their burden, so they had to develop new tactics just like any jailer would have to in that situation, but I don't think the desire is sadism, I think it's control.

JMO.

You said this so well.

I know I have no proof, or even any good reason, to think that they perverted the book To Train Up a Child. However, one of many things that stuck out to me in that book is that the authors actually advise not to turn the kids into slave labor. Moms should bake cookies with the girls, but making them clean the house will be demoralizing. (Seriously, the book that promotes beatings with tree branches worries about this). Dads should have boys with him so they can learn how to be a man and learn practical endeavors like auto repair. But, men, if your young son is cutting out hearts from paper, don't ridiculed him, embrace his curiosity and offer to help him cut hearts out of wood. I mean, it is just so backwards and contradictory. Sort of like everything we find out about the Turpins.

I think LT did think she could keep her kids from running away like she did. And I think she didn't fully appreciate their ages, since she's BPD or NPD or something, until the baby came home. I'm ashamed to admit that I couldn't see my 2.5 year old the same when I brought his newborn brother home. It was purely physical for me, when did his little nose get so big? Oh man, he's not a baby anymore! It was very strange for me and not something I could just think my way out of. In my case, he ended up needing stitches while out with his dad when his brother was just days old and that jolted me back into normalness.

So, the point of that tangent is, maybe they started to realize they couldn't keep up the charade forever. Once they brought baby 13 home, the spell was broken for a bit. They couldn't "trust" the eldest with her previous escape attempts, but the oldest boy was sent to learn these practical endeavors.

I'm so sorry for the kids to have grown up in the dynamics of that household. I pray that none of them have been irreparably poisoned by their upbringing. Your post was really good and mirrors many of my thoughts.

 

[1&2&3]

A question in my mind is did LT love having a little baby around? Babies need you 100% and you are in total control of them. At least many people have this mind set - each child is different and there are some that come into this world with their own strong personality already in their little bodies. IMO.

LT probably nurses her babies which gives her an even stronger bond with them. My opinion is when the child becomes 3-4, is starting to display his/her own personality, likes/dislikes, yes/no, LT does not know how to handle them! With each passing year, training them, teaching them is harder. After 2-3 or 3-4 children, she was over her head in how to discipline.

However, she still wanted another baby as that was what she loved doing. She didn’t like them growing up! I can’t decide where DT fit into this. Did he do the discipling when he realized that LT was not doing it? Did it become overwhelming to him as the children increased in numbers? This will be an interesting fact to learn.

 

[jessie]

Yeah, finding the motives in this has been perplexing right from the start. On the one hand, LT felt the need to leave home and establish herself (with DT) away from her parents at 16. On the other hand, she doesn't see that her children would have the same need even in their 20s? That screams self-absorption, not caring. It's one thing to give your children a better life than you had when you were growing up. It's quite another to completely suppress them, and never let them find their own way. Part of parenting is the gradual release. Sure, as a parent it hurts to see your children not need you. It also hurts to see them fail at things. But in the end it is about what is best for them, not what is best for the parent. And suppressing individuality and personality rather than nurturing them to be gradually stronger and stronger and able to care for themselves is just, again, a sign of self-absorption rather than proper nurturing. ("I'll treat myself to Taco Bell. But that's okay, I'll give them a few sips of Mountain Dew if they are good..." Sheesh, it boggles the mind.)

Okay, off my soapbox now.

@ Amonet too - Truly the points both of you put forward are valuable and worthy of consideration and give me pause for thought.

Myself I cannot believe this was a case of 'possession' that became obsessive, nor that it stemmed from 'self-absorption' by one or both parents.

I suppose we have all known adult children that have stayed with parents, never married or had a job or life of their own because their upbringing led them to believe they had a duty of care, were obliged to stay at home virtually in the role of a servant, often for no gratitude at all. JMOO this is self-sacrificing by the child/children but I can grasp that.
Also many cases of baby or child deaths from abuse at the hands of parents but often caused by drink, drugs, mental instability .

In this present case cruelty for decades comes to the fore. A form of suppression, control and cruelty that is inconceivable in normal life of parents and children. And not just one but both parents as well !

I can't find any excuse except that both parents are mentally unstable, psychotic.

 

[allyntine]

I watched the Dr. Phil episode and these folks are beyond any diagnosis I could think of. The couple decided together to go to a hotel in Alabama to meet with a man the mother met online and they had sex while the husband watched....OK plenty of freaky deaky couples do this. Not my thing but whatever. The weird part was that the husband and wife went back exactly a year later to celebrate the anniversary of her sleeping with this internet man!!!!

Not to mention the wife's younger sister staying with them and the wife would pick the lock and let her husband watch the sister shower.....YUCK!!!!!

 

[gitana1]

Oh, that makes me so sad. To think they could claim they didn't "want" to do this but "had" to do it. Well-intentioned torture, great. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse any other time. But I suppose it is the laws themselves that are unclear and give parents a lot of leeway here, as you said.

Now I'm trying to picture a situation where I would want a parent who has unintentionally tortured their child, differently abled or not, to not be sentenced to the fullest extent of the law. I usually can play devil's advocate to my own thoughts. I usually can appreciate the need for a vigorous and creative defense. Maybe it is just too early, today.

Well it's a defense but I'm very hopeful it won't work here.

It has nothing to do with knowledge of the law. It has to do with intent. If you break into a house because someone is chasing you and you're trying to hide, that not burglary. If you're breaking in to steal, that is.

But I take heart in the community outrage. And there are a host of charges. Like false imprisonment. Neglect. Sexual abuse.

I think they will go away for the rest of their lives. I hope so.

 

[December]

I think the knowledge they were moving to rural Oklahoma was the reason for when the escape happened. In their crowded neighborhood, if the parents had noticed the one daughter's escape at least there were neighbors she could hope might help.