Turpins - 13 shackled kids

[TSOWOATNK]

A couple people quoted my statements and replied, but i have no inclination to go back and quote each one to respond to (I think it would make the post too long).

 

My theory is based upon my experience. Did anyone hear about that Ethiopian girl that basically died of exposure in WA state? While I didn't know the family, I know people that knew that family. They were defending the couple until the truth was revealed. The defenders were very nice people, with great families that were completely taken in by the story that couple gave. The way that girl died was horrific, they way she was treated was horrific; her death was forseeable and preventable. Yet, their friends/community came to their defense because the "reasons" for how she was treated before her death were explainable. They didn't see the worst of the abuse, but they did see signs of things being "off" and excused it. Many very good people will defend a "friend" against what they think is unfair persecution based upon the fact that they didn't see it coming, so it couldn't be true. I disagree with these people defending the abusers of course, but I can also see how they were taken in by the story. Most people don't question what they see/hear automatically, so if there is a seemingly reasonable explaination they will happily take it. This isn't limited to friends/family either, that is how child services missed all the warning signs with Josh Powell. I knew someone that was good friends with Jane Laut, who defended her and said she couldn't have shot her husband over-and-over again. She was livid that they would accuse Jane of the shooting, and swore up and down that she couldn't have done it because she knew her so well. Then once Jane admitted to doing it, she defended her friend as acting in self defense.  My larger point is that this horror house passed unnoticed, yet these people clearly had relationships with people IRL. The only way that could occur is if their community thought their odd behavior was somehow justified.

Large families gather together a great deal. I've left innumerable large family online groups because they often get just nutty (although groups that are mostly from outside the US tend to be better for some reason?) If someone came into the group saying they were reported to a child protection agency, more often than not someone would come along giving them the horrible advice to lockdown the family, and refuse to cooperate so no more reports could come in. This isn't limited to large families either. Look at the entire website "Medical Kidnap" to see what I mean. These nutters honestly think the best way to deal with government investigation is to fight back and get hostile. 

There are plenty of horrible large families, and there are plenty of good large families. They all tend to congregate together and talk about their experiences. Some large families will be investigated for abuse merely because there are people out there that can't comprehend that a family that large could be healthy. Some large families are never investigated simply because it is assumed they know what they are doing. In either case (and even in the case of other family situations like a mother with multiple children by multiple men, but I won't address that here) there are assumptions made about the family unit based upon the size/structure alone. Many of these large family groups are down right paranoid about anything and everything. Watch the videos of Nicole Naugler as a good example of this. An officer came to see if her daughter was OK after being seen wandering on the road, and NN flipped out and made it into a "mah rights" issue. She immediately started screeching about how persecuted they were, and told her kids that the police kill people. Being pulled over for a kid not in a seatbelt almost turned into an arrest at another time. The Ns are permanently set to attack mode if anyone that seems to be in authority so much as looks at them sideways. I think the only reason they haven't locked up their kids similarly is because it would require too much effort to maintain.

At least one of their behaviors really isn't all that abnormal; dressing similarly on outings isn't automatically crazy. When you go out in a large group in a crowded area (like Disneyland or the fair) with small children it *is* a good idea to dress similarly so you can readily see where people are. There is a reason that school groups often have kids wear the same shirt/vest on field trips. It isn't always insane control of everyone. I've done it myself both in a professional manner, and with my own family. If you have a group of 8 kids with you all wearing the same color it is easy to scan the crowd for that color and count. Similar attire can allow the kids to have some measure of freedom and distance while maintaining a visual. Having similar outfits for professional photos isn't entirely abnormal either. It's unnecessary to be identical. In general it is always a good idea to make sure everyone is wearing something that meshes well with everyone else in photography. You wouldn't want to have 1 person wearing hot pink, and everyone else wearing muted grey in a photo for a variety of reasons. 

These people are clearly wrong on so many levels. Yet, I don't think that every-single-aspect of their existence points to something nefarious either. Nor do I think the fact that they went unnoticed means that no one every saw the warning signs because they were just that good at hiding it. The most reasonable explaination is that they had a ready excuse for their behavior, and that they didn't start absolutely batshit crazy-something triggered them to overreact. 

I'm probably talking to air since in my experience you all just want to tar and feather anyone that thinks differently than you. Why I am being chastized for forming a hypothesis, but someone else can say that the baby might not be from the mother/father is completely acceptable is beyond me.

[GeorgieL]

2 minutes ago, Carol said:

IMO, you don't renew your vows that often unless you are really afraid of losing the other partner and are trying to hold on to them.   It fits into the eternally youthful mother(or father) scenario.

I know a couple that does it every. single. year. on their anniversary.

She has a well known reputation of being a possessive jealous shrew. She falls into the "afraid of him cheating" category. Not that he ever has..... but she will not let him out of her sight to make sure it doesn't happen. 

Has to be exhausting.

[Rachel333]

4 minutes ago, Carol said:

IMO, you don't renew your vows that often unless you are really afraid of losing the other partner and are trying to hold on to them.   It fits into the eternally youthful mother(or father) scenario.

I think some people also just want the attention.

[TSOWOATNK]

1 minute ago, GeorgieL said:

I know a couple that does it every. single. year. on their anniversary.

She has a well known reputation of being a possessive jealous shrew. She falls into the "afraid of him cheating" category. Not that he ever has..... but she will not let him out of her sight to make sure it doesn't happen. 

Has to be exhausting.

Seal and Heidi Klum did it every year, and clearly it worked out well for them. The Gosslein's seemed to have faired exceptionally well after their big vow renewals too. Heh.

[bird]

12 hours ago, imokit said:

Smiling in photos means nothing. A lot of ex fundies have spoken about being punished for not being happy.

Looking happy in photos may mean they are happy or it may mean that they were beaten right before and are decent enough at acting to fake happy for pictures.

I'm not sure if you were replying to my comment that they look so happy and relatively normal but if you were I just want to clarify (I'm getting really good at that) that the full sentiment is: they look so happy and normal how shocking and sad to learn the truth behind the facade. 

No part of me thinks those children were happy. Every part of me 100% understands it was a facade. 

I know all about the Pearls and Duggars and their switches and plumbing line. It's why I'm here! 

[Anonymousguest]

They probably bought the house in CA, then let the one in TX go into foreclosure. Maybe they tried to sell and it didn't and they just "walked away". If they bought in the mid2000 theyo owed more than it was worth. In certain types of bankruptcy they allow you to retain one house as a residence. Then your credit is marked for a certain amount of time, depending again in the type of bankruptcy and the deal you work out with a lawyer. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

18 minutes ago, TSOWOATNK said:

I'm probably talking to air since in my experience you all just want to tar and feather anyone that thinks differently than you. Why I am being chastized for forming a hypothesis, but someone else can say that the baby might not be from the mother/father is completely acceptable is beyond me.

Given the ages the parentage of the younger children was a plausible question.

I read your post twice and I have no idea what any of it has to do with your theory that includes:

Quote

The father worked in something akin to intelligence, so he was already fairly paranoid.  When child services got involved, he thought it was some sort of government plot "new world order" kind of thing so the transition to paranoia was quick. This "unjust" intervention was known in their circle of friends, so the sudden lockdown of socialization was excused/largely ignored. The older kids that had once known some modicum of freedom objected to the lockdown, and were "influencing" the younger kids to "misbehave" so they were shackled and "disciplined" in order to get them on board with the new family rules. 

Does Joe Naugler work in something akin to intelligence?  Or at all?  

I was genuinely asking if you had read something to indicate any of the above might be the case, but it seems from your response this is just complete fanfic based on nothing.

Supposition is one thing, but inventing a tale out of whole cloth and calling it a theory is how rumors get started...people pass still along not realizing it was an invention of fantasy.

Again - unless you've got a source for why you have such a hyperdetailed sense of their motivations.

 

[JenniferJuniper]

38 minutes ago, Elegant Mess said:

This is yet another strange element to this whole story.  Who renews their vows *that* frequently?!

With Elvis, no less.

Clearly fundie.  Jesus told them to keep having babies and homeschooling consisted of memorizing the Bible. Whilst chained.  (who wants to bet there's a Pearl book somewhere in that house).

But the Elvis impersonator does set them a bit apart from the usual suspects.

[NotQuiteMotY]

31 minutes ago, TSOWOATNK said:

I'm probably talking to air since in my experience you all just want to tar and feather anyone that thinks differently than you. Why I am being chastized for forming a hypothesis, but someone else can say that the baby might not be from the mother/father is completely acceptable is beyond me.

You know, I was nodding along with your post till this paragraph... I think most of the criticism comes from how much of your hypothesis is made up of supposition and whole cloth. It's entirely possible, but we just don't know. The idea that the baby might not be the mother's comes from a lot of similar situations, unfortunately, though that seems to not be the case, with more info.

You do make good points in this post, though, outside of the last paragraph.

[Firebird]

The talk of properties costing so much is mind boggling. I paid $85,000 for my house in Western NY (near Buffalo) it's 3 beds and 1 bath on 1.5 acres. 

[busdrivingmom]

I work with two Baptist ministers and they saw this on the news today in the driver room.  Their response was these people need Jesus.  My (and a few of my drivers) response was, no I don't think thats it.  

I hope these children, and adults, get the care they need.  

[adidas]

Apparently Louise was spitting and smirking as she was led away by authorities.

https://heavy.com/news/2018/01/david-turpin-louise-allen-anna-perris-california-children-shackled-parents/

[Carol]

14 minutes ago, adidas said:

Apparently Louise was spitting and smirking as she was led away by authorities.

https://heavy.com/news/2018/01/david-turpin-louise-allen-anna-perris-california-children-shackled-parents/

I am not defending this woman but this makes me wonder if she has late onset schizophrenia.  It's possible her last child tipped her over the edge?  In any case it's pretty clear there's been something wrong in this family for a long time.

[Anonymousguest]

It occurred to me that if the cops hadn't found them literally shackled to their beds this would have been spun as another large homeschooling family being persecuted for their beliefs. Maybe medical kidnap would have gotten involved because of the kids small size. The girl who called 911 really is their hero. 

I feel so desperate for more information. I really hope the older "kids" will make some statements. Though I guess nothing it's going to make sense of any of this. 

[FecundFundieFundus]

There's no way in hell they became abusive "only" a few years ago. All of the children were severely malnourished and they had an almost 30 year old locked up, for heaven's sake. If they were anywhere near a normally functioning family, that person should have been building some kind of independent life from their teens (friends, education/work) that made it impossible for them to just disappear into the parent's insanity. 

[Sideways]

12 hours ago, Zebedee said:

ETA: FB page still up, but no updates since July 2016.

Facebook page is now gone.  I was surprised it stayed up as long as it did.... showing that the Turpins did not have close friends to give them the password and have it taken down for them.     The Turpins must have given their lawyer the password to get.   By mid today when it was still up, there were over 1,000 shares of the cover pic and dozens of other photo shares.    Pretty sure people screenshot some in anticipation of the page going away.

[adidas]

19 minutes ago, Carol said:

I am not defending this woman but this makes me wonder if she has late onset schizophrenia.  It's possible her last child tipped her over the edge?  In any case it's pretty clear there's been something wrong in this family for a long time.

IMO if there was any sign of mental illness she wouldn’t be being held on $9 million bail - she would have been transferred to a secure facility and assessed. 

Just now, Sideways said:

Facebook page is now gone.  I was surprised it stayed up as long as it did.... showing that the Turpins did not have close friends to give them the password and have it taken down for them.     The Turpins must have given their lawyer the password to get.   By mid today when it was still up, there were over 1,000 shares of the cover pic and dozens of other photo shares.    Pretty sure people screenshot some in anticipation of the page going away.

It disappeared about 20 minutes ago (by my guess). I was indeed taking a couple of screenshots and when I next clicked it took me to my own page. 

[Cheetah]

2 hours ago, GeorgieL said:

Just as an FYI....  That's a pretty average price for a tract house in Southern CA. I mean... mine is valued at about $475K and it's nothing to write home about. Tiny lot. 4bed/2.5 bath.  And because of prices/when we bought and the way property taxes are structured, we can't afford to downsize. LOL!  You may not have been making a point on the price.... I just wanted to point out that nothing should be read into what I'm sure sounds like a spendy house to many people. It just isn't in S. Cal.

This.  And the fact that the dad made $140,000 at Northrop Grummon (or however you spell it) has been mentioned in every article I've seen so far, but same story, that might seem like a large salary in a lot of the US but in CA it's not especially high.  

[FiddleDD]

I don’t know how much we should trust this article, but they interviewed a former neighbor here: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5276835/amp/Neighbor-says-Turpin-children-marched-circles-hours.html

[Sideways]

36 minutes ago, FecundFundieFundus said:

There's no way in hell they became abusive "only" a few years ago. All of the children were severely malnourished and they had an almost 30 year old locked up, for heaven's sake. If they were anywhere near a normally functioning family, that person should have been building some kind of independent life from their teens (friends, education/work) that made it impossible for them to just disappear into the parent's insanity. 

 

36 minutes ago, FecundFundieFundus said:

 

An article I read stated the family just upped and left their home in TX, with no warning.  Left a mess behind....hoarders.  The new owner found it strange that there were VENTS in the bedroom closets.  This abuse has been going on for years. 

3 hours ago, User error said:

I'm trying to make sense of the timelines from the news articles.  Is this correct?

Pre 2010 lives in TX and declares a bankruptcy 
2010- bought 300k+ home 
2011- declares bankruptcy again + renews vows + opens school
 

They moved to Perris in 2014.  Where they were between 2010-2014 isn't clear.  

[of_the_lioness]

According to this article, the family lived in Murrieta, CA during the intervening years. 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5276835/Neighbor-says-Turpin-children-marched-circles-hours.html

 

@Sideways, do you have a link to the story about their time in Texas?

[Sideways]

2 hours ago, acheronbeach said:

 That said, how do you get a mortgage immediately after bankruptcy?  Is this normal?  I thought bankruptcy destroyed your credit rating...?  

There are loans to be had, believe it or not, especially if father had a job.   

$475k is very cheap for a home in Southern California.   A 1500 s.f. house in the "near" metro L.A. area will be over $700k, and that is not in a tony neighborhood, just well kept, middle class.    $1mm starts to buy something that $200k in small Midwestern or Southeastern cities will get you.  It's pretty crazy prices (but nothing like San Francisco and environs, or NYC).

Turns out the family was in Murrieta prior to Perris.  Neither of which are especially nice towns.  They are outlying the Riverside area which Angelenos call the "armpit of Southern California".   

https://heavy.com/news/2018/01/david-turpin-louise-allen-anna-perris-california-children-shackled-parents/

[adidas]

I can’t drag myself away from the news articles about this case. It has upset me so much. 

The next couple come from the Daily Mail, which is the armpit of ‘journalism’ but in the first one, if you scroll down to the vow renewal photo it shows the older girls wearing different shoes than the stiletto style heels they wore to walk down the aisle. 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5276835/amp/Neighbor-says-Turpin-children-marched-circles-hours.html

This one says the 17 year old hero thought she would be killed if she was caught trying to escape 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5276289/Girl-escaped-California-home-window-alert-police.html

We do need to acknowledge the courage of that young girl who escaped,' Riverside County sheriff's Capt. Greg Fellows said on Tuesday.

He said the 17-year-old girl managed to escape through a window and call 911 with a deactivated cell phone she had found in the home. When officers interviewed the girl, she provided photos of the conditions and abuse suffered by her and the rest of her siblings.  

And according to The Mirror, the 17-year-old who finally broke free thought her parents would kill her if they caught her trying to escape. 

'In her mind, she was risking her life,' a source told the paper, describing the teen as 'so intelligent' despite alleged limited access to the outside world during her childhood.[\quote]

[Black Aliss]

2 hours ago, Carol said:

IMO, you don't renew your vows that often unless you are really afraid of losing the other partner and are trying to hold on to them.   It fits into the eternally youthful mother(or father) scenario.

I used to roll my eyes at every elaborate vow renewal we've talked about. For starters, the original vows are supposed to hold until one of the partners dies. It's not like marriage vows come with an end date, so unless one of the parties has broken some other clause in the vows, maybe the part about forsaking all others, there's no need to renew. And the  expense! The Rodriguii and the Eleventys must have better things to spend that money on.

Then I decided to try and stop being such a judgey bitch and just think of these rituals as Christian Cosplay. In the case of the Turpins, though, I'm willing to go back to being a judgey bitch.

 

 

[JesusPony]

I don’t know how much we should trust this article, but they interviewed a former neighbor here: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5276835/amp/Neighbor-says-Turpin-children-marched-circles-hours.html

I hope this isn't true. If some of it is, I feel like there were missed opportunities for the neighbors to notify authorities. 

And I just realized who the dad and boys' haircuts remind me of: Adam Lanza (the Newtown killer.)