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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think it's laziness. I think it's a mental disorder at work. I think both would have to have a type of mental disorder to live in those conditions, and treat their children in that manner, over the course of years.




https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15918124

The holding the siblings in chains and essentially having them prisoner in their own home also means to me that they were attempting to hide some awful secret. It is more than just living in squalor and mental illness like you would see on one of those "Hoarders" shows. Their torture of the kids seem purposeful, with an underlying motive behind it.

Also the pattern of get new place, trash it, spend lots of money (not on the kids), abandon it, move, discharge debts through legal proceedings, get new place, trash it, ..... etc seems to be like a broken record to them.

Also, I can't fathom why they would want 36 acres in Texas. I wonder what was happening on the 36 acres and shudder at the thought.
 
If that's the case, then it illustrates that she lacks a certain filter in her head about what things are appropriate to discuss and what things are not. Whether the tryst happened or not.

BBM
As does LT's sister. If it happened, and she did confide in sis, LT's tryst, has nothing to do with the case, it is merely getting LT's sister more air time and exposure for her book, or money, if it's juicy info from a paid interview.

I would not be getting on t.v. and airing family laundry. Period.
 
Possible. But I have been lazy before and taken pictures of old pictures while still in an album and posted them to my own Facebook before. These could have been shared privately among friends on either LT's page or a family member's page, then lifted by a friend and given to the press. My money would be on a friend who is Mexican-American having done this because of where they have been published (seemingly exclusively at this point).

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

BBM
This.
 
I've lived in the rural South, where there are lots and lots of folks who are religious fundamentalists. Let me share some insights from my own observation.

It is true that the fundamentalist model for the family is that the man (husband, father) is the head and religious leader of the household, and that the woman (wife, mother) ought to submit to the husband and obey him. The biblical authority for this (for a fundamentalist doesn't believe anything unless there is biblical authority) is Ephesians 5:22-24: "[FONT=&amp]Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.[/FONT][FONT=&amp]For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."]

In theory, this is a patriarchal arrangement, since the man is the leader of the household. In practice, however, many times you have a more matriarchal situation, where the woman is the spiritual and actual leader---the stronger personality in the home--and the man goes along to get along. It is the woman who voluntarily wears dresses and has her daughters do the same; who drags the children and the husband to church on Sunday, though you would be surprised to know how many women carry the children to church when the father sleeps in.

So the ideal is to have the husband/father as the spiritual leader of the household, and I have no doubt that LT's preacher father was a very strong and dominant figure in her household, to the extent that it was abusive. That is the only kind of family that LT knew when she left home at sixteen to start her family with DT. And I think that she set out to establish that traditional hierarchy in her own home, and expected DT to lead, and taught the children to greet him in certain ways and to defer to "his authority." Notice that the sister said that LT made the children greet DT in certain ways, and she made the children smile before they could eat and all of that. She was the one in charge.

So I do think that LT was the dominant personality in the household, and that DT was the breadwinner and was more passive. THIS DOES NOT EXCUSE DT FROM CULPABILITY, because, even if he deferred to LT for 30 years, he knew better, he knew what she was doing was wrong, and he could have and should have stopped it.

[BTW, I bet we would find that DT's mother had a strong personality, too. A man is often attracted to a woman that reminds him of his mother.]

All MOO.[/FONT]

I have seen this to be true too. For those who missed it, I was raised Full Holiness Pentecostal (no our branch didn't handle venomous snakes). My parents made most all decisions together. My Mother was pretty much over all things in the house, budget included, and only worked outside the home, if she chose to do so (and she did). Dad worked two jobs, and we all helped with the second one (farming). Dad did not attend church regularly at that time, so Mom loaded us up and we were churched. Now, there were various types of family dynamics, based on individual family's interpretation of scripture, within that one building. However, all worshiped together (if that makes sense).
 
I've lived in the rural South, where there are lots and lots of folks who are religious fundamentalists. Let me share some insights from my own observation.

It is true that the fundamentalist model for the family is that the man (husband, father) is the head and religious leader of the household, and that the woman (wife, mother) ought to submit to the husband and obey him. The biblical authority for this (for a fundamentalist doesn't believe anything unless there is biblical authority) is Ephesians 5:22-24: "[FONT=&amp]Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.[/FONT][FONT=&amp]For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."]

In theory, this is a patriarchal arrangement, since the man is the leader of the household. In practice, however, many times you have a more matriarchal situation, where the woman is the spiritual and actual leader---the stronger personality in the home--and the man goes along to get along. It is the woman who voluntarily wears dresses and has her daughters do the same; who drags the children and the husband to church on Sunday, though you would be surprised to know how many women carry the children to church when the father sleeps in.

So the ideal is to have the husband/father as the spiritual leader of the household, and I have no doubt that LT's preacher father was a very strong and dominant figure in her household, to the extent that it was abusive. That is the only kind of family that LT knew when she left home at sixteen to start her family with DT. And I think that she set out to establish that traditional hierarchy in her own home, and expected DT to lead, and taught the children to greet him in certain ways and to defer to "his authority." Notice that the sister said that LT made the children greet DT in certain ways, and she made the children smile before they could eat and all of that. She was the one in charge.

So I do think that LT was the dominant personality in the household, and that DT was the breadwinner and was more passive. THIS DOES NOT EXCUSE DT FROM CULPABILITY, because, even if he deferred to LT for 30 years, he knew better, he knew what she was doing was wrong, and he could have and should have stopped it.

[BTW, I bet we would find that DT's mother had a strong personality, too. A man is often attracted to a woman that reminds him of his mother.]

All MOO.[/FONT]

Except that...the sister who mentioned abuse in their childhood specifically mentioned it was NOT parental. I think we step over the line speculating about that when it has specifically been denied, the accused parents are deceased, and in fact the opposite--a close, cherished relationship (as evidenced by daughters' posts in their father's obit) is the only relational evidence we have so far.
 
I wonder if some of the calorie restriction might be a hint of some sort of homeopathic treatment taken to an extreme. Some parents of autistic children implement a Gluten-free, Casein-free, Soy-free diet. I've also heard low-carb, high fat (ketogenic) diets suggested.

On the other hand, the children's symptoms that appear to mimic autism could just been signs of long-term undernourishment.

What is your definition of homeopathic? I am not familiar with diets and homeopathic. I thought it was giving a minuscule substance for illness
 
Except that...the sister who mentioned abuse in their childhood specifically mentioned it was NOT parental. I think we step over the line speculating about that when it has specifically been denied, the accused parents are deceased, and in fact the opposite--a close, cherished relationship (as evidenced by daughters' posts in their father's obit) is the only relational evidence we have so far.

They denied that the sexual abuse was parental, but that doesn't mean there wasn't abuse coming from the home. Like the feeding thing. And the strictness. (Not all strictness is abuse, of course, but there's a line where it crosses over into abuse and control.)
 
I'm going to say that, as outsiders, we cannot tell who was in charge inside that household, or LT's parent's household. One thing I've learned is that often what appears to be true from the outside is simply not true inside the home.

I have known men whose face to the world including family and close friends, is sweet, kind, and not in charge - very passive. Wife might look independent and completely in charge, even to the kids. But behind closed doors it can be very different. The reality can actually be the opposite. Mr. Kind and passive is actually aggressive and mentally abusive. Ms. Independent is actually reduced to a puddle of tears by it and feels completely trapped by circumstances. I've been there. And I've watched close friends divorce suddenly when all seemed well, only to find out that mental abuse, mental illness, and all kinds of things I would never have guessed had been going on for years.

We can theorize all we want, but the fact is that we will never know who was the dominant personality.

And let's not forget that a dominant person in one area of a relationship or decision making does not mean the other person isn't dominant in other areas.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
What is your definition of homeopathic? I am not familiar with diets and homeopathic. I thought it was giving a minuscule substance for illness

It's more of a natural way to treat and prevent illness.
Very few (if any) pharmaceutical treatments are used.
Essential oils are huge in homeopathy.
Lots of tea, herbs, spices.

IMO
 
Because as a society we expect much more of women in parenting roles - well, in most roles, pretty much. They are either the angel or the devil, the virgin Mary or the wh*re. Even as we think of ourselves as modern and forward thinking, even feminists can fall into the trap of blaming the woman more. It's ingrained in us to think this way. It's damaging us as we do so, IMO.

Look at the Sherin Mathews thread and you will find the same thing. Seriously, people are convinced that the mother is more responsible, and they will be unless they see an actual video of the father killing her while the mother slept. And even if they saw that, I believe people would still find reasons to say she was more responsible and the cause of the father doing it.

The woman is nearly always blamed more, even if for just "allowing" it to happen. She is supposed to be the nurturing one, the moral one, having those supposedly "feminine" qualities, while also having the strength of superwoman to overcome any man's actions toward her children. Posters will call it "being mama bear," which is the ability to be both nurturing and loving while also having some kind of super human strength (physical and mental) to fight off any danger towards her children.

I find myself "almost" going there in my mind, and the only reason I don't is because of my background in Women's Studies and my amazing literature professors who highlighted the angel/wh*re tropes in literature throughout the ages.

Please don't think that I am criticizing anyone here. It is a hard thing to do to get past how we are indoctrinated from birth on to view the world. We live in a patriarchal world, and even with my specific education that is geared towards recognizing this way of thinking, I have found myself going there before. But at this point, I could write an analysis paper on the propensity of WS posters to take threads in this direction in just about every case.

They are at least equally responsible here in my mind. Both had a responsibility to love and protect their kids and to nurture them.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Thank you vmmking. Well stated. I sometimes find myself doing so, too, and get annoyed at myself. It is still prevalent thought, though, in quite a few, modern day, young women, that men are not capable of caring for children.
 
What is your definition of homeopathic? I am not familiar with diets and homeopathic. I thought it was giving a minuscule substance for illness

I'm talking about cures and treatments that would not be prescribed by a medical doctor. Alternative treatments. Herbs, supplements. All those things that Granny on the Beverly Hillbillies would do.
 
They denied that the sexual abuse was parental, but that doesn't mean there wasn't abuse coming from the home. Like the feeding thing. And the strictness. (Not all strictness is abuse, of course, but there's a line where it crosses over into abuse and control.)
But do we have actual evidence of abuse by LT's parents?

There have been so many theories that I can't remember seeing any actual evidence.

You can say that her parents were neglectful in allowing her to run off with DT, but having seen this sort of thing happen so many times myself, I know that this alone does not equate to neglect - not in the early 80s. The age difference was quite normal then, and getting married at 16 was still not hugely abnormal in that area at that time.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
I still use the old definitions of autism in my mind (autism vs aspergers). But although I don't know a great deal about autism, I don't see any signs of it in any of the siblings. DT looks a bit aspergers to me, and maybe some of the siblings might have inherited a tendency toward that but it's not obvious to me if they have.

I think it's just lack of doing normal things combined with awkwardness in both parents so that the children haven't really learned anything else. I think in the wedding vid there is probably a lot of anxiety in the children, so some of their movements are affected by the fear of relaxing around DT and LT.
 
Thank you vmmking. Well stated. I sometimes find myself doing so, too, and get annoyed at myself. It is still prevalent thought, though, in quite a few, modern day, young women, that men are not capable of caring for children.

Thank you for acknowledging this. It isn't easy to do - not for me or anyone. It's a constant trap I kept finding myself falling into in the SM case.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
But do we have actual evidence of abuse by LT's parents?

There have been so many theories that I can't remember seeing any actual evidence.

You can say that her parents were neglectful in allowing her to run off with DT, but having seen this sort of thing happen so many times myself, I know that this alone does not equate to neglect - not in the early 80s. The age difference was quite normal then, and getting married at 16 was still not hugely abnormal in that area at that time.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Respectfully, we don't have "evidence" for lots of things we speculate about on here. I think we are trying out different theories to see which ones seem to fit the best.

My theory is based on the fact that 1) LT and DT didn't just turn out the way that they are---the way that the act, the way that they treat children---out of a vacuum, that many people tend to turn out like or do things in the manner of their parents; 2) knowing that LT and DT engaged in food torture, and seeing the pictures of LT's family growing up; 3) knowing LT's rural, poor, religious upbringing, which included her father being a preacher in a fundamentalist church;......I mean it's kind of like the FBI's profilers. They don't know about criminals personally, but they can predict certain personalities, backgrounds and pathologies based on the facts of a crime and the stuff they do know.

All MOO.
 
You can say that her parents were neglectful in allowing her to run off with DT, but having seen this sort of thing happen so many times myself, I know that this alone does not equate to neglect - not in the early 80s. The age difference was quite normal then, and getting married at 16 was still not hugely abnormal in that area at that time.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

SBM.

I did want to mention that several posters here have predicted that, since DT was 24 and LT was 16 when they "eloped," it must mean that DT is a pervert or child molester. They are making that assumption based upon how they see the facts fitting into the case. I disagree with that assessment because, like you, I have seen people get married with wide age differences for various reasons, and it was more common 30 years ago. I think it shows that DT was possessed of a child-like naivety in which he had a hard time relating to women of his own age (this is a symptom of Asperger's also).

Sorry, I got off track....

My point was that we all develop theories or assumptions based upon our view of the facts which are colored by our own personal experiences. That's all I'm doing.
 
Respectfully, we don't have "evidence" for lots of things we speculate about on here. I think we are trying out different theories to see which ones seem to fit the best.

My theory is based on the fact that 1) LT and DT didn't just turn out the way that they are---the way that the act, the way that they treat children---out of a vacuum, that many people tend to turn out like or do things in the manner of their parents; 2) knowing that LT and DT engaged in food torture, and seeing the pictures of LT's family growing up; 3) knowing LT's rural, poor, religious upbringing, which included her father being a preacher in a fundamentalist church;......I mean it's kind of like the FBI's profilers. They don't know about criminals personally, but they can predict certain personalities, backgrounds and pathologies based on the facts of a crime and the stuff they do know.

All MOO.
Sorry, but I don't think it's fair to speculate about innocent family members who have not been accused of anything.

And then there's the fact that while we might find DT's and LT's siblings odd, they did not decide to procreate like rabbits and become child torturers. So whatever their parents were like, they aren't responsible for this.

Speculating that innocent family members were abusive without any evidence is crossing a line to me. I mean, per TOS, we aren't even able to sleuth them, so I would think that accusing them of abuse, based on nothing more than the fact that one of their children ended up doing monstrous things after moving very far away and essentially cutting off contact with the rest of the family would cross a line on WS here as well.

I'm not telling anyone else how to post, but I am giving my opinion on it.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
I'm going to say that, as outsiders, we cannot tell who was in charge inside that household, or LT's parent's household. One thing I've learned is that often what appears to be true from the outside is simply not true inside the home.

I have known men whose face to the world including family and close friends, is sweet, kind, and not in charge - very passive. Wife might look independent and completely in charge, even to the kids. But behind closed doors it can be very different. The reality can actually be the opposite. Mr. Kind and passive is actually aggressive and mentally abusive. Ms. Independent is actually reduced to a puddle of tears by it and feels completely trapped by circumstances. I've been there. And I've watched close friends divorce suddenly when all seemed well, only to find out that mental abuse, mental illness, and all kinds of things I would never have guessed had been going on for years.

We can theorize all we want, but the fact is that we will never know who was the dominant personality.

And let's not forget that a dominant person in one area of a relationship or decision making does not mean the other person isn't dominant in other areas.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Again, great post. I've seen these relationships too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
189
Guests online
1,970
Total visitors
2,159

Forum statistics

Threads
589,958
Messages
17,928,328
Members
228,017
Latest member
SashaRhea82
Back
Top