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

[Wendy31]

I agree. When I look at her I get the vibe that she is the one in control.
They are both monsters and evil people though, how could you do that to your children?
The ****ers don't deserve to breathe any longer.

She has a crazy, unhinged look in her eyes.

 

[robinb]

I'm a little surprised at the number of people who are so willing to believe the mother is a victim too.

Did you see her smug, smiling face on her mug shot? That is not the face of a woman who is surprised her children are treated this way.

Every time I see her mug shot, I am filled with a wave of dread. She is pure evil.

I don't think she looks smug, I think she looks freaking crazy in that photo.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Either way.....
I can't let her off the hook.

Anybody who could do something so heinous is just NOT sane.
But, there was no way she spent the last 30 years in such a state of insanity that she did not even know, and can not be held accountable, for what she was doing.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

Yes I do believe it was about conrtol, that's obvious. But I also feel like they were just plain cruel. There is no need to only allow one or two showers a year (I've seen conflicting reports) or starvation. To me, that's to cause pain and suffering.

The mother may have started as victim herself, but she's crossed the line. I mean... At what point did she begin the abuse? As toddlers? Elementary school age? Does she only nurture them when they're babies?

My thoughts aren't very organized right now and I know I'm rambling, but I'm just so disgusted and confused about it all.

Likely, yes. I don't know what this woman's issue is, but narcissists do this. They loooovve babies, but once the child reaches the age of 2-6 years they lose interest or become abusive. It's because babies are fully dependent on their caretaker and they feed the narcissist's need to be adored and be the center of attention. Once they get a little older though, the child starts to express their own will and wants and may become defiant. Because, as normal people understand, children are unique individuals with their own personalities, ideas, and desires. But to a narcissist, the child only exists to fulfill the narcissist's needs, not to have any of their own. The child is seen as an extension and reflection of them, and any perceived flaw or failing of the child is a personal affront to the narcissist.

My own mother told me many times throughout my childhood and into adulthood, "You were just the sweetest baby but when you turned two, man, you became a real *****." I don't think anyone in their right mind would describe a two year old that way, especially not a mother talking about her own child, but my mother always thought that statement reflected poorly on me and failed to see how it reflected on her. My guess? I was a normal two year old who started to express my own will, and since I was no longer a perfectly compliant human baby doll, she started to resent my existence.

I would guess the Turpin woman is similar. Love them when they're adoring, attention-garnering babies, (figuratively) dispose of them when they no longer fulfill that role. (Which reminds me of something I wanted to ask those of you who saw the Turpin Facebook page: Were there any pictures of her while she was pregnant? I was unnerved by the dailymail article linked upthread where the neighbor said she never saw the mother pregnant, but several new babies showed up in the time they lived there. Add to that a 49 year old woman with a two year old, and I'm just wondering if we're going to find out these people are baby snatchers.)

 

[lifesavacation]

I am generally of the opinion that the less government is involved in our lives the better off we are. And I support homeschooling. It's just really unfortunate that no one outside the family was checking on these kids

 

[MamaBelle4]

Add to that a 49 year old woman with a two year old, and I'm just wondering if we're going to find out these people are baby snatchers.)

Same thing crossed my mind. But in the unblurred pics I saw on news sites, they LOOK like siblings. Similar features.

 

[tzolkin]

. (Which reminds me something I wanted to ask of those of you who saw the Turpin Facebook page: Were there any pictures of her while she was pregnant? I was unnerved by the dailymail article linked upthread where the neighbor said she never saw the mother pregnant, but several new babies showed up in the time they lived there. Add to that a 49 year old woman with a two year old, and I'm just wondering if we're going to find out these people are baby snatchers.)

There were no pregnancy photos that I recall. But based on the siblings’ facial features, they are definitely all related.

Many have suggested the older daughter(s) possibly being the mother(s) of some of the younger children. Their physical condition makes that seem unlikely, but I suppose it’s possible they were healthier 10-15 years ago (oldest girl is 29). I’m sure the investigation would uncover rather quickly if that were the case.

 

[OhMari]

Likely, yes. I don't know what this woman's issue is, but narcissists do this. They loooovve babies, but once the child reaches the age of 2-6 years they lose interest or become abusive. It's because babies are fully dependent on their caretaker and they feed the narcissist's need to be adored and be the center of attention. Once they get a little older though, the child starts to express their own will and wants and may become defiant. Because, as normal people understand, children are unique individuals with their own personalities, ideas, and desires. But to a narcissist, the child only exists to fulfill the narcissist's needs, not to have any of their own. The child is seen as an extension and reflection of them, and any perceived flaw or failing of the child is a personal affront to the narcissist.

My own mother told me many times throughout my childhood and into adulthood, "You were just the sweetest baby but when you turned two, man, you became a real *****." I don't think anyone in their right mind would describe a two year old that way, especially not a mother talking about her own child, but my mother always thought that statement reflected poorly on me and failed to see how it reflected on her. My guess? I was a normal two year old who started to express my own will, and since I was no longer a perfectly compliant human baby doll, she started to resent my existence.

I would guess the Turpin woman is similar. Love them when they're adoring, attention-garnering babies, (figuratively) dispose of them when they no longer fulfill that role. (Which reminds me something I wanted to ask those of you who saw the Turpin Facebook page: Were there any pictures of her while she was pregnant? I was unnerved by the dailymail article linked upthread where the neighbor said she never saw the mother pregnant, but several new babies showed up in the time they lived there. Add to that a 49 year old woman with a two year old, and I'm just wondering if we're going to find out these people are baby snatchers.)

I do not think they were baby snatchers, but the dad has some kind of charge against him, dealing with the daughters. I also read that the kids kept journals.
Prayers for those children, for healing.

 

[lifesavacation]

I do not think they were baby snatchers, but the dad has some kind of charge against him, dealing with the daughters. I also read that the kids kept journals.
Prayers for those children, for healing.

I thought I saw one of the charges with the word lewd in it. I'm not sure what that refers to.

 

[sailorstitch]

Likely, yes. I don't know what this woman's issue is, but narcissists do this. They loooovve babies, but once the child reaches the age of 2-6 years they lose interest or become abusive. It's because babies are fully dependent on their caretaker and they feed the narcissist's need to be adored and be the center of attention. Once they get a little older though, the child starts to express their own will and wants and may become defiant. Because, as normal people understand, children are unique individuals with their own personalities, ideas, and desires. But to a narcissist, the child only exists to fulfill the narcissist's needs, not to have any of their own. The child is seen as an extension and reflection of them, and any perceived flaw or failing of the child is a personal affront to the narcissist.

My own mother told me many times throughout my childhood and into adulthood, "You were just the sweetest baby but when you turned two, man, you became a real *****." I don't think anyone in their right mind would describe a two year old that way, especially not a mother talking about her own child, but my mother always thought that statement reflected poorly on me and failed to see how it reflected on her. My guess? I was a normal two year old who started to express my own will, and since I was no longer a perfectly compliant human baby doll, she started to resent my existence.

I would guess the Turpin woman is similar. Love them when they're adoring, attention-garnering babies, (figuratively) dispose of them when they no longer fulfill that role. (Which reminds me something I wanted to ask those of you who saw the Turpin Facebook page: Were there any pictures of her while she was pregnant? I was unnerved by the dailymail article linked upthread where the neighbor said she never saw the mother pregnant, but several new babies showed up in the time they lived there. Add to that a 49 year old woman with a two year old, and I'm just wondering if we're going to find out these people are baby snatchers.)

Aren't narcissistic parents fun! I was nothing but an embarrassment and a disappointment to my dad because I didn't grow up to be the person he wanted me to be.

 

[tarheelmjfan]

Likely, yes. I don't know what this woman's issue is, but narcissists do this. They loooovve babies, but once the child reaches the age of 2-6 years they lose interest or become abusive. It's because babies are fully dependent on their caretaker and they feed the narcissist's need to be adored and be the center of attention. Once they get a little older though, the child starts to express their own will and wants and may become defiant. Because, as normal people understand, children are unique individuals with their own personalities, ideas, and desires. But to a narcissist, the child only exists to fulfill the narcissist's needs, not to have any of their own. The child is seen as an extension and reflection of them, and any perceived flaw or failing of the child is a personal affront to the narcissist.

My own mother told me many times throughout my childhood and into adulthood, "You were just the sweetest baby but when you turned two, man, you became a real *****." I don't think anyone in their right mind would describe a two year old that way, especially not a mother talking about her own child, but my mother always thought that statement reflected poorly on me and failed to see how it reflected on her. My guess? I was a normal two year old who started to express my own will, and since I was no longer a perfectly compliant human baby doll, she started to resent my existence.

I would guess the Turpin woman is similar. Love them when they're adoring, attention-garnering babies, (figuratively) dispose of them when they no longer fulfill that role. (Which reminds me something I wanted to ask those of you who saw the Turpin Facebook page: Were there any pictures of her while she was pregnant? I was unnerved by the dailymail article linked upthread where the neighbor said she never saw the mother pregnant, but several new babies showed up in the time they lived there. Add to that a 49 year old woman with a two year old, and I'm just wondering if we're going to find out these people are baby snatchers.)

I missed that. That's really disturbing. The other kids would have older, when they moved to that neighborhood. When were the "babies" supposed to have been seen?

 

[OhMari]

I thought I saw one of the charges with the word lewd in it. I'm not sure what that refers to.

It can mean a string of things. He may have answered the door inappropriately when the police came with his children there. Maybe the 17 year old said a whole lot more and being a minor, they could charge him right away. Sorry just speculating why he got charged with lewdness.

 

[AppleDumpling]

I thought I saw one of the charges with the word lewd in it. I'm not sure what that refers to.

The prosecutor said that the dad, David, is being accused of sexually touching one of his daughters, but that the investigation is pending and he could not elaborate.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

I missed that. That's really disturbing. The other kids would have older, when they moved to that neighborhood. When were the "babies" supposed to have been seen?

They lived there from 1999 to 2010.

Shelli added: 'I never saw Louise pregnant but when they moved in they had about eight kids and by the time they left they added a few more. Every time we turned around we would see another toddler car seat in the van.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...amily-left-kitten-dumpster.html#ixzz54bA9zQPN

 

[tarheelmjfan]

They lived there from 1999 to 2010.

Shelli added: 'I never saw Louise pregnant but when they moved in they had about eight kids and by the time they left they added a few more. Every time we turned around we would see another toddler car seat in the van.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...amily-left-kitten-dumpster.html#ixzz54bA9zQPN

Ah, I have only heard comments from their current neighbors. That makes more sense. I hope they just missed her pregnant belly. That would be even worse than suspected.

ETA: I suspect the 2 year old is the reason for the separate charge against the dad.

 

[manning]

the $9 million bail is nowhere near enough for those 2!

It's high enough At 9 million they would have to post a $ 900,000 bond x 2. I doubt very much they are going to come up with that much money. That bail keeps them in jail.

 

[Imzadi]

The one article said the grandparents spend 5 days visiting them in their home. Another had accounts of the deplorable conditions of their previous home (animal feces, trash, etc) to such an extent that they moved into a trailer on the property because the house became uninhabitable. So, I find it hard to believe the grandparents didn’t notice anything “off”.

That likely wasn't animal feces, but human feces as the kids weren't allowed to bathe except 1-2 times a year. They probably weren't given toilet paper.

 

[Jen cook]

Haven’t read all pages, but my sons (17) class had a discussion today and world events. Apparently the kids were only allowed to write in their journals which is how law enforcement and the DA found many of the facts. The 17-Year old and her siblings had been planning an escape for 2-years .its such a tragic event.

 

[NHdisneylover]

That makes a lot of sense, and please I hope no one thinks I’m questioning their account or trying to minimize anything. These parents are absolute monsters and this entire situation is unthinkable. I personally am just having such a tough time wrapping my head around it and am trying to make sense of it.

I did some very limited work with children that were neglected and abused in the extreme (locked in closets for weeks, never let out of the house, chained in the yard cases). In those cases the kids abilities to function above instinct was gone. They would flinch from light, the rooms had to be kept dim for them; if someone accidentally touched them they would cower like an animal that was abused. There is zero way those children could have gone to a supermarket because there were non-functioning due to the abuse. They didn’t have the ability to please their abusers or rationally behave.

No two cases are the same and potentially having so many siblings in similar situations could have helped them cope. It’s just so hard to hear what they were experiencing and how well they seem to function (given how long standing and horrific their experience).

I think the difference is that, in the cases you have worked with, the children were essentially ignored---deprived of human contact at all, etc.
In this case, it seems, the parents actually spent a fair amount of time with the kids---the kids were, for lack of a better word, trained to perform in certain ways to please the parents and to act "properly" for the image the parents wanted to project.

 

[NHdisneylover]

But wouldn't it raise eyebrows with family? I thought there were some trips taken with other family members? Grandparents, not sure who else? One picture people were discussing someone's arm being that of an adult not one of the kids. Surely traveling with others it would raise a flag if those kids didn't eat all day, would it not?? That's what I can't wrap my head around.

The one trip thast appears to have involved other family members was quite a ling time ago--it is possible that the extent of the abuse was not nerly so bad at that point as it became later. It still wasn't good, but . . .