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

[Lilibet]

You just said it a million times better than me.

Thanks, but I think everyone who responded gave a very good civics lesson.

 

[justme77]

At about 28.50 on the long youtube video, the eldest boy says his name. We know his names is Jos***, but the name sounds nothing like it, not even a nickname or variant of his name.

It sounds like JD to me. Probably a nickname formed by his first name and middle name?

 

[Rocco]

Thanks, but I think everyone who responded gave a very good civics lesson.

For the second time :crosseyed:

 

[Stunned]

Marking

 

[Lulu_la_Nantaise]

I don't know what to make of that story about her having sex with another man.

Also, I wonder if it was Huntsville, TEXAS rather than Huntsville, Alabama?

All of LT's communications were falsely claiming "Look what a good time we're having / Look how happy we are / Look what a perfect family I have", so what she said to her sister (IF she said it) could just be another case of "Look how sexually liberated I am". JMO

 

[keeleydoll]

For the photo on the left, if we are to assume this is 2007, one child is missing. I only count 11 children when I would expect 12. But maybe this is before 2007 and the person in the cap and gown is not the oldest child, but someone else who is a different relative and not a child. I'm a little confused by this. The one being held looks around 2 ish to me. If anyone has some ideas on who is missing and when they think this photo was taken, that would be great.

Im catching up so it may have already been said but IMO there is a 12th child with back to the camera between the other children as indicated by my very poorly drawn arrow.

MOO

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Zelda1010]

#12 was born in 2005, IIRC.
There's a 10 year age gap between #12 and 13.
It wouldn't make sense for #12 to have been 4 in 2011....they'd have to be 7....
Unless I have the ages messed up (which is quite possible)?

I think we are confused about the ages of 10/11/12. I'm not sure where the birth years with question marks in the media thread (2005?) were gleaned from.

Confusion has cited the bankruptcy docs listing ages of 7/6/4 for the youngest three.

If #12 is a four-year-old in 2011, she was born in 2007 (or 2006 and not celebrated yet as of filing bankruptcy).

I have not viewed these docs. I do know others have mentioned possible clerical errors in the bankruptcy docs. For example the number of sons vs daughters is off, but may have possibly just misclassified Jor's gender based on the name.

What other info has been used to figure the ages of the youngsters?

 

[Nelnoir]

Im catching up so it may have already been said but IMO there is a 12th child with back to the camera between the other children as indicated by my very poorly drawn arrow.

MOO

I think you are right about a child not facing the camera. Other than that I notice that their clothes don't seem to fit them properly. They also have the same stance or similar stances in every photo, unnatural posing, not touching each other (unless told to?). And their hair always seem to be poorly washed or combed.

 

[Zelda1010]

Im catching up so it may have already been said but IMO there is a 12th child with back to the camera between the other children as indicated by my very poorly drawn arrow.

MOO

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, would you look at that...I do believe you are correct. A little one with a yellow shirt? Or white shirt in shadow, I suppose. Baby could be anywhere from, what 9 mos to 2.5 years there? Her hair is quite short yet, but obviously she isn't a little squish who can't sit on her own yet.

 

[Bill Carson]

All of LT's communications were falsely claiming "Look what a good time we're having / Look how happy we are / Look what a perfect family I have", so what she said to her sister (IF she said it) could just be another case of "Look how sexually liberated I am". JMO

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.

 

[Zelda1010]

Im catching up so it may have already been said but IMO there is a 12th child with back to the camera between the other children as indicated by my very poorly drawn arrow.

MOO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Snipped for space.

I wonder if that is #11 wanting to be held by someone. I have a feeling babies are held and at a certain age (3 perhaps?) the Rule is no more snuggles

It can be hard on everyone in normal families to stop holding the little ones when they get too big. But it just makes me extra sad here.

 

[Electric Sheep]

Yeah no.

In my mind, there is such thing as age appropriateness, in general, for all things, from dress to discipline. Especially when it comes to objectifying women and little girls.

I was born in 72, I am a 90s girl.

Not appropriate for a child in this particular context. I see it as sexualizing here.

Maybe not with other parents, but with LT/DT, their secrets, torture, DT's lewd behavior "vs" his their apparent t"conservativeness". I think it is very important to take this in context. It's not innocent. IMO

I remember kids wearing those sort of tights for First Holy Communion. I guess they have different connotations to different people.

 

[JaneEyre]

This is a photograph of someone’s photo album. Who is sharing their photo album with Telemundo?

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

 

[ilovepierre]

I think we are confused about the ages of 10/11/12. I'm not sure where the birth years with question marks in the media thread (2005?) were gleaned from.

Confusion has cited the bankruptcy docs listing ages of 7/6/4 for the youngest three.

If #12 is a four-year-old in 2011, she was born in 2007 (or 2006 and not celebrated yet as of filing bankruptcy).

I have not viewed these docs. I do know others have mentioned possible clerical errors in the bankruptcy docs. For example the number of sons vs daughters is off, but may have possibly just misclassified Jor's gender based on the name.

What other info has been used to figure the ages of the youngsters?

2005 seems to be right for the birth year of #12.
She would have turned 10 in 2015...the same year #13 was born.
The only thing I know is that there are 10 years between those two children.
#13 is turning 3 this year.
I wish there were some sort of official birth records we could see...

IMO

 

[JaneEyre]

I think the oldest girl is missing. I say that because there are 2 girls, #11 and #12 smaller than the youngest boy and those 2 are in the picture with the gap and gown, LT holding #12. Another possibility is if one of the middle girls is missing, possibly the girl in the orange T in the 2nd picture.
This picture shows that there were years they subscribed to fundamentalism "no pants for girls".

Maybe. But in my family 15 years ago, even the women who don't own dresses (quite a lot of these in my family, actually), would buy a dress on sale for family pictures or some sort of celebration. Now, I can't get them out of jeans for formal family pictures even.

A lot has changed in the last ten to fifteen years in terms of how people dress for occasions. I look at friends' pictures on SM, and aside from things like homecoming dances becoming even more formal, general celebrations and events, family pictures, and church dress have all become really informal in dress across the board, it seems. I have a ton of dresses and no opportunity to wear them now because I would look out of place around my family and friends.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Carson]

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=&quot]Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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]

 

[SkipperKey3]

2005 seems to be right for the birth year of #12.
She would have turned 10 in 2015...the same year #13 was born.
The only thing I know is that there are 10 years between those two children.
#13 is turning 3 this year.
I wish there were some sort of official birth records we could see...

IMO

Unsure about #12 at this point. The initial reports were that "a 14-year-old and an 11-year-old were freed from restraints" when the authorities arrived, which would indicate that she wasn't yet 12. But that would make her birth year 2006, not 2005. If other (bankrupcy) records say 2005, then the initial reports would be wrong. Do those reports actually say #12 was born in 2005?? I haven't seen them.
I take the "10 years" with a grain of salt, as in an approximation. Somebody could have said "almost 10 years" and it got passed on as "10 years".

 

[Zelda1010]

2005 seems to be right for the birth year of #12.
She would have turned 10 in 2015...the same year #13 was born.
The only thing I know is that there are 10 years between those two children.
#13 is turning 3 this year.
I wish there were some sort of official birth records we could see...

IMO

BBM: How do you and I know that? I don't have links, myself, but seem to think I know that too. For me, could be lazy media reporting er artistic license.

Another poster seems to think he or she knows the youngest child was 4 in 2011, concedes bankruptcy docs could be wrong, but seems more comfortable with the documentation until other proof is found. That does seem pretty reasonable to me, too.

ETA:. I don't mean to sound condescending...I don't like how my tone comes across rereading this. Apparently I can't do life things and post simultaneously.

 

[Shelby2]

BBM

But why?



I ask genuinely. With what little we know, and we know that she was a sexual abuse victim according to her family, and he was a 'golden child' who has been largely excused...

Why is she "lazy" and he the deferential husband that went along with it?

I truly am amazed as this narrative.

Or am I?

I don't think this has anything to do with anyone being lazy. With a lazy parent I would expect to see neglect, not supervising children, etc. This took work, what they did to those kids. Hiding them, making them march in circles, appearing normal on FB, among other things-they are just sadistic people and one is as bad as the other.

 

[JaneEyre]

BBM

But why?



I ask genuinely. With what little we know, and we know that she was a sexual abuse victim according to her family, and he was a 'golden child' who has been largely excused...

Why is she "lazy" and he the deferential husband that went along with it?

I truly am amazed as this narrative.

Or am I?

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