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

[tzolkin]

If the time the pictures were taken is indeterminate, some may have in fact been minors at the time.

If the youngest child is currently 2 and appears in the photograph and at least one older child is nearly 30, I think it’s fair for people to assume that they were not minors.

 

[cabanafrau]

If the youngest child is currently 2 and appears in the photograph and at least one older child is nearly 30, I think it’s fair for people to assume that they were not minors.

Referring to the picture with only the purportedly oldest siblings with faces unobscured and names and ages listed beneath each one. Judging by the fact the oldest is said to be 29 currently and the photo reads the same, I'd suggest the ages reflect current day estimates, while the photo may have originated some number of years in the past.

 

[mnrose]

Just noted that myself and edited the post accordingly. Still, nobody in that photo looks anorexic.

Do you know what anorexic looks like? You might be very surprised. Not all anorexics are rail thin. And, I don't think any of those kids are anorexic necessarily. Having your calories severely restricted by a parent is different than having a mental illness which causes you to fear food. Just wanted to point out that you can, indeed, be calorie restricted to the point your growth is stunted and yet "appear" more normal.

 

[tzolkin]

Referring to the picture with only the purportedly oldest siblings with faces unobscured and names and ages listed beneath each one. Judging by the fact the oldest is said to be 29 currently and the photo reads the same, I'd suggest the ages reflect current day estimates, while the photo may have originated some number of years in the past.

Yes, you are correct that those appear to be the current ages. But the “baby” was in that same photo (older than an infant at the time it was taken) so it has to be within two years (since she’s currently 2). The oldest few (now late 20s) could certainly not have been minors.

 

[OhMari]

They had to do some kind of grocery shopping and with that many people in the family-they had to go out in public.
The story is not making a whole lot of sense. Where did the money come from to buy toiletries, food, money for Utilities.

 

[cabanafrau]

Yes, you are correct that those appear to be the current ages. But the “baby” was in that same photo (older than an infant at the time it was taken) so it has to be within two years (since she’s currently 2). The oldest few (now late 20s) could certainly not have been minors.

I suggested that if the age of majority is the determinate factor, knowing the ages at the time of the photo should be taken into account. I didn't suggest they were all minors.

I would suggest they are all captives, which for me makes it a moot point.

 

[NHdisneylover]

They had to do some kind of grocery shopping and with that many people in the family-they had to go out in public.
The story is not making a whole lot of sense. Where did the money come from to buy toiletries, food, money for Utilities.

Dad worked, as an eingeinner, six figure salary. Though they filed bankrupty at least twice---big family, plus Disney passes, plus vow renewals, plus newish car (with personalized Disney plates) eats thrugh oney pretty fast.

It sounds like parents went out often, but the kids not so much (though I found one articles from a source I do not fully trust interviewing a neighbor or former neighbor who said he worked a night shift and the entire family would be leaving togehter when he arrifved home around 1:00 am a couple of times per week)

 

[MamaBelle4]

I suggested that if the age of majority is the determinate factor, knowing the ages at the time of the photo should be taken into account. I didn't suggest they were all minors.

I would suggest they are all captives, which for me makes it a moot point.

I agree with Cabanafrau.

These "kids" are going to have serious adjustment issues (behaviorially, socially, emotionally, perhaps mentally). They do not need their faces plastered everywhere. They need the space and privacy to heal and try to adapt and try to come to terms with how they were treated.

It's going to be hard for them if they get sideshow stares any time they go anywhere.

ETA frankly, I think it is more harmful to have the adults images shown than the young kids. Children tend to be more adaptable than adults. It is going to be hard on all of them, for sure, but as others have mentioned, the younger ones probably have a better chance of recovery.

 

[tzolkin]

I suggested that if the age of majority is the determinate factor, knowing the ages at the time of the photo should be taken into account. I didn't suggest they were all minors.

I would suggest they are all captives, which for me makes it a moot point.

You referred to the photo’s timing as “indeterminate” and to have possibly “originated some number of years in the past”.

I was responding specifically to those comments and providing information that indicates this is a recent photo.

 

[cabanafrau]

You referred to the photo’s timing as “indeterminate” and to have possibly “originated some number of years in the past”.

I was responding specifically to those comments and providing information that indicates this is a recent photo.

My comments are based on the photo as seen in post #113, which to my viewing appears to show the father with two sons and four daughters, with another daughter's face cropped into the image. I understand it appears to be a portion of a larger photo. Not having searched for its origin I cannot tell you who may or may not be included in the complete image.

The one photo I'm aware includes the baby is not this one, because the baby would be within the area of the photo visible in this cropped image. Accepting the baby's age as two and seeing the baby represented in the photo would help me date the image as within the last two years. Not seeing the baby, knowing the children in this family don't appear normal size or age for their years and understanding that the dresses may have been worn over the course of indeterminate years leaves me unconvinced as to the recent vintage of the cropped photo I'm discussing.

It's tedious, I get it. I'm used to things being examined to the nth degree before being accepted as fact.

 

[rickybobby]

As to why the kids likely never attempted to escape, they may have been brainwashed like North Korea to fear for others left behind if they attempted to get help.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

My comments are based on the photo as seen in post #113, which to my viewing appears to show the father with two sons and four daughters, with another daughter's face cropped into the image. I understand it appears to be a portion of a larger photo. Not having searched for its origin I cannot tell you who may or may not be included in the complete image.

The one photo I'm aware includes the baby is not this one, because the baby would be within the area of the photo visible in this cropped image. Accepting the baby's age as two and seeing the baby represented in the photo would help me date the image as within the last two years. Not seeing the baby, knowing the children in this family don't appear normal size or age for their years and understanding that the dresses may have been worn over the course of indeterminate years leaves me unconvinced as to the recent vintage of the cropped photo I'm discussing.

It's tedious, I get it. I'm used to things being examined to the nth degree before being accepted as fact.

Here's a complete image from the same photo session, baby in the middle.

 

[cabanafrau]

Here's a complete image from the same photo session, baby in the middle.

View attachment 296085

At least they get the dignity of having their faces, and likely forced smiles, blurred in this one. No matter their age, captive is captive.

 

[tzolkin]

My comments are based on the photo as seen in post #113, which to my viewing appears to show the father with two sons and four daughters, with another daughter's face cropped into the image. I understand it appears to be a portion of a larger photo. Not having searched for its origin I cannot tell you who may or may not be included in the complete image.

The one photo I'm aware includes the baby is not this one, because the baby would be within the area of the photo visible in this cropped image. Accepting the baby's age as two and seeing the baby represented in the photo would help me date the image as within the last two years. Not seeing the baby, knowing the children in this family don't appear normal size or age for their years and understanding that the dresses may have been worn over the course of indeterminate years leaves me unconvinced as to the recent vintage of the cropped photo I'm discussing.

It's tedious, I get it. I'm used to things being examined to the nth degree before being accepted as fact.

You are correct; there would be no way of knowing whether that photo was recent from the cropped image that was posted. (Since the dresses were worn at the same location more than once, it’s possible that could have been an earlier photo). That’s why I was offering additional information in order to confirm that photo was likely within the last 18-24months or so.

Many of us saw the photos (unblurred and including the baby) yesterday before the account was taken down. I’m certain that particular one was from the most recent photo session which included the now 2yo.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

At least they get the dignity of having their faces, and likely forced smiles, blurred in this one. No matter their age, captive is captive.

I edited my original post to remove the picture and replaced it with a link to the article instead. Beyond that, one would have to direct their concerns to NBC if they believe the unblurred photos are in poor taste.

 

[cabanafrau]

I edited my original post to remove the picture and replaced it with a link to the article instead. Beyond that, one would have to direct their concerns to NBC if they believe the unblurred photos are in poor taste.

I understand the images are out there. I'm involved in the discussion about this overall situation here and I expressed my opinions about the image here. I think taking down the image with faces, names and estimated ages was the humane and considerate thing to do.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

I understand the images are out there. I'm involved in the discussion about this overall situation here and I expressed my opinions about the image here. I think taking down the image with faces, names and estimated ages was the humane and considerate thing to do.

Yes, unedited photos of all 13 of those children are everywhere online. The photo of the adult children with their ages listed alongside their immature and underdeveloped faces is the one that really drove home how heinous a situation they must've endured all these years, which is why I felt it was relevant to the discussion. I removed it as a gesture of goodwill since it bothered you so much.

 

[Sarah'sMomfrom PA]

The 2 boys in the NBC picture definitely look "off" and I would never have thought that they were this old. The girls also look very young but not as "off" as the 2 boys. It is just a shame that things like this happen and these 2 individuals are just sick individuals. It is a shame that there are so many couples that would love to have children and can't and then you have these 2 whack jobs have 13. These children were treated worse than animals. I have 2 dogs that we adopted from the animal shelter and they are spoiled rotten and we even bought a king sized bed so the 2 big dogs could sleep with us. Keep those children in your thoughts and prayers because they are going to need all the help that they can get. Let's hope these 2 sick individuals don't just get a slap on the wrist.

 

[Skellingtonj]

They all look so pale. Like they’ve never seen the sun. I can not comprehend this story. Sick sick people.

 

[wvjules]

Looking at those pictures, it's almost like the parents wanted to keep them "kids" forever.