Deceased/Not Found Ca - Hannah,16 (fnd dec), Devonte,15, (dec nf) Ciera Hart,12 (fnd dec),mendocino Cty,26 Mar 2018 #7

[debbiegarcia36]

I would like to be a fly on the wall in the 2 homes that JH and SH grew up in. No doubt in my mind that some unspoken

atocities were committed against or in front of these two monsters. Monsters like them grew up w. abuse and trauma

which may lie dormant for a time but will eventually come out as atrocities against others. Unless the

abused/traumatised one makes a conscious decision to thoroughly understand and a very conscious decision

not to perpetuate this kind of abuse on others. In other words, to become a better person than the family member(s)

that committed the atrocities on them. Abuse often begets more abuse- unless the abused is committed to halting it.

IME, MOO.

Jen had brothers, I wonder if they would ever come forward.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[kizzykat]

This is video of the Hart children taken in the Fall time. Year unknown but it appears recent (Markis particularly reflects this).
Hannah is not in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYvTi5iZkCI

 

[debbiegarcia36]

Fellow members did an excellent job analysing what could have been her psychiatric problems and/ or type of personality. For her social media image, she made many posts exclusively for friends/friends of friends\closed groups. imo She would have never been able to face the backlash if exposed by people outside these circles.She cut off many people who criticized her choices and deeds; 'some' festival goers, old friends, neighbours (the Minnesota lady from the WP story) and online friends. She might have been looking for acceptance and recognition by specific groups on her terms. SH was a part of this scheme too. At least three photos of the children specially in their underwears or bathing suits in 2013 were very alarming and indicating a level of malnutrition, yet no one that we are aware of 'noticed' and acted upon this. This set of friends (with some exceptions) was a perfect match for her. With such stories, published sparsely to avoid questionable details from daily life that could eventually be debunked by experienced eyes here and there, she could have fooled many of them and taken advantages (free accommodation/ tickets/ clothes for the poor tiny kids I rescued from poverty, violence, ... etc). Notice that the children mostly wore over sized clothes, theatrical-themed ones or way too casual and outdated fashion outfits. She would exaggerate (like: we were targeted for being vegetarian lesbians with black children,..etc ; there were multi-layers of potential discrimination she claimed ...and the couple's friends would be some how 'obligated' to offer assistance for the 'kind' couple who saved six children but the evil world doesn't leave them alone. After all, they thought that they all belong to the same social/ and cultural or political/ group, they would empathizes with the story and the story plot would activate their imagination and evoke similar memories and prevent any reasonable or skeptical perception/ no fact check/ of what they were told). There is a scientific term for this trick/ this defensive one. Not sure if it is transportation attitude or something like that. She knew what she was doing manipulating others, especially those who were ready to believe a person they associate themselves with. I don't defend who observed any kind of abuse but trying to understand why some overlooked it or were not concerned enough by some alarming signs. Regular users of social media over the last decade can readily detect these tricks and would expose it in short(and sometimes harsh) comments. But not her alleged 'online friends. Sorry for being talkative jmo omo

I totally agree! Thanks for your input.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[DakotaMayi]

I have struggled to keep up with this case, thread moves so fast.

But then I saw this

"[h=1]FBI: 2 missing Hart children 'could currently be traveling together'"[/h]
Is this actually possible, in everyone's opinion? My god I need to catch up.

 

[bluesneakers]

I have struggled to keep up with this case, thread moves so fast.

But then I saw this

"[h=1]FBI: 2 missing Hart children 'could currently be traveling together'"[/h]
Is this actually possible, in everyone's opinion? My god I need to catch up.

I want it to be true but I don't think it's possible they are both alive and hiding or travelling together. Which is not to say I'm convinced they were with the other children the J&S murdered them.

 

[DakotaMayi]

I want it to be true but I don't think it's possible they are both alive and hiding or travelling together. Which is not to say I'm convinced they were with the other children the J&S murdered them.

Thanks blue! This is quite a case.

 

[Spellbound]

It seems everyone is teying to cover all their bases. They could be, they may not be...


http://katu.com/news/local/oregon-dhs-silent-after-hart-family-documents-released
Atlas [DHS spokesperson] believes more needs to be done to find the Hart’s two children, Hannah and Devonte, who are still missing.
“It's possible that they weren't in the car, and there's no evidence to date -- there is no evidence to date that suggests that they were in the car,” she said.
The FBI recently added the phrase “The missing children could currently be traveling together” to missing person flyers seeking information about where Hannah and Devonte might be.

Authorities say they have no specific reason to suspect the children didn’t die in the crash along with their parents and four siblings, they just don’t want people to assume the missing children were in the Harts’ SUV when it crashed.

 

[Kapua]

I have struggled to keep up with this case, thread moves so fast.

But then I saw this

"[h=1]FBI: 2 missing Hart children 'could currently be traveling together'"[/h]
Is this actually possible, in everyone's opinion? My god I need to catch up.

IMHO, this is wishful thinking, but anything is possible. I think Devonte in particular captured people's hearts. Hope is a beautiful thing. But if the two kids were alive and traveling, I think that they would have been discovered by now.

:cow:

 

[rosemadderlake]

The post showcasing the bloody tooth is bizarre enough even with the made-up explanation that I would have considered Jen a bizarre person for it alone. It's just weird. It would have raised my eyebrow.

Yes, I too, going along until I saw that tooth.

That is when I went omg... It wasn't just a tooth, it was her bloody tooth mishandled.

What happened to this child?

 

[HoldySi]

Yes, I too, going along until I saw that tooth.

That is when I went omg... It wasn't just a tooth, it was her bloody tooth mishandled.

What happened to this child?

Is there a pic of the bloody tooth somewhere? I have to bounce in and out of this thread. Did I miss something?

 

[gitana1]

Fellow members did an excellent job analysing what could have been her psychiatric problems and/ or type of personality. For her social media image, she made many posts exclusively for friends/friends of friends\closed groups. imo She would have never been able to face the backlash if exposed by people outside these circles.She cut off many people who criticized her choices and deeds; 'some' festival goers, old friends, neighbours (the Minnesota lady from the WP story) and online friends. She might have been looking for acceptance and recognition by specific groups on her terms. SH was a part of this scheme too. At least three photos of the children specially in their underwears or bathing suits in 2013 were very alarming and indicating a level of malnutrition, yet no one that we are aware of 'noticed' and acted upon this. This set of friends (with some exceptions) was a perfect match for her. With such stories, published sparsely to avoid questionable details from daily life that could eventually be debunked by experienced eyes here and there, she could have fooled many of them and taken advantages (free accommodation/ tickets/ clothes for the poor tiny kids I rescued from poverty, violence, ... etc). Notice that the children mostly wore over sized clothes, theatrical-themed ones or way too casual and outdated fashion outfits. She would exaggerate (like: we were targeted for being vegetarian lesbians with black children,..etc ; there were multi-layers of potential discrimination she claimed ...and the couple's friends would be some how 'obligated' to offer assistance for the 'kind' couple who saved six children but the evil world doesn't leave them alone. After all, they thought that they all belong to the same social/ and cultural or political/ group, they would empathizes with the story and the story plot would activate their imagination and evoke similar memories and prevent any reasonable or skeptical perception/ no fact check/ of what they were told). There is a scientific term for this trick/ this defensive one. Not sure if it is transportation attitude or something like that. She knew what she was doing manipulating others, especially those who were ready to believe a person they associate themselves with. I don't defend who observed any kind of abuse but trying to understand why some overlooked it or were not concerned enough by some alarming signs. Regular users of social media over the last decade can readily detect these tricks and would expose it in short(and sometimes harsh) comments. But not her alleged 'online friends. Sorry for being talkative jmo omo

Super interesting thoughts.

It got me thinking about my own perusal of social media. I go super fast. (I read and write here fast as well which is why I have odd typos and strange words sometimes, (autocorrect)). I don't know if I would notice anything off in my friend's posts of their kids as a result. Do most people do more than scan, maybe a nice comment and move on?

Besides the sort of confirmation bias you're describing, could that also be a reason few among her insular circles saw red flags?

 

[Zelda1010]

This is video of the Hart children taken in the Fall time. Year unknown but it appears recent (Markis particularly reflects this).
Hannah is not in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYvTi5iZkCI

I had to watch that fall robotic video about 6 times. I hardly recognize Devonte without the stage face he plastered on for the "gazing at the waterfall scene". I wonder what "take" director Jen was on. How many times did they have to trudge up & down those stairs. How cold and damp and sick of it, but on cue, they light up. Those poor souls.

 

[Sleuth99]

This is video of the Hart children taken in the Fall time. Year unknown but it appears recent (Markis particularly reflects this).
Hannah is not in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYvTi5iZkCI

Dehumanizing and psychological torture. Sick behind. I am not surprised. [emoji1488] for the angels!!


IMO

 

[ilovepierre]

I have struggled to keep up with this case, thread moves so fast.

But then I saw this

"[h=1]FBI: 2 missing Hart children 'could currently be traveling together'"[/h]
Is this actually possible, in everyone's opinion? My god I need to catch up.

IMO, no.
I believe they were in the vehicle when it went over the cliff.
Due to certain conditions (water temp, body temps, animal predation, etc), the bodies won't be found

IMO

 

[ilovepierre]

Is there a pic of the bloody tooth somewhere? I have to bounce in and out of this thread. Did I miss something?

It was posted quite a few threads back and numerous discussion followed.

 

[LeighB]

When she said that Jen made the kids lay down for several hours with the sleeping masks on, for instance. That sounds terrible but how do you PROVE it? We should definitely believe the children, but if the kids aren't talking or if they're denying it? It kind of puts the worker in a tough position.

How would this be handled in a court of law?

What I mean is, let's say they had been charged with (whatever is the right charge for feeding the children way too little), and were in a trial. The prosecution would bring forward the friends as witnesses. The friends would describe the many times they saw the children be denied food, and the school staff would describe the many times the children were hungry. The kids refused to testify against the Harts and the Harts refused to self-incriminate. Is that enough evidence to convict? How about if you throw in the children's weight & height against the charts?

 

[staunchcharacter]

I had to watch that fall robotic video about 6 times. I hardly recognize Devonte without the stage face he plastered on for the "gazing at the waterfall scene". I wonder what "take" director Jen was on. How many times did they have to trudge up & down those stairs. How cold and damp and sick of it, but on cue, they light up. Those poor souls.

While I don't doubt this was rehearsed and it looks super awkward, it was a Facebook live video so take one I guess? Final take?

It's just so silent and weird.

 

[Breamworthy]

This is video of the Hart children taken in the Fall time. Year unknown but it appears recent (Markis particularly reflects this).
Hannah is not in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYvTi5iZkCI

Wow. I wonder how this person got access to the uncut video. You can clearly see only the shots looking at the waterfall were intended for public consumption, as the kids don't have their photograph faces on until then.

When you think about multiple takes of that video, you can see that someone weak from starvation (or worse) would likely not be able to participate in this "activity".

EDIT: I just saw someone post that this was a Facebook live video. Seems bizarre to me that Jen would be comfortable recording a video where she couldn't control the finished product.

 

[HeidiTX232]

How would this be handled in a court of law?

What I mean is, let's say they had been charged with (whatever is the right charge for feeding the children way too little), and were in a trial. The prosecution would bring forward the friends as witnesses. The friends would describe the many times they saw the children be denied food, and the school staff would describe the many times the children were hungry. The kids refused to testify against the Harts and the Harts refused to self-incriminate. Is that enough evidence to convict? How about if you throw in the children's weight & height against the charts?

I seriously doubt that you could get a CRIMINAL conviction when the kids were otherwise healthy, were denying starvation, etc. There would be too much “shadow of a doubt” especially if the kids were known to have behaviors regarding food in other homes (bio, foster, kinship, etc). And many foster and adoption children do act out food issues. The Harts had the children’s pre-adoption case files and could also get medical records from Texas easily enough.

But usually, child abusers aren’t tried in criminal court anyway. The standard bar isn’t set so high. It just has to be pretty likely the case. I’m actually surprised that the CPS history from OR didn’t show evidence by the Harts from Texas or at least when they first got the kids. I’d be very proactive about providing it if it were my rear on the line!

I’m so up in the air about all this. A LOT of adoptive families have significant CPS contact, often due to allegations by the kids. Schools, therapists, neighbors, etc also call when they just aren’t sure what is going on especially when kids have a considerably hard time. It isn’t a mandated reporter’s job to figure out whether this is true or not or happening because of the child’s past or current situation. The belief of foster parents is that it is WHEN you get an investigation, not IF. It’s only a slight bit more positive for us adoptive parents of really challenging children. So part of me wants to take everything with a grain of salt. Then there is the murder, the conviction, and that durn picture of the kids painting. It becomes a lot easier to believe there was a lot going on

 

[gitana1]

In regards to the teeth, I feel like it's just normal human nature on the part of many to want to rationalize this as an accident because we've had kids in our own lives and we ourselves have had some kind of freak accident in which the same end result happened (tooth getting knocked out). So we believe JH's FB post explanation, even when so much else of what she has posted on FB has been debunked as a lie for the camera.


On the other hand, we have documented CPS evidence that JH and SH did things like: hit children with a belt, held a child over a bathtub and beat her, starved children, and shoved a banana and nuts into a child's mouth.


Imo, there was no running allowed in that house to begin with to even set the stage for an accident. What's more likely to have happened given what we know about the behavior of JH are things like:


- H tried to escape from a punishment and did run as she broke free and fell hard. Being malnourished, her tooth broke off the way it did.
- JH shoving hard food like nuts into her mouth was something that happened more than once. On two occasions, the shoving of food was forceful enough (I imagining her shoving almonds forcefully at her teeth.) H being malnourished - weak gums - and out comes the tooth.
- JH outright punched H in the face for whatever perceived infraction.


To me, the cause is Occam's Razor. The posting of the tooth of FB is the CYA of all CYAs in the event H ever told someone about her teeth. "See, she's lying!" It's so clear imo. I just am feeling like too many times people rationalize ways to make this situation less dark.


There is that one photo of H wearing that hideous mask at the Goonies festival -- which you have to know was an "ironic" momster choice to make her wear that. The way her face is turned towards the camera, you can only see one little eye. And you can see that it's a sad little eye. In a sea of fake smiles.


MOO

Oh my gosh. Your post has me tearing up a bit. That last paragraph. You should be a writer if you're not already.


I see something else less charitable in the strenuous efforts overall that we've seen in general in these women's histories, with friends and doctors and the legal system and since this horror, among various friends and acquaintances in the public, as well as various people who've commented in comments sections of articles, since the beginning of this case, to give these women the benefit of the doubt while their kids got the burden of doubt.


It's not surprising. They were the "nice", middle class saviors. Their kids were damage goods needing rescuing from the stereotypically dire backgrounds they came from, destined to a horrible life otherwise and burdened with the assumption of their dishonesty due to the "packages" they came in, which made anything they said automatically suspect to many.


Think about the difference. Grandma or aunt (I can't recall) of Devonte, Jeremiah and Ciera, had a nice, safe and stable home for the kids. She fought hard for them. Loved them. They were her blood. But custody was yanked permanently and heartlessly from her for the sin of allowing their birth mother to come over. Once.


Now we look at Jen and Sarah Hart.


Allegation one. They beat Hannah with a belt causing a bruise on her arm. Their excuse that she was running and fell is believed without question and nothing is done. They are allowed to go on to adopt three more children.


Allegation two. Various teachers in Minnesota have witnessed the kids hungry and begging for food. After seeing the kids are punished each time they report to the moms that the kids are hungry, they stop telling the moms that the kids are hungry. And keep feeding them. Hannah reports being hungry but punished with a banana and nuts shoved in her mouth. Sarah tells the school nurse "she's playing the food card. Give her some water." The teachers and nurse must know something is wrong and eventually discuss the issue with CPS officials. But where were the calls to CPS all along?


Allegation three. Abigail has massive bruising after her mother beats her over a bathtub and holds her head under water. For having a penny in her pocket. And being a liar. There's an arrest and investigation. But the main more serious charge is dismissed. None of the children are ever removed, even Abigail, for any period of time, despite evidence of severe abuse. During the investigation other incidences occur and allegations are reported to CPS but not acted on and closed as they are simply "morphed" into the main allegation. Which overall reduces the seriousness. It's like, "yeah we have a problem in that home but they're already under a safety plan so it is being dealt with." What? There is an active CPS investigation and criminal case and during that time about two more allegations surface and again, no escalation of CPS activity? No removal of the kids? The criminal charges are reduced via plea instead of sticking despite the fact that clearly, even while under a microscope, these maniacs are unable to stop themselves from maltreating their kids.


They are given "services" and counseling and allowed to abruptly yank their kids out of school, totally isolating them from any protection, and they're on their way. Why wasn't aunt or grandma given "services"? One strike and she was out. A woman who loved and cared for the kids. But these women? Who brutally beat and bruised a tiny six year old and couldn't stop from abusing them even after the initial arrest, during the investigation?


Allegation five or six (when you consider the additional allegations during the pendency of the bathtub beating case). A couple friends see something terribly, terribly wrong. A CPS worker tries hard to investigate and document the horror and save these kids. It is clear something is very wrong. But a nice doctor, despite examining six very small kids, five of whom are so tiny they aren't even on the growth charts at all, who are from two separate families, and despite the fact that he or she is aware of a CPS investigation and allegations of food withholding, casually determines there is no evidence of abuse or neglect. Maybe the kids are just small genetically or from whatever happened to them previously. It will take several months to determine a baseline. Again these monsters are given the benefit of the doubt. Their precious kids are given the burden of doubt.
They must be damaged goods who are lucky to have been rescued by their saviors. Those women who appear "normal". The kids are returned to their life of isolation and the abuse intensifies.


Allegation seven. A tiny 7 year old (appearing) with no front teeth bursts into a stranger's home, desperate and terrified, having ripped through thorny bushes to escape. She races upstairs to hide behind a bed. She says she's being beaten with belts by her racist mothers. She begs for help. She has never been seen before. She and her siblings are kept prisoner, isolated in their home. The mothers burst in frantically searching for her.
Is there a call to the police? Is there a call to CPS? Nope. Again these charming middle class saviors are given the benefit of the doubt while their kids are given the burden. And sent back into isolation and terror and abuse.


Allegation 8. It's the same as allegation 7 but reported months later to CPS. Despite the seriousness of the situation, no action of any kind is taken. (Remember the stable relative who allowed one visit by the kids' birth mother?)


Allegation 9, 10, 11. Devonte comes over to those same neighbor's home months later. He says he's being starved by his parents as punishment. He begs for food. Food is given but no calls to CPS. No calls to police. Once again, his nice, savior mothers are given the benefit of the doubt while he is given the burden.
Finally, but only after days of begging and asking, "Have you called CPS yet?", the police are called.


It's too late.


Regardless, despite evidence of a prior abuse conviction and the knowledge of what the neighbors witnessed, and the lack of skid marks or swerving, people everywhere find multiple excuses and justifications and alternate explanations for everything that happened in this case:


"I'm unwilling to conclude this was intentional. I need more info."


"Maybe they camped on a high turnout with no guardrail and a frightening cliff face, with six kids and accidentally rolled, or something!"


"Oh they could've fallen asleep and travelled 75 feet across obvious gravel without knowing it."


"It's hard to see in the dark where you're going."


"They might just have been on another camping trip. They didn't pack much because they're spontaneous. It doesn't point to intent!"


"The kids probably did have food issues. Just because they were digging through garbage and begging for food and claiming they were being starved doesn't make it true. Many foster kids have hoarding and bingeing issues."


"They likely just bit off more than they could chew and had a hard time dealing with kids with serious behavioral issues. So they broke down or had some bad moments. They just needed assistance. They needed help not judgment."


"They had mental health issues but they should be idolized. Did you know them? They rescued those kids. Turned their lives around. They were stressed. You don't know them."


"Just because one of these tiny, abused kids , lost her front teeth, which were never replaced due to the ridiculous excuse that a sixteen year old liked the toothless look, doesn't mean it wasn't an accident. I mean my kid lost her teeth. Are you saying I'm an abuser?"


Sigh.


There are "saviors" and there are "damaged goods" in this world.


It is a bias that impacts how all of us react to cases like this, to parents like these and to kids like they were, crying out desperately for help.


Ultimately I believe that bias led to the deaths of six beautiful, intelligent, incredible, innocent kids who anyone would've been lucky to call theirs.


That makes me very upset.