GUILTY CA - 13 victims, ages 2 to 29, shackled in home by parents, Perris, 15 Jan 2018 #12

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lucy's mom

Active Member
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
562
Reaction score
191
This is awful. I wonder what else we're going to find out.

http://abc7.com/13-kept-shackled-in-foul-perris-home-by-parents-officials-say/2948420/

PERRIS, Calif. (KABC) --
Thirteen victims, ranging in age from 2 to 29 years old, were kept shackled to their beds amid foul surroundings in a Perris home by their parents, sheriff's officials said.

Early Sunday morning, a 17-year-old girl escaped from the residence, located in the 100 Block of Muir Woods Road and called 911 from a cellular device she managed to take from the home, investigators said.

That teen told the 911 operator that she and her 12 siblings were being held captive in their home by their parents.

Media Thread

Thread #1
Thread #2
Thread #3
Thread #4
Thread #5
Thread #6
Thread #7
Thread#8
Thread#9
Thread #10
Thread #11

 
I have reviewed that clip over and over. It appears he mouths three syllables to me. I think he says "Do you care?" Approximately 25 seconds in on this video link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heJhQ9wkCEA&feature=youtu.be

Can they be compelled to testify against each other? Since they're married, I wonder how this will go down if both start blaming each other for the conditions and the "discipline" of the children. At what point do they begin punishing the kids? Infants and dogs appear to be well fed and not have suffered the atrocities that the other kids did. Ages 3-5? Are they part of the Quiverfull belief that starts with blanket training? So many questions about this family and the motivation behind their parenting practices.
 
wenwe4 said:
I have reviewed that clip over and over. It appears he mouths three syllables to me. I think he says "Do you care?" Approximately 25 seconds in on this video link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heJhQ9wkCEA&feature=youtu.be

Can they be compelled to testify against each other? Since they're married, I wonder how this will go down if both start blaming each other for the conditions and the "discipline" of the children. At what point do they begin punishing the kids? Infants and dogs appear to be well fed and not have suffered the atrocities that the other kids did. Ages 3-5? Are they part of the Quiverfull belief that starts with blanket training? So many questions about this family and the motivation behind their parenting practices.
Click to expand...

Could be.
My take on it is that he says: You look great.
 
wenwe4 said:
I have reviewed that clip over and over. It appears he mouths three syllables to me. I think he says "Do you care?" Approximately 25 seconds in on this video link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heJhQ9wkCEA&feature=youtu.be

Can they be compelled to testify against each other? Since they're married, I wonder how this will go down if both start blaming each other for the conditions and the "discipline" of the children. At what point do they begin punishing the kids? Infants and dogs appear to be well fed and not have suffered the atrocities that the other kids did. Ages 3-5? Are they part of the Quiverfull belief that starts with blanket training? So many questions about this family and the motivation behind their parenting practices.
Click to expand...

At first, I looked like he was saying "do you know" or "do you want" but now that you and other people have mentioned, it does look like he said "do you care". The whole video bothers me deeply because even the lawyers are "smiley". Is this normal?
At this point, the lawyers might have already introduced the idea of them going against each other, right? I don't see DT and LT going that route though.
 
claudianunes said:
At first, I looked like he was saying "do you know" or "do you want" but now that you and other people have mentioned, it does look like he said "do you care". The whole video bothers me deeply because even the lawyers are "smiley". Is this normal?
At this point, the lawyers might have already introduced the idea of them going against each other, right? I don't see DT and LT going that route though.
Click to expand...

I don´t think that corresponds with his expression of approval and the fact that he is nodding.
 
I definitely got a "did you do it" from David. Although it seems slightly longer than that like a "how did you do it/how could you do it" though that doesn't really make sense imo.
 
I see David saying, “Did you read it?”🤷🏻*♀️


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
claudianunes said:
At first, I looked like he was saying "do you know" or "do you want" but now that you and other people have mentioned, it does look like he said "do you care". The whole video bothers me deeply because even the lawyers are "smiley". Is this normal?
At this point, the lawyers might have already introduced the idea of them going against each other, right? I don't see DT and LT going that route though.
Click to expand...

The first few times, I thought "do you care" because he seems to be taking this seriously, while she seems kind of... not. On rewatching again today, I believe "you look good today". We don't see exactly who she's smiling at because they're off-camera, but to me, her eyes are looking to her immediate right it appears to me that it's either the bailiff or her own lawyer. Her face is toward DT, her eyes look sharper to her right and slightly above.

Sneaky. I find it deliberate (and unusual and a bad decision) that the placement of both defendant is different from previous hearings. They are being represented separately so it should never be this way. Yesterday, they were in such close proximity they could easily reach across and touch each other, but the eye contact and ease of trying to communicate with each other must have been irresistible. Prior hearings had the entire defense team sitting in a row. Ever try to speak to someone in your party when you're all sitting at the counter in a restaurant? You can't. I'm surprised that didn't bring an admonishment from the judge.

I posted a link to a video at the courthouse yesterday where the person talking points out a man in red socks who is the main cameraman and that LT had been smiling smiling at him. The video speaker said it was as if LT was making eye contact with him because she wanted her picture taken.

It's been discussed here in threads that at times LT seems to be almost flirty with men.
 
FelicityLemon said:
The first few times, I thought "do you care" because he seems to be taking this seriously, while she seems kind of... not. On rewatching again today, I believe "you look good today". We don't see exactly who she's smiling at because they're off-camera, but to me, her eyes are looking to her immediate right it appears to me that it's either the bailiff or her own lawyer. Her face is toward DT, her eyes look sharper to her right and slightly above.

Sneaky. I find it deliberate (and unusual and a bad decision) that the placement of both defendant is different from previous hearings. They are being represented separately so it should never be this way. Yesterday, they were in such close proximity they could easily reach across and touch each other, but the eye contact and ease of trying to communicate with each other must have been irresistible. Prior hearings had the entire defense team sitting in a row. Ever try to speak to someone in your party when you're all sitting at the counter in a restaurant? You can't. I'm surprised that didn't bring an admonishment from the judge.

I posted a link to a video at the courthouse yesterday where the person talking points out a man in red socks who is the main cameraman and that LT had been smiling smiling at him. The video speaker said it was as if LT was making eye contact with him because she wanted her picture taken.

It's been discussed here in threads that at times LT seems to be almost flirty with men.
Click to expand...


You are correct about the flirting observation. The Judge and all attorneys should change the seating so the defendants are not so close, cannot see each other as they do now, and try and limit the flirtation. This would also cut back on the defendants contact with each other. If we notice the court should be noticing too. I would hope the court views all media tapes just for any info such as this...but then I will not hold my breath. IMO I believe the flirting is a way she would,get what she wanted....hope it is not working.
 
claudianunes said:
At first, I looked like he was saying "do you know" or "do you want" but now that you and other people have mentioned, it does look like he said "do you care". The whole video bothers me deeply because even the lawyers are "smiley". Is this normal?
At this point, the lawyers might have already introduced the idea of them going against each other, right? I don't see DT and LT going that route though.
Click to expand...

I can totally see her throwing him under the bus. Ugh her gross hair tosses and smirk in that video disgust me. I know it’s a source of contention on this thread, but her flirty smirk and arrogant mannerisms are exactly why I think she ruled the roost. Not saying DT isn’t guilt by any means. But I think she was the enforcer due to what I’ve seen of her in the court videos. JMO
 
bears10 said:
I can totally see her throwing him under the bus. Ugh her gross hair tosses and smirk in that video disgust me. I know it’s a source of contention on this thread, but her flirty smirk and arrogant mannerisms are exactly why I think she ruled the roost. Not saying DT isn’t guilt by any means. But I think she was the enforcer due to what I’ve seen of her in the court videos. JMO
Click to expand...

That's kind of like when mothers are considered the "bad cop" that does things like discipline and maintenance in the house while the dad gets to be "good cop" mostly due to all the house hold stuff being "womens' work". I'm not really talking solely of the Turpin's marriage. I'm trying to compare the idea that LT was the ruler with the disproportionate roles mothers and fathers can take on sometimes when it comes to relating to their children. Like the mother is considered the primary care-giver (even if she also works outside the home) and the dad gets to hang loose.

eta: it's kind of like how mitt romney had all them kids but no idea how to hold a baby
 
bears10 said:
I can totally see her throwing him under the bus. Ugh her gross hair tosses and smirk in that video disgust me. I know it’s a source of contention on this thread, but her flirty smirk and arrogant mannerisms are exactly why I think she ruled the roost. Not saying DT isn’t guilt by any means. But I think she was the enforcer due to what I’ve seen of her in the court videos. JMO
Click to expand...

That she engages in flirty behavior doesn’t mean she is the “stronger” person, much less “the enforcer.”

Flirty behavior and smiling are actually signs of weakness and submissiveness.

It is true that many women (and men) gain power through flirting and smiling, but they do so because they succeed in reassuring and chatming the person who potentially has power over them.

In this context, the flirty smiles and so forth just show that she is either in La la land or doing a good job of pretending. Either way, I doubt anyone is buying her flirting except maybe DT.

As to whether she was or was not dominant in the relationship, I think it is too simplistic to try to identify one or the other as “dominant,” because they appear to have had a symbiotic relationship.

I wouldn’t be surprised if one of them threw the other under the bus, but it will probably take a while before they are ready to detach from their sick relationship.
 
Cafemalyn said:
That she engages in flirty behavior doesn’t mean she is the “stronger” person, much less “the enforcer.”

Flirty behavior and smiling are actually signs of weakness and submissiveness.

It is true that many women (and men) gain power through flirting and smiling, but they do so because they succeed in reassuring and chatming the person who potentially has power over them.

In this context, the flirty smiles and so forth just show that she is either in La la land or doing a good job of pretending. Either way, I doubt anyone is buying her flirting except maybe DT.

As to whether she was or was not dominant in the relationship, I think it is too simplistic to try to identify one or the other as “dominant,” because they appear to have had a symbiotic relationship.

I wouldn’t be surprised if one of them threw the other under the bus, but it will probably take a while before they are ready to detach from their sick relationship.
Click to expand...

Good post!

I am afraid it will take a long time for them to even realize that what they did was totally, TOTALLY wrong.
Denial.

I am hoping that when it dawns on them just how many years they risk spending in prison, one or both will do the bus thing.
 
I agree with above, the flirting does not strike me as a sign of power/dominance within the relationship.

We've heard that LT was potentially molested as a child, and that DT took an interest in her when she was only 10 years old. Obviously we don't know the veracity of these claim.

BUT

Her flirty behaviour to me is much more typical of a person who has been abused/ sexualized from a young age, and less some kind of 'femme fatale'

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
 
MediocreJelly said:
I agree with above, the flirting does not strike me as a sign of power/dominance within the relationship.

We've heard that LT was potentially molested as a child, and that DT took an interest in her when she was only 10 years old. Obviously we don't know the veracity of these claim.

BUT

Her flirty behaviour to me is much more typical of a person who has been abused/ sexualized from a young age, and less some kind of 'femme fatale'

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's what I took it as.
Weird cause viewing those who were sexually abused as being "femme fatales" because they perform the actions demanded of them by abusers goes hand in hand with the old fashioned talk of girls being "fast" or somehow deserving to be abused.
 
BooBooTheFool said:
That's what I took it as.
Weird cause viewing those who were sexually abused as being "femme fatales" because they perform the actions demanded of them by abusers goes hand in hand with the old fashioned talk of girls being "fast" or somehow deserving to be abused.
Click to expand...

A great deal of misogyny is well and alive in abundance wherever you look.

I also see people commenting that they worry more about the boys than the girls of the Turpin family. (NOT here, want to stress that)

It is depressing. Makes me angry too.
 
SATA said:
A great deal of misogyny is well and alive in abundance wherever you look.

I also see people commenting that they worry more about the boys than the girls of the Turpin family. (NOT here, want to stress that")

It is depressing. Makes me angry too.
Click to expand...
How do they justify this?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
 
SATA said:
"Males are more fragile mentally and physically. They endure prolonged stress much worse than females."

NOT MY WORDS!
Click to expand...
Good grief.

So essentially - the male parent was too mentally fragile to be equally responsible, and the male children are most vulnreable from the evil harlot mother. Ignoring the lewd charge for convenience....

Very grateful to WS that we don't see that rubbish here.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 155 more.
Total: 1,504 (members: 156, guests: 1,348)

Online statistics

Members online
156
Guests online
1,348
Total visitors
1,504
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,779
Messages
17,958,712
Members
228,606
Latest member
JerseyLizard
Back
Top