The nutters in CA who chained up 13 kids...

[cabanafrau]

The same picture with the matching outfits was used as their cover picture back in 2010. They're not recent photos.

I don't understand how that makes sense. At least one of the children didn't exist in 2010. By my count there are 13 children in the picture.

 

[Kellykins1218]

I don't understand how that makes sense. At least one of the children didn't exist in 2010. By my count there are 13 children in the picture.

Beats me but all you have to do is scroll through their Facebook to see it.

 

[mnrose]

I don't understand how that makes sense. At least one of the children didn't exist in 2010. By my count there are 13 children in the picture.

Exactly. Since the "baby" is currently 2, the 2016 photo (with babe in arms) is CLEARLY from 2016. And, it shows children who 'appear' normal until you understand they look 1/2 as old as they are in some cases. Disturbing. And, no one in the extended family says anything? Or thinks nothing is amiss? I sure would hope someone in my family would say something if my kids looked like preteens when they were 20 something.

 

[cabanafrau]

Beats me but all you have to do is scroll through their Facebook to see it.

I'm not on Facebook. I'm going by what's in the media.

Nevertheless, I maintain it's impossible for a 2010 picture to include those not yet born.

 

[AndreaDM]

I'm not on Facebook. I'm going by what's in the media.

Nevertheless, I maintain it's impossible for a 2010 picture to include those not yet born.

Who knows, maybe there were actually MORE than 13 children born to this couple and some didn't survive. In one FB post she mentions another one would be joining in 9 months, but there is not evidence of one that would be that age now. Of course, she could have had a miscarriage, etc.

Also, like I mentioned before, I think the matching dresses were worn on more than one occasion, this kids haven't been growing for years so that would be easy.

 

[cabanafrau]

Exactly. Since the "baby" is currently 2, the 2016 photo (with babe in arms) is CLEARLY from 2016. And, it shows children who 'appear' normal until you understand they look 1/2 as old as they are in some cases. Disturbing. And, no one in the extended family says anything? Or thinks nothing is amiss? I sure would hope someone in my family would say something if my kids looked like preteens when they were 20 something.

Precisely why I give neighbors living next door a pass and grandparents living across the country serious shade. Even if the grandparents saw no photos, never inquiring why not one grandchild over 18 went on to college, obtained a job or moved out? They seemed to be aware of the rigorous curriculum in "religious" studies.

Willful deniability is far from plausible deniability. I've been up close and personal with that phenomenon more times than I care to count and have no tolerance for it.

 

[Kellykins1218]

Precisely why I give neighbors living next door a pass and grandparents living across the country serious shade. Even if the grandparents saw no photos, never inquiring why not one grandchild over 18 went on to college, obtained a job or moved out? They seemed to be aware of the rigorous curriculum in "religious" studies.

Willful deniability is far from plausible deniability. I've been up close and personal with that phenomenon more times than I care to count and have no tolerance for it.

I don't know how it can clearly be from 2016 when the same picture is used in 2010?

 

[cabanafrau]

Who knows, maybe there were actually MORE than 13 children born to this couple and some didn't survive. In one FB post she mentions another one would be joining in 9 months, but there is not evidence of one that would be that age now. Of course, she could have had a miscarriage, etc.

Also, like I mentioned before, I think the matching dresses were worn on more than one occasion, this kids haven't been growing for years so that would be easy.

Following that line of logic means the parents would have publicly acknowledged the existence of certain children who are now deceased, no one's questioned it, they have been replaced by siblings born subsequently and no one's noticed that either?

 

[NHdisneylover]

Beats me but all you have to do is scroll through their Facebook to see it.

I looked again last night after you posted this. The oldest cover photo was 2011 and was not in the plaid dresses (those do appear in photos posted in 2015 as well----which matches the date the Elvis impersonator gave as to when that was). I am thinking perhaps you misread something


The facebook page is no longer accesible.

 

[Kellykins1218]

I looked again last night after you posted this. The oldest cover photo was 2011 and was not in the plaid dresses (those do appear in photos posted in 2015 as well----which matches the date the Elvis impersonator gave as to when that was). I am thinking perhaps you misread something


The facebook page is no longer accesible.

Nope, I scrolled all the way down through the page yesterday and they used that same photo over and over as far back as 2010.

 

[cabanafrau]

I don't know how it can clearly be from 2016 when the same picture is used in 2010?

Why are you quoting me? I am not the poster who made the statement the photo is clearly from 2016.

I agree the photo is most likely from 2016 when viewed with all of the other known information in the case. The most significant detail for me is the number of children in the photo, which I count as 13. Since one of the children is reported to be two years old I cannot understand how a 2010 photo would also include 13 children?

 

[Kellykins1218]

Their Facebook is gone but I was able to find this from 2013

 

[gotomu212]

Nope, I scrolled all the way down through the page yesterday and they used that same photo over and over as far back as 2010.

But when you update your cover or profile picture all of your old profile pictures also update. So even scrolling down you would continue to see their post recent profile/cover pic in the feed....unless you saw actual posts that said updated cover to x picture (which I didn’t see). For example my current profile pic shows on my posts going back to 2006- even though my kids weren’t born yet.

When I looked at the fathers page there was a clear progression of baby pictures from around 2.5 years ago that included the recent vow renewal.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Yes, Cabanafrau...
Willful ignorance.

 

[Kellykins1218]

Why are you quoting me? I am not the poster who made the statement the photo is clearly from 2016.

I agree the photo is most likely from 2016 when viewed with all of the other known information in the case. The most significant detail for me is the number of children in the photo, which I count as 13. Since one of the children is reported to be two years old I cannot understand how a 2010 photo would also include 13 children?

The picture I posted clearly shows that they changed their cover photo to that one in 2013

 

[cabanafrau]

Their Facebook is gone but I was able to find this from 2013

Different photo. Same dresses. I count 12 children.

Notably, the photo with the baby shows the baby in a different dress, almost as if they were unable to obtain another matching dress/make another matching dress when baby was born.

 

[mnrose]

And, the creepy thing about the earlier and later photos (same dresses) is that (a) the dresses still fit, and (b) the kids look basically the same age. Who can say that about pictures taken even 1 year apart with kids, let alone 2-3 years apart. Creepy.

 

[gotomu212]

The picture I posted clearly shows that they changed their cover photo to that one in 2013

Im confused because in the one you posted there are only 12 kids and the youngest boy is clearly younger than the media picture being used now which is reportedly from 2016. The dresses are the same though meaning they were reused.

Weren’t you saying you thought the baby was around since 2010 or did we misunderstand what you were trying to say?

 

[cabanafrau]

But when you update your cover or profile picture all of your old profile pictures also update. So even scrolling down you would continue to see their post recent profile/cover pic in the feed....unless you saw actual posts that said updated cover to x picture (which I didn’t see). For example my current profile pic shows on my posts going back to 2006- even though my kids weren’t born yet.

When I looked at the fathers page there was a clear progression of baby pictures from around 2.5 years ago that included the recent vow renewal.

Thank you. I do not use Facebook, but I assumed there must be a logical and rational explanation along this line.

 

[MamaBelle4]

It's highly unlikely the grandparents would be considered culpable in a legal arena.

I feel it's likely they had some idea the children's wellbeing was not being tended to in many ways, but I will be shocked if there's any legal repercussions for them.

I want to like your comment, because I agree with you, but I can't because anyone who knew (not suspected but knew) these children were being abused and did nothing SHOULD be legally responsible. But you're right. I'd be surprised if there were legal repercussions too.