S'morton Bret Alan Smith Jailed (2)

[dramallama]

53 minutes ago, fundiefan said:

What the hell did I just watch? There is so much wrong with that video I can't even organize it to snark.

It's from 2003. pre SMorton marriages. Did the Mortons see that before decided to ride the Smith crazy train? And the other families who jumped on and off?

Lawd help me. I can't even comprehend a grown adult with healthy brain function even thinking that shit up much less committing it to video-and putting it on the web. 

The Mortons were in that video.  There were a few clips of the Morton daughters dancing with each other in Jane Austen-esque dresses.

[Jasmar]

Well, I never thought I'd see the day that someone could out-Brady the Brady kids. I have nothing else to say; that video must have been set to Stun.

[Letgo]

Can someone please tell me what verse in the Bible promises a touch of heaven in the home? I want to print it and frame it for my own home. I can put it above the photos I'll be taking of my children with their automatic weapons.

[SolomonFundy]

The Cap'n Brunch Comedy Hour video was life-changing. Hubris is a beautiful thing. This is an arrogant, self-righteous prick of a man, who got the idea to do this nautical "fantasy" dance, executed it, produced it (with the "joyful" help of his little arrows), and yet somehow never saw how utterly ridiculous he looked at any point during the process.

I'm also nursing a level-2 eye twitch over the fact he happily dressed his teenaged daughters in tight pants and sleeveless fitted tops to flaunt themselves behind him for his special little sailor show. If gyrating teen girls in tight clothing is sinful sin that sins, it shouldn't be OK just because daddy tells you to do it to pimp his empire of lunatic evangelical crap.

 

 

14 hours ago, fundiefan said:

Yes, but I was trying not to state the obvious.

The past three years, Alan has been otherwise occupied.

 

12 hours ago, MamaB said:

Hopefully it's just her body slowing down not being able to spew kids one after another  but then again it is the same three years he's in jail for. 

*shudders*

Just to be clear (and to help forestall any unintentional victim identifying), we don't know that Alan's crimes took place over the past three years. It's a logical assumption, but as far as we know, he has been arrested for crimes that were committed over the course of a three-year period, not necessarily the specific years of 2013-2016. As a matter of fact, the wording of the MO article makes it clear that, wherever he was living during the investigation, the family actually no longer lived in Colquitt county at the time of his arrest. Since the specific charges he's facing are related to their time in Colquitt (and possibly an earlier residence in  Ashburn), it's possible that the abuse had stopped before their move from Colquitt. Otherwise, additional charges in a third/current county would have probably been on the table.

 

[oldsalty]

17 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

In my professional experience, a lot of victim blaming goes on in sexual abuse and incest cases whether or not the family is particularly Fundie.  

It is incredibly complex - and sickening.  Families, and even mothers in some cases, can blame the child victim for "seducing" the spouse.  Mothers can be blamed for letting themselves go and failing to stay attractive enough for the abuser/rapist.   Mothers can also be blamed - and face criminal charges - for failing to protect the child. Note that Katie has not been charged in this case, which means she did not conspire in or turn a blind eye to child rape and incest.  Yes, that does happen in some cases.

I'm glad to see that Katie's family really does seem to be rallying around her.  I'm probably as cynical as @RosyDaisy though.  My guess is that the family wants her to be put under the umbrella of protection of a male family member and not allowed autonomy.  CPS might have something to say about that.  I don't know.

This family is not Gothardite - but take a look at his treatment of child sexual abuse/rape.  There's a new series by HA on BG being discussed here:

 CPS might have something to say about that.  I don't know.

Actually no, DCS would not have a a say about that.  

17 hours ago, libriatrix said:

Re: victim-blaming -- an angle of it that I did not realize until becoming close to a victim is that blaming oneself is a common and incredibly strong psychological reaction to being abused or raped. I used to think it was all the culture and people surrounding victims that started the victim-blaming and that spread to victims blaming themselves. Culture certainly plays a part, but it's not all. Blaming oneself is an instinctive reaction because if you are the one who messed up, then you feel some measure of control over the situation. You can just make sure not to mess up again. But if someone else is the only one responsible for devastating your life, you feel a spiral of terror and uncertainty. The world is not safe and never will be again. That's overwhelming, especially in the beginning, and causes victims to feel like it's actually preferable for they themselves to be the ones at fault. It's heartbreaking to watch this chain of thought in action. 

This is all absolutely correct - no one has to "blame" a victim- they already blame themselves - that is very true.

[fundiefan]

10 hours ago, dramallama said:

The Mortons were in that video.  There were a few clips of the Morton daughters dancing with each other in Jane Austen-esque dresses.

You're right. It registered as them when I saw it but it clearly left my brain since it had exploded. 

And, again and still, so many thoughts and questions. Too many.

[acheronbeach]

20 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

Note that Katie has not been charged in this case, which means she did not conspire in or turn a blind eye to child rape and incest.  Yes, that does happen in some cases.

No it doesn't.  It means that the investigators don't have grounds to arrest her.  

Lots of times there are bits and pieces of evidence, or even hearsay, that would suggest a parent was wilfully blind or party to abuse, but police don't have enough to charge.  

I'm not suggesting that Katie in any way did so.  I just find that a lot of people think that criminal charges are proof of the reality of a situation - they're not.  You always have to remember that police can only base charges on what people tell them - and people don't often speak up about their family members.  

[MayMay1123]

i tried to explain the video last night to my headship and now i'm pretty sure he wants to have me committed ::sigh:: whenever he starts talking about cars or guns or guitars, i just smile and nod my head at what i hope are appropriate times while thinking about all the dozens of other things that are more important to me. i guess i have to teach him that skill...

[fundiefan]

8 hours ago, SolomonFundy said:

The Cap'n Brunch Comedy Hour video was life-changing. Hubris is a beautiful thing. This is an arrogant, self-righteous prick of a man, who got the idea to do this nautical "fantasy" dance, executed it, produced it (with the "joyful" help of his little arrows), and yet somehow never saw how utterly ridiculous he looked at any point during the process.

I'm also nursing a level-2 eye twitch over the fact he happily dressed his teenaged daughters in tight pants and sleeveless fitted tops to flaunt themselves behind him for his special little sailor show. If gyrating teen girls in tight clothing is sinful sin that sins, it shouldn't be OK just because daddy tells you to do it to pimp his empire of lunatic evangelical crap.

 

 

 

Just to be clear (and to help forestall any unintentional victim identifying), we don't know that Alan's crimes took place over the past three years. It's a logical assumption, but as far as we know, he has been arrested for crimes that were committed over the course of a three-year period, not necessarily the specific years of 2013-2016. As a matter of fact, the wording of the MO article makes it clear that, wherever he was living during the investigation, the family actually no longer lived in Colquitt county at the time of his arrest. Since the specific charges he's facing are related to their time in Colquitt (and possibly an earlier residence in  Ashburn), it's possible that the abuse had stopped before their move from Colquitt. Otherwise, additional charges in a third/current county would have probably been on the table.

 

To be even clearer, everything everyone here says on the matter is pure guess, speculation, piece work and assumptions based on what they see, read and observe; all thoughts and opinions come from what little we know of the family. Nothing more. Not even your assumption that it happened other than the 'past' three years. You are deducing based on your observation of limited public information, just as everyone else. Considering we are a bunch of Internet snarkers with no actual knowledge, I don't think anyone needs to  'make it clear' that their 'guess work' is  more funded/morally founded than anyone else's. I don't think what I said is out of the question or the realm of possibility or unreasonable. Scary, yes. Bordering on identifying the victim, no. Spreading false information, no. It was my thought at the time. No more valid than anything else said by anyone. And in no way was victim identification implied or even skirted.

Sometimes I think the moral pedestal some FJ'ers put themselves on is just as bad as the ones fundies put themselves upon.

 

 

 

[Palimpsest]

2 minutes ago, acheronbeach said:

No it doesn't.  It means that the investigators don't have grounds to arrest her.  

Lots of times there are bits and pieces of evidence, or even hearsay, that would suggest a parent was wilfully blind or party to abuse, but police don't have enough to charge.  

I'm not suggesting that Katie in any way did so.  I just find that a lot of people think that criminal charges are proof of the reality of a situation - they're not.  You always have to remember that police can only base charges on what people tell them - and people don't often speak up about their family members.  

I completely agree.  Former APS here.  I wrote it far too simplistically - partly because, like you, I wanted to avoid speculation about Katie in this case and partly due to time constraints.

I spend a lot of time explaining that abuse can be substantiated by Protective Services (children and vulnerable adults) and interventions put in place to ameliorate the abuse without criminal charges being filed.  Again: A lack of criminal charges does not mean that no abuse has occurred.

This is either because although abuse has been found (by PS standards) it hasn't reached the threshold necessary for a criminal charge, or there isn't enough forensic evidence for a DA to want to press charges.  In the vast majority of PS cases no criminal charges are made - and the general public knows nothing about them.

If the children are still living with Katie then she is not considered a present risk to them by either PS or LE.  I hope she takes advantage of any and all services offered to help her and her children.

 

[JMO]

That video was a real gem.  I thought the outfits were somewhat surprising considering how the girls dressed the rest of the time.  Love Boat meets Brittany Spears without the midriff.  And Kressant seemed especially good at the dancing.  Lost talent there.  

He's so crazy and full of himself.

Slightly off topic but I haven't seen it addressed elsewhere.  Does anyone know why they stopped after 4 bio kids and then later started adopting? Was there a medical issue or did they have a late in life change of heart about children being the heritage of the world?   

[Letgo]

I wondered about the adoptions, too. Who in the world allowed them to adopt?! How did they pass a home inspection?

Captain Bret believes that if you live the right way you won't be barren. So what happened to end the string of bio kids? Sin in the camp? Shouldn't there be lots more of them, living right and all? Is their touch of heaven much smaller for some reason? Just how many children do the Smith's have?

[picklepizzas]

44 minutes ago, Letgo said:

I wondered about the adoptions, too. Who in the world allowed them to adopt?! How did they pass a home inspection?

Captain Bret believes that if you live the right way you won't be barren. So what happened to end the string of bio kids? Sin in the camp? Shouldn't there be lots more of them, living right and all? Is their touch of heaven much smaller for some reason? Just how many children do the Smith's have?

Also - are any of the adopted kids married yet? 

 

In related news, in the competition for Most Depressing Fundie IG of the Week, i would like to submit martha's post from yesterday: she posted an ode to kressant that included 'thanks for teaching me it was fun to wash dishes, and clean bathrooms'.  it's like you can almost see this moment in time where a pre-teen martha was beginning to sense this whole thing was BS and maybe she wanted more from life than housework...but then SNAP she was reprogrammed and now DISHES ARE FUN! 

[AmazonGrace]

59 minutes ago, picklepizzas said:

'thanks for teaching me it was fun to wash dishes, and clean bathrooms'.

I am happy they are allowed such a lot of entertainment.

[MamaB]

2 hours ago, JMO said:

 

Slightly off topic but I haven't seen it addressed elsewhere.  Does anyone know why they stopped after 4 bio kids and then later started adopting? Was there a medical issue or did they have a late in life change of heart about children being the heritage of the world?   

They both got fixed then had a change of heart and got the reversal done I believe 

[Black Aliss]

32 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

Quote

'thanks for teaching me it was fun to wash dishes, and clean bathrooms'.

I am happy they are allowed such a lot of entertainment.

And yet, it's nothing compared to the thrill of dusting the ceiling fans. . .

[Four is Enough]

37 minutes ago, Black Aliss said:

And yet, it's nothing compared to the thrill of dusting the ceiling fans. . .

THRILLS?? There's no thrills in ceiling fans! No Thrills! (Think A League of Their Own)

[SolomonFundy]

6 hours ago, fundiefan said:

To be even clearer, everything everyone here says on the matter is pure guess, speculation, piece work and assumptions based on what they see, read and observe; all thoughts and opinions come from what little we know of the family. Nothing more. Not even your assumption that it happened other than the 'past' three years. You are deducing based on your observation of limited public information, just as everyone else. Considering we are a bunch of Internet snarkers with no actual knowledge, I don't think anyone needs to  'make it clear' that their 'guess work' is  more funded/morally founded than anyone else's. I don't think what I said is out of the question or the realm of possibility or unreasonable. Scary, yes. Bordering on identifying the victim, no. Spreading false information, no. It was my thought at the time. No more valid than anything else said by anyone. And in no way was victim identification implied or even skirted.

Sometimes I think the moral pedestal some FJ'ers put themselves on is just as bad as the ones fundies put themselves upon.

Pointing out a repeated, possibly erroneous assumption (one that you felt strong enough about to make a second post "stating the obvious", just in case someone here missed your meaning) does not equal a "moral pedestal".  My post could literally be condensed to: Let's not assume that we know which three years it was. Because we don't know which three years it was, even if it's convenient to believe that we do based on personal opinions about Katie's last two births. 

I never at any point claimed my statements were more "morally founded" than anyone else's,  nor did I accuse you or anyone else of spreading false information. Those are your words, not mine.

I'm not emotionally invested in my speculation here, but the part of my post you seem to object to wasn't even speculation. The article states that the crime occurred over the course of three years, that it includes acts in two locations, and that the family were former residents of Colquitt and Ashburn at the time of the arrest. I read the article, and repeated a portion of what it said in different words. That doesn't qualify as an assumption. (Though I wholeheartedly acknowledge that i've make many assumptions about fundies in this thread and others. It's why we are all here!)

You have made a lot of great observations in this thread, and I've enjoyed your remarks. Despite whatever you may be feeling about my last post, it was not a personal attack. Neither is this post. Feel free to message me directly if you'd like to discuss this further.

[Jucifer]

On August 10, 2016 at 2:31 PM, cami said:

sorry Sorry a little (or lot) off topic, but I cant stop watching these videos on "Captain Bret's" youtube channel 

Watch the "Dance video" from 5:30 featuring all of the sisters and ALan...

I'm having a hard time believing this isn't some sort of elaborate performance art project. It's too perfect. :/

The captain has all the talent and charisma of Larry 'Bud' Melman (remember him?).  The children dance with the grace of hostages at gunpoint. Maybe that's what all those guns were for...

Also, the bullshit captain's uniform makes me think of L. Ron Hubbard. 

Ugh!!!

 

 

[SparkleMomma]

I just watched that video. Is this real life? Those poor kids. Well, besides Alan, fuck him. Captain Bret is... Interesting. That's the nicest thing I could say. Did they use to have different modesty standards? I'm surprised the girls were in pants and tight, sleeveless tops. Or is this a "costume" (like the duggars did for the kirk Cameron movie)? 

[Black Aliss]

13 minutes ago, Jucifer said:

I'm having a hard time believing this isn't some sort of elaborate performance art project. It's too perfect. :/

 

The Captain has one foot in Narnia. That is all I have to say.

[Palimpsest]

7 minutes ago, Black Aliss said:

The Captain has one foot in Narnia. That is all I have to say.

Oh, come on.  Don't diss Narnia!

[church_of_dog]

Just watched the last part of the video.   The music -- melody and chords -- have a Jimmy Buffett flavor to them.  I cringe to think that's who he thinks he's emulating here, at least musically (obviously not the lyrics, nor the dancing).

My apologies to Jimmy Buffett for the thought!

[Gobsmacked]

23 hours ago, Mudgie said:

I have been rendered speechless. That video was glorious. 

YMCA , YMCA............etc

[Black Aliss]

1 hour ago, Palimpsest said:

Oh, come on.  Don't diss Narnia!

Okay, but he can definitely see Narnia from his, er, wardrobe.