That's a very interesting observation regarding all those others who were accused of abuse by the Maples. Such unwarranted accusations cast a slur on their professionalism and integrity. Wonder how they feel about the mess made when the warrant was drawn up!

I've been reading the forum comments on this link to the Murfreesboro Post - interesting!

http://www.murfreesboropost.com/news.php?viewStory=17089

These seems to be one poster on that forum thread who is all too ready to accuse others of trying to enforce their own 'personal specifications' on the resolving of this dreadful case. Despite insistence that he or she is impartial, the nature of the comments suggests symapthy for the kidnappers.

Has anyone on this forum been subjected to this particular poster's spleen?

Sorry - wrong link!! This is the correct one.

http://www.murfreesboropost.com/news.php?viewStory=17319

That's a very interesting observation regarding all those others who were accused of abuse by the Maples. Such unwarranted accusations cast a slur on their professionalism and integrity. Wonder how they feel about the mess made when the warrant was drawn up!

I've been reading the forum comments on this link to the Murfreesboro Post - interesting!

http://www.murfreesboropost.com/news.php?viewStory=17089

These seems to be one poster on that forum thread who is all too ready to accuse others of trying to enforce their own 'personal specifications' on the resolving of this dreadful case. Despite insistence that he or she is impartial, the nature of the comments suggests symapthy for the kidnappers.

Has anyone on this forum been subjected to this particular poster's spleen?


If you mean "Undecided", yes I have noticed that despite their pseudonym, they insinuate their sympathies lie with the Maples. I personally haven't experienced their spleen, but after all our experiences with the Maple supporters (remember our locked thread!) I avoid direct confrontation with them on the forum and don't get drawn into silly arguments.

There is a difference between going to prison and serving hard time and receiving a basically meaningless sentence of probation where you are allowed to go right back into your old life with pretty much no consequences for what you have done. Just because his daughter forgave him (which is for HER not, him, so she doesn't hold on to that anger) doesn't mean she thinks what he did was right. I don't understand people who seem to think what he did was no big deal. :confused:

That's what burns me up the most too. The two decades of kidnapping, the allegations of abuse on not only the Baskins part but the social workers who handled the case, the money spent on the case while the FBI tried to find the Maples...after all that, he spends a week in jail and eventually gets to go home to his normal life as if nothing happened? It's a freaking travesty. I've dreamed for years of this case getting solved. Never in a million years would have I expected this outcome.

The wedge Marvin will drive between Christy, Bobby and the Baskins will grow even stronger now, I fear. I think Michael is the only remaining link to a hopeful reunion in the future after Marvin has passed.

Whenever there is a case with so many unanswered questions for so long, you can expect to be surprised at the progression and the outcome.

Who supplied their I.D. papers? How did they get away with false identities for so long? Why aren't their enablers in these crimes being prosecuted?

If a court case would have insured all these questions to be addressed, then the "powers that be" must drop the case. Too many criminals would suffer.

It reminds me of the recent youtube video two weeks ago from Guatamala. The Guatamalan lawyer predicted his own death only two days before he was gunned down while riding his bike. He knew too much about their President and First Lady.

It probably wasn't even the Pres. and 1st Lady who set it up, but whoever "owned" them and didn't want to have to get new "puppets". Reminds me of Vince Foster. Same as here, same as everywhere. You can start to predict outcomes of these perplexing cases.

Here's a link to a newer article, has comments from Mark Baskin.

http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4106&Itemid=53

He's not happy with the plea deal.

Thanks for the info, Crochetbuff.

Here's a quote from that link:

>>>The children's father, Mark Baskin, is a high-school band teacher and pastor of a Baptist church in Georgia. He said officials have explained the failure to prosecute a kidnapping charge to him several times, but he still does not understand it. He said he feels the FBI should have indicted Maple on identity and Social Security fraud, since the children, now in their late 20s, have Social Security cards identifying them by the names Jennifer and Jonathan Bunting.<<<

And I'm betting that Marvin and Sandra engaged in other identity fraud relating to their aliases, too. There must be something left to charge him with and give the family some hope that some kind of justice will be sought.

Thanks for the info, Crochetbuff.

Here's a quote from that link:

>>>The children's father, Mark Baskin, is a high-school band teacher and pastor of a Baptist church in Georgia. He said officials have explained the failure to prosecute a kidnapping charge to him several times, but he still does not understand it. He said he feels the FBI should have indicted Maple on identity and Social Security fraud, since the children, now in their late 20s, have Social Security cards identifying them by the names Jennifer and Jonathan Bunting.<<<

And I'm betting that Marvin and Sandra engaged in other identity fraud relating to their aliases, too. There must be something left to charge him with and give the family some hope that some kind of justice will be sought.

What about the professionals Marvin and Sandra accused of molesting the children as well? I suppose it may be too late for lawsuits but could they pursue anything? And if people continue to believe Mark and Debbie are guilty, do they think these professionals are guilty as well?

These seems to be one poster on that forum thread who is all too ready to accuse others of trying to enforce their own 'personal specifications' on the resolving of this dreadful case. Despite insistence that he or she is impartial, the nature of the comments suggests symapthy for the kidnappers.
Accuse "others" of listing her personal specifications as to what "should" be done in this case? No, just one person: Nellie.

"Sympathy for the kidnappers"? No, not at all. Where have I said anything like that??? Please, quote me.

Here's a link to a newer article, has comments from Mark Baskin.

http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4106&Itemid=53

He's not happy with the plea deal.

I can imagine! He probably isn't very surprised, though. Come to think of it, I don't think anyone is.

Having read through several of the Murfreesboro Post threads - and looked back over the pages of this thread - it seems that Undecided has decided that any views which do not exactly coincide with hers - or his - must be attacked. I see no evidence of Nellie, to quote Undecided, 'listing her personal specifications as to what should be done in this case'.

Reading through the various Murfreesboro forum threads on this topic, it is clear from her posts that Nellie is someone who has considerable experience working with and for children and their families. I find it odd that Undecided takes exception to her hope that, despite what has happened, the Baskin and Maple families can become reconciled. Nellie suggested that counseling might help in bringing such reconciliation a step closer. She certainly did not state, in any of her posts, that such a move should be forced on anyone.

Yet Undecided has decided that Nellie's wise and considered comments are somehow an attempt to force these families to dance to her agenda. And when Nellie makes it clear that this is not so - then Undecided, instead of making a sensible response, simply repeats her mantra. What nonsense! As Nellie suggests, change the record!

I do note however that, contrary to her assertions, Undecided has attacked other posters on the Murfreesboro threads. Undecided also suggests on this thread that the Baskins were appearing on TV shows to make money out of their tragedy - and attacks another poster on this thread, who had the temerity to disagree with his or her opinion by stating:-"In an even earlier note, you showed that your style is to attack posters simply for having opinions that do not agree with yours." Pot calling kettle black here!

So - Undecided? Somehow I don't think so. If I were Nellie, I wouldn't even bother responding to this biased person.

One baskin/maple thread on here was already
locked, before I joined, due to the agressiveness
of the posters.

I like Briony's idea to just ignore the troublemakers
and continue to discuss the case amongst ourselves
so we don't end up getting this thread locked too.

I see no evidence of Nellie, to quote Undecided, 'listing her personal specifications as to what should be done in this case'.
Then, you didn't read the thread carefully, because I quoted what she demanded that be done when she said things like "he should ..." and "he owes."

I find it odd that Undecided takes exception to her hope that, despite what has happened, the Baskin and Maple families can become reconciled.
AGAIN, you don't read carefully because I not only AGREED but also REPEATED that I hope they can be reconciled. First, I AGREED with Lt. Bill Sharp's comment about reconciliation. Then, I agreed with Nellie's statement: "Let this family heal." Finally, I stated, "The families need to heal."

I'm gonna sing the Doom Song now.

Doom doom doom. Doomie doom doom. Doomie doomie doom. The end.

You can't escape by teleporter. I cut the power!

Your pitiful attempt to escape is nothing but a PITIFUL FAILURE! Stupid, stinking humans!

Weren't you banished to Foodcourtia? Shouldn't you be...frying something?

What's wrong with you? All you talk about is aliens and ghosts and seeing Bigfoot in your garage!

There are many mysteries still unsolved. I figure, you know...I'll do some of that.

And I leave you to your moosey fate.

You can't escape by teleporter. I cut the power!

Your pitiful attempt to escape is nothing but a PITIFUL FAILURE! Stupid, stinking humans!

:ufo:

:ufo:
LOL Crochetbuff.

Yep, that's about it, right there...

One baskin/maple thread on here was already
locked, before I joined, due to the agressiveness
of the posters.

I like Briony's idea to just ignore the troublemakers
and continue to discuss the case amongst ourselves
so we don't end up getting this thread locked too.

Good idea! Undecided seems to have the strange idea that it is only she and those who share her opinions who are capable of reading threads carefully and with discernment. However, I think it is pretty obvious that it isn't Nellie on the Murfreesboro thread - or most of those posting here - who have the literacy problem.

We read - and we understand the issues quite clearly.

One baskin/maple thread on here was already
locked, before I joined, due to the agressiveness
of the posters.

I like Briony's idea to just ignore the troublemakers
and continue to discuss the case amongst ourselves
so we don't end up getting this thread locked too.

Thank you, Tracy. I have decided not to respond to Undecided - ooh, a bit of alliteration there!

Thank you, Tracy. I have decided not to respond to Undecided - ooh, a bit of alliteration there!
Uh -- no. Not a bit of alliteration. Columbia encyclopedia defines alliteration as "the repetition of the same starting sound in several words of a sentence."

I think it is pretty obvious that it isn't Nellie on the Murfreesboro thread - or most of those posting here - who have the literacy problem.
I've proven that you don't read carefully and shown that you're wrong via direct quotes. So, now you resort to insults instead of simply admitting that you misread it.

content deleted, off topic

content deleted, off topic

Guess this thread is going to be locked (another Baskin thread locked).

But, it's solved. And the kids are likely so brainwashed they'll never see their real parents again. Or maybe they are atheists and just don't want to have Jesus asking them to come home. LOL

Have a great life Baskin kids. You have great role models surrounding you attacking your parents. And enjoy your time without seeing your brother Michael who is your brother by blood.

EverybodylovesRS,

I'm not filling up space with foolishness to try to get the thread locked. I'm just throwing out some ridiculous faux entertainment in multiple posts to get us all onto the next page. I hope that by doing that, the primary instigator won't be the first post seen, causing someone to start an argument that will definitely progress to the eventual locking of the thread.

So, if one has to dig for the obnoxious outsider's post, chances are it won't been seen, arguments won't ensue, we can sing some stupid songs in the meantime. Then things will calm down and we regulars can discuss the case normally again.

Personally, I think an instigator should be blocked or something, and he/she, who is not a regular contributor to the forum, should not wield enough power to get our threads locked. That's trollish behavior.

Now if the regulars were fighting, causing problems, breaking forums rules, etc, I could see why that staff would have to lock the thread to shut us up. But in this case, I think we have a person or two who only comes to this thread, to discuss this case, and does not offer a valid contribution to any other threads/cases that the rest of us discuss in a civil manner.

Does anyone know the Baskin kid's original birthdates?

Did their grandparents change the kids' dates of birth to obtain false SS# for them, and to falsify other important paperwork?

Anyone know Christie and Bobby Baskin's professions?

Are they married?

Do they have kids?

Quoted from DarkDante on page 3 of this thread.

>>>>These aliases were given to the authorities apparently by Kristi/Jennifer. The article also seems to reveal that Marvin Maples may have been a party to his own arrest telling a woman who later tipped him off to the police that he was wanted by the FBI and unhappy in how the media portrayed him.

Seriously if I was wanted by the FBI the last thing I would do is go around advertising that.<<<

If Marvin was going around compaining about being wanted by the FBI and stating his unhappiness with the way the grandparents (he and his wife) were portrayed in the UM segment, does anyone think that maybe he was going a bit senile? And in that condition, he let this info slip? And that maybe his fragile mental state is why the charges ended up being "go back to California and visit with your grandkids, no questions asked" instead of being what we expected?

Here is a quote that I think might apply to the poster named "Undecided", from this website: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/troll.htm/printable

"Trolls will brag about their exploits, linking to message board discussions that dissolved into flame wars. Sometimes trolls will cause such a fuss that the entire community shuts down as a result. Some trolls compete with one another to see how long it takes before an administrator bans the troll from a specific community. The winner might be the troll who remained part of a community the longest or it might be the person who went from registration to banned in the least amount of time."

These people argue for the sake of arguing. They don't care which side of an issue they defend, as long as they can employ their convoluted thinking and devise confusing fallacy arguments like a cagey fox.

And that maybe his fragile mental state is why the charges ended up being "go back to California and visit with your grandkids, no questions asked" instead of being what we expected?
Newspapers said the charges were dropped because the warrants were not written correctly.

linking to message board discussions that dissolved into flame wars.
Actually, it was balclutha who linked to the discussion on another board where I was disagreeing with just ONE person -- Nellie. There, all I was doing was discussing Nellie's controlling views with her. That was all.

First, there was NO need for that discussion to come over here.

Second, I was already over here. You can find my notes when I joined this group after the adult kids were found.

And, third, although I'll disagree when I see faulty thinking, I'm not arguing just to argue. You might not like what I say simply because I don't necessarily agree with you. But, you'll find my comments to be sensible and rational.

Quoted from DarkDante on page 3 of this thread.

>>>>These aliases were given to the authorities apparently by Kristi/Jennifer. The article also seems to reveal that Marvin Maples may have been a party to his own arrest telling a woman who later tipped him off to the police that he was wanted by the FBI and unhappy in how the media portrayed him.

Seriously if I was wanted by the FBI the last thing I would do is go around advertising that.<<<

If Marvin was going around compaining about being wanted by the FBI and stating his unhappiness with the way the grandparents (he and his wife) were portrayed in the UM segment, does anyone think that maybe he was going a bit senile? And in that condition, he let this info slip? And that maybe his fragile mental state is why the charges ended up being "go back to California and visit with your grandkids, no questions asked" instead of being what we expected?


We don't know. It is known that Marvin had a stroke a few years back but recovered; however we don't know what the lingering effects are, if any. It could be Sandra's absence; without her Marvin may have gotten a bit careless, or grief could be affecting his mental abilities. Or perhaps Marvin simply had too much to drink.

The charges were dropped due to an incorrectly written warrant. But Marvin's advancing years and potential health problems probably did play a part in his getting probation.

I wonder what the conditions of his probation are. Are they standard conditions or are there special conditions? Could there be anything there that allows Debbie and Mark to have contact?

Hmm, it doesn't sound like Debbie has been able to see her father yet. That's another disappointment for me.

Here is a quote that I think might apply to the poster named "Undecided", from this website: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/troll.htm/printable

"Trolls will brag about their exploits, linking to message board discussions that dissolved into flame wars. Sometimes trolls will cause such a fuss that the entire community shuts down as a result. Some trolls compete with one another to see how long it takes before an administrator bans the troll from a specific community. The winner might be the troll who remained part of a community the longest or it might be the person who went from registration to banned in the least amount of time."

These people argue for the sake of arguing. They don't care which side of an issue they defend, as long as they can employ their convoluted thinking and devise confusing fallacy arguments like a cagey fox.

Now that's an interesting definition of what constitutes trolling. Boasting about their perception and understanding of the issue being discussed while at the same time declaring that others are incapable of reading and inwardly digesting the differing views being expressed. Expressing indignation and accusing other posters of trading cheap insults when their views are challenged. And in the process veering wildly off topic.

I did see, on another of the Murfreesboro Baskin/Maple threads, a post asking Undecided to stay on the subject - when she had been attacking another poster's views - not Nellie this time!

Interestingly, this is not the first time that a Murfreesboro thread has been cross-referred to this forum. I didn't notice any complaints then from others on this forum.

Anyone know Christie and Bobby Baskin's professions?

Are they married?

Do they have kids?

Christi has a nursing degree and is single, probably because she is looking after gramps.

Bobby is married with children, but I haven't seen a mention of what his profession is.

Christi has a nursing degree and is single, probably because she is looking after gramps.

Bobby is married with children, but I haven't seen a mention of what his profession is.

Oh wow! Grandkids for the Baskins! They must be delighted and miserable all at the same time. I can't imagine how that must feel. They've certainly been through more than I ever thought they would, with this case.

Now that the old man has basically been sent home with a pat on the back, maybe Bobby and Christy will calm down from all the ruckus, and take some time to ask themselves what they really remember and what really happened.

We don't know. It is known that Marvin had a stroke a few years back but recovered; however we don't know what the lingering effects are, if any. It could be Sandra's absence; without her Marvin may have gotten a bit careless, or grief could be affecting his mental abilities. Or perhaps Marvin simply had too much to drink.

The charges were dropped due to an incorrectly written warrant. But Marvin's advancing years and potential health problems probably did play a part in his getting probation.

I wonder what the conditions of his probation are. Are they standard conditions or are there special conditions? Could there be anything there that allows Debbie and Mark to have contact?

Hmm, it doesn't sound like Debbie has been able to see her father yet. That's another disappointment for me.

Yes, Marvin had a stroke a few years ago, this may have affected his ability to control or think through to the consequences of what he says at times.

According to his friends at the cafe, he doesn't drink alcohol, just juice.

Oh wow! Grandkids for the Baskins! They must be delighted and miserable all at the same time. I can't imagine how that must feel. They've certainly been through more than I ever thought they would, with this case.

Now that the old man has basically been sent home with a pat on the back, maybe Bobby and Christy will calm down from all the ruckus, and take some time to ask themselves what they really remember and what really happened.

That is my hope too, now that the legal wrangling is done, they will contact Michael, at least.

Here's my problem with the probation deal:

What's going to stop the NEXT pair of crazy grandparents who "believe" their grandchildren are being abused and running off with them? If they're smart and/or lucky enough to stay gone for a long period of time (long enough to brainwash the kids but good), then Hey! Maybe we'll just get a slap on the wrist and sent on our merry way like that other fellow!

Marvin Maple is a criminal. He broke both state AND Federal law and should AT LEAST be on strongly supervised probation -- IN TENNESSEE -- if not jail time.

This sucks all around. It's almost like they gave him an award or something.

I wonder what the conditions of his probation are. Are they standard conditions or are there special conditions? Could there be anything there that allows Debbie and Mark to have contact?

Hmm, it doesn't sound like Debbie has been able to see her father yet. That's another disappointment for me.

"Allows" them to have contact? I don't understand that comment. I haven't heard of anything stopping it except that the papers said that Maple didn't want to see Debbie.

Many here are outraged that a person got off lightly after committing a crime, and say that it will inspire others to try the same. This happens ALL the time: criminals get off. Sometimes it's due to a legal mistake like this one seems to be. Other times it's because of the tender hearts of one or more of the jury members. Yet other times it's due to insufficient evidence. There are probably a million reasons for the millions of people who commit crimes but are not held responsible. This is NOT an isolated case of someone avoiding jail time.

He broke both state AND Federal law and should AT LEAST be on strongly supervised probation -- IN TENNESSEE -- if not jail time.
The laws that he broke are not ones that he will continue to violate in the future. So, it would be a waste of the state's money to have him on "strongly supervised" probation. Like you, I'm surprised that he is being allowed to return to California.

The laws that he broke are not ones that he will continue to violate in the future. So, it would be a waste of the state's money to have him on "strongly supervised" probation. Like you, I'm surprised that he is being allowed to return to California.

You can see into the future? Hmm. I agree that he's not likely to commit the same offenses, especially given his age, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable. Hope he doesn't take too great a liking to his great-grandchildren and decide his grandson is doing something awful to them.

You can see into the future? Hmm. I agree that he's not likely to commit the same offenses, especially given his age, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable. Hope he doesn't take too great a liking to his great-grandchildren and decide his grandson is doing something awful to them.

Boy did you hit the nail on the head there. What if, in his old age, he's decided that maybe ditching religion wasn't such a good idea after all, and he knows it's nearly time to meet his maker.

I'm assuming that Bobby and Christy were raised to be non-religious, since Sandra and Marvin had decided that if they were going to hell, they were going to "live it up" here on earth first.

And so now, perhaps using Sandra and Marvin's example, Bobby is raising his children to be non-religious. Old gramps may get it into his head that there is a God after all, and snatch up the great-grand kids so he can raise them up in the little Cult of Maple.

Boy did you hit the nail on the head there. What if, in his old age, he's decided that maybe ditching religion wasn't such a good idea after all, and he knows it's nearly time to meet his maker.

I'm assuming that Bobby and Christy were raised to be non-religious, since Sandra and Marvin had decided that if they were going to hell, they were going to "live it up" here on earth first.

And so now, perhaps using Sandra and Marvin's example, Bobby is raising his children to be non-religious. Old gramps may get it into his head that there is a God after all, and snatch up the great-grand kids so he can raise them up in the little Cult of Maple.

Marvin's a bit old and too well-known for doing any more snatching of children, thank goodness. I have read that in their early years, Bobby and Christi were religious like their parents. I don't know what their views on religion are now, but if they have spent 20 years with a grandmother who gave up religion and decided to make the most of the life she had before the hellfire in the next world, they may or may not be quite so religious now. This could be interesting if they make contact with their Maple relatives who are Church of Christ. The great-grandparents turned against Debbie for this reason and declared that at least Bobby and Christi would not be going to hell because they would not be raised as Baptists. If the children are being raised to be agnostic, what would the great-grandparents say about that? The great-grandfather anyway - the great-grandmother is dead.

You can see into the future? Hmm. I agree that he's not likely to commit the same offenses, especially given his age, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable. Hope he doesn't take too great a liking to his great-grandchildren and decide his grandson is doing something awful to them.


I think Sandra was the instigator behind the original charges and kidnapping, and Marvin was the compliant accomplice who believed everything she said. There is no more Sandra now.

I wonder what the conditions of his probation are. Are they standard conditions or are there special conditions? Could there be anything there that allows Debbie and Mark to have contact?

Hmm, it doesn't sound like Debbie has been able to see her father yet. That's another disappointment for me.

"Allows" them to have contact? I don't understand that comment. I haven't heard of anything stopping it except that the papers said that Maple didn't want to see Debbie.
05-29-2009 12:59 PM"Allows" them to have contact? I don't understand that comment. I haven't heard of anything stopping it except that the papers said that Maple didn't want to see Debbie.
Briony, would you please clarify this?

Briony, would you please clarify this?

Oh, I think I mean not coming between Debbie and her children if they eventually decide to contact her.

I once read somewhere (I still have the article, I need to dig it out). An 80-year old grandmother kidnapped her grandchild. Because of her age, the judge spared her prison. Instead she was ordered to sew a quilt for charity.

The D.A. wasn't too impressed.

I once read somewhere (I still have the article, I need to dig it out). An 80-year old grandmother kidnapped her grandchild. Because of her age, the judge spared her prison. Instead she was ordered to sew a quilt for charity.

The D.A. wasn't too impressed.

I wouldn't be either! That's like reverse ageism...giving them preferential treatment. Just because they're old doesn't mean they get to break the law without consequences.

I once read somewhere (I still have the article, I need to dig it out). An 80-year old grandmother kidnapped her grandchild. Because of her age, the judge spared her prison. Instead she was ordered to sew a quilt for charity.

The D.A. wasn't too impressed.

I vaguely remember reading or seeing something about that too.

Sheesh! Sew a quilt for charity as punishment!? What if she loves to sew, like me? That would hardly be punishment. That's a reward!

If the judge thought that a traditional sentence was inappropriate for her, then the old felon should have been sentenced to pluck chickens by hand after wringing their necks, or some other equally unpleasant task.

I vaguely remember reading or seeing something about that too.

Sheesh! Sew a quilt for charity as punishment!? What if she loves to sew, like me? That would hardly be punishment. That's a reward!

If the judge thought that a traditional sentence was inappropriate for her, then the old felon should have been sentenced to pluck chickens by hand after wringing their necks, or some other equally unpleasant task.

Yeah, I like that! Community service could have been another alternative to prison for Marvin Maple. Something along the lines of doing something for services in finding missing children, such as distributing fliers, I would have loved to see!

Oh, I think I mean not coming between Debbie and her children if they eventually decide to contact her.
Ah, now I get it. Thanks for your answer!

I think Sandra was the instigator behind the original charges and kidnapping, and Marvin was the compliant accomplice who believed everything she said. There is no more Sandra now.

Yes, a weak and compliant man - but wicked nonetheless. It's too easy for someone to dodge responsibility for his part in a crime by claiming that he was only acceding to the demands of a more dominant individual whose forceful personality would brook no argument. Interesting to speculate whether or not he was hag-ridden by Sandra and meekly went along with her master plan - but whatever his part in the kidnapping, Marvin Maple knew exactly what he and his wife were doing when they stole their daughter's kids.

Distributing fliers for missing kids as part of some sort of community service, eh? Sounds good!

Yes, a weak and compliant man - but wicked nonetheless. It's too easy for someone to dodge responsibility for his part in a crime by claiming that he was only acceding to the demands of a more dominant individual whose forceful personality would brook no argument. Interesting to speculate whether or not he was hag-ridden by Sandra and meekly went along with her master plan - but whatever his part in the kidnapping, Marvin Maple knew exactly what he and his wife were doing when they stole their daughter's kids.

Distributing fliers for missing kids as part of some sort of community service, eh? Sounds good!

Hee, hee, I've just thought of something even better - being sentenced to give lectures on the evils of child abduction!

Yes, a weak and compliant man - but wicked nonetheless. It's too easy for someone to dodge responsibility for his part in a crime by claiming that he was only acceding to the demands of a more dominant individual whose forceful personality would brook no argument. Interesting to speculate whether or not he was hag-ridden by Sandra and meekly went along with her master plan - but whatever his part in the kidnapping, Marvin Maple knew exactly what he and his wife were doing when

Since Marvin and Sandra were mad that their grandkids were going to be raised baptist instead of church of christ, then Marvin's religion (former or otherwise) comes into play here.

Fundamental churches such as baptist and c of c believe that the man is the head of the house. God has charged the husband/father with the responsibility for the upbringing of the children, the fidelity of the marriage, the biblical education of the kids, plus he's responsible for providing food and shelter, etc. The man is directly responsible, to God, for what goes on in his home.

Through that belief system, Marvin should never have allowed his wife to "henpeck" him, or let her be the primary authority figure in the home. And due to her c of c beliefs, she is responsible (commanded by God) to behave like a lady and not usurp her husband's place as head of the house. Since she was raised c of c, she knew this, and so do all of her c of c relatives.

If Sandra was a nagging henpecking wife, it would be Marvin's responsibility to sit her down with the Bible, and teach her God's rules for the behavior and responsibilties of a christian wife.

By allowing Sandra to be the leading force in the crimes, etc, through his belief system, Marvin will be "extra" accountable to God for this whole thing.

There is a difference between going to prison and serving hard time and receiving a basically meaningless sentence of probation where you are allowed to go right back into your old life with pretty much no consequences for what you have done. Just because his daughter forgave him (which is for HER not, him, so she doesn't hold on to that anger) doesn't mean she thinks what he did was right. I don't understand people who seem to think what he did was no big deal. :confused:
And I don't understand those of you, which is most of you! who think that what Mark and Debbie did to their "beloved children" was no big deal!!!

It's pointless, Undecided, to try and make your own points. They talk of ignoring other opinions so that their precious Maple bashing threads don't get locked again, because, OMG!!, whatever would they do then, if they can't bash the Maples?? Then again, I'm sure they are on plenty of other threads bashing other innocent people.

It's pointless, Undecided, to try and make your own points. They talk of ignoring other opinions so that their precious Maple bashing threads don't get locked again, because, OMG!!, whatever would they do then, if they can't bash the Maples?? Then again, I'm sure they are on plenty of other threads bashing other innocent people.

What part of taking someone's children away illegally for over 20 years is innocent?

And I don't understand those of you, which is most of you! who think that what Mark and Debbie did to their "beloved children" was no big deal!!!

It's early here, but I'll give it a try~


Firstly, I myself, do not believe that Mark and Debbie Baskin did anything to their children.

Even IF they did, kidnapping them was not the right thing.

Stay and fight. As hard as that would have been (it couldn't be any harder than giving up your whole life and fleeing) stay and keep going through the courts again and again, appeal the ruling, keep appealing, etc... Try to get the youngest child out the situation if they truly believed what they claim was going on. At least in that situation the Maple's other daughters and extended family would still have been able to have a relationship with them. If custody was finally wrenched from the Baskin's the siblings could have grown up knowing each other, knowing their Aunts, Uncles, cousins, etc... Mark and Debbie could have possibly had supervised visits and at least know their kids.

Wow! After all these years, it's still the same group of disgruntled, misinformed, biased Baskin (aka child abuse) supporters! How sad and pathetic... Funny how a couple of people who support the Maple's decision to rescue their abused grandchildren get ganged up on by and ripped on, big time, by all the other people in this thread.

It's amazing to me how anyone who dares to post something (the truth) on here that doesn't sit well with the Baskin supporters *gasp... God forbid* get's verbally abused, then get's their post deleted. What a joke! Of course, consider the source.... verbally abusive people supporting people who physically abuse their children. Makes sense, I guess....

Bottom line: if the Baskins hadn't abused the kids, the Maples never would have had to take the kids to safety. The Maples did the morally right thing by protecting the kids from further abuse and threats. People who abuse children and/or animals need to rot in hell!

We all have the right to speak our mind. The Baskin supporters need to deal with that fact instead of crying about it like a bunch of fifth grade whiners! This thread isn't called "Baskin supporters only need post".......... geez!!!

Wow! After all these years, it's still the same group of disgruntled, misinformed, biased Baskin (aka child abuse) supporters! How sad and pathetic... Funny how a couple of people who support the Maple's decision to rescue their abused grandchildren get ganged up on by and ripped on, big time, by all the other people in this thread.

It's amazing to me how anyone who dares to post something (the truth) on here that doesn't sit well with the Baskin supporters *gasp... God forbid* get's verbally abused, then get's their post deleted. What a joke! Of course, consider the source.... verbally abusive people supporting people who physically abuse their children. Makes sense, I guess....

Bottom line: if the Baskins hadn't abused the kids, the Maples never would have had to take the kids to safety. The Maples did the morally right thing by protecting the kids from further abuse and threats. People who abuse children and/or animals need to rot in hell!

We all have the right to speak our mind. The Baskin supporters need to deal with that fact instead of crying about it like a bunch of fifth grade whiners! This thread isn't called "Baskin supporters only need post".......... geez!!!

Spit^Fire you have done an excellent job of showing people exactly why your posts were deleted several months ago. You seem to be incapable of something as simple as voicing your opinion and all you really do is attack others. Consider this your warning, you are welcome to post your opinion as long as you lay off all the name calling and tirades which seemed to be all you could post last time. If you can't do that, your posts will once again be history.

Dipahead this warning applies to you as well.

I see the Maple soldiers are on the warpath again. Okay, nobody get drawn into a silly argument with them - hard experience has shown it is a complete waste of time, and we never get any real answers to any questions we ask them, anyway - just a load of abuse.

Instead, tell them we aren't interested in arguing with them! ;)

Wow. Team Troll had to bring in reinforcements.

content deleted, off topic

content deleted, off topic

content deleted, off topic

content deleted, off topic

content deleted, off topic

Since Marvin and Sandra were mad that their grandkids were going to be raised baptist instead of church of christ, then Marvin's religion (former or otherwise) comes into play here.

No, it was Sandra's parents who were apparently angry about Bobby and Christi being raised Baptist instead of Church of Christ. Sandra had given up on religion altogether and decided to make the most of her existing life before what might await her in the next world.

content deleted, off topic

No, it was Sandra's parents who were apparently angry about Bobby and Christi being raised Baptist instead of Church of Christ. Sandra had given up on religion altogether and decided to make the most of her existing life before what might await her in the next world.

Thanks for the clarification. I must have gotten confused along the way, with all the different churches and claims of satan worship and everthing. ;)

Hi dipa!

Here's the thing. The only person who has said that those children were abused was the grandparents, who obviously had their own vested interest in the case, as they wanted the children and were upset that Mark and Debbie were going to take them back. It was only at this time that the Maples decided to say that the children were being abused. Pretty convenient if you ask me.

I also would love to hear you address the accusations against all the other people the Maples accused of abusing the children. Was that all going on too, or was it another case of the Maples throwing out wild accusations in order to further their own case?

Thanks for the clarification. I must have gotten confused along the way, with all the different churches and claims of satan worship and everthing. ;)

Now these are our (a few posters here who read it) interpretations of things from Debbie's blog (now readable by invitation only), so my take on this one post was that Sandra and Marvin used the "trump card" of the Baskin's being Baptist to further sway Debbie's Grandparents into siding with Sandra and Marvin, knowing that the Baptist issue was a hot button for them. I don't believe that it was the only reason that Debbie's Grandparents sided with Marvin and Sandra.

I have one more statement here on this case for Spitfire and dipa.

IF the Maples truly believed that the children were being so terribly abused, then they are even WORSE people than I thought they were for leaving Michael to be abused for all those years. It's a lose/lose situation with these people in my mind.

Honestly, how many cases have there been where the system actually did something and failed children so badly, as would have been the case here if the Baskin children were really being abused? I would guess not very often to never. Yes, there are cases where officials made mistakes but it's usually with kids who have fallen through the cracks, or someone didn't check on them or do the right investigation, NOT when everything was covered as it was here. It's very sad that it's so hard for the Maple supporters to see this and be in such denial.

It's okay for everybodylovesrs to call people "troll" and "satanist".... but God forbid I voice my opinion for fear of having my posts deleted. LMAO Oh golly, whatever shall I do!?

The judge made his decision regarding Marvin Maple. It's not my problem that none of you are happy about it. I suggest you accept it, because nothing anyone says is going to change the judges decision. And, in fact, if the truth comes out, it will cause some serious problems for Mark and Debbie.

Oh, and by the way. Someone mentioned something about Dipahead and I never giving any of you more facts about this case. Well, first of all, it's not my place to go public with this information, and if I did so it could open up a whole other can of worms that certain people might not want to deal with. It's simply not my decision to make. Unfortunately, I'm not at liberty to utter one word of what I know. And this is why it angers me to read these rotten posts about Marvin and Sandra. I know what I know, and most of the other posters in this thread obviously don't know these things. Otherwise I'm sure most, if not all, of you would significantly change your views on this case. Let me pose a question to you all, and please, give it some honest thought and really mull it over in your head before you blurt out a defensive answer simply because you dislike me.... does anyone HONESTLY believe that Debbie and/or Mark would EVER admit to abusing the kids, in any way, shape or form?? I'm not asking for an answer based on anything that you've read online or in a newspaper. I'm not asking you to answer that question based on anything Debbie has posted. I'm asking you to answer that question based on what you all, as grown adults with (hopefully) intact morals, think deep inside of yourselves, with no influence from anyone or anything else. Now I'll ask the question again: does anyone HONESTLY believe that Debbie and/or Mark would EVER admit to abusing the kids in any way??? Would YOU admit to the general public that you abused your kids? Would you think it's anyone's business but yours and God's?

There are things... facts... that may or may not ever be made public. Mark and Debbie know what those things are. They also know why the kids want no contact with them, just as I and a few others know why the kids don't want to see them. Knowing what I know, I can't blame the kids at all. In a way, I hope this is over and done with. But on the other hand, there's a part of me that wants these things to be brought to light so that everyone, once and for all, knows the entire truth about the Baskin/Maple case. Just remember this: things aren't always what they appear to be. People can win you over with their tears, sad stories, etc. However, maybe that's exactly what their agenda is... simply gathering supporters to help convince themselves that they're innocent and have done nothing wrong. They want support, pity, sympathy. It's a game that one's mind can play on itself when they've done something truly awful that they would rather forget about. They hide behind their jobs, their religion, etc. Hasn't anyone ever noticed the pattern of abuse by "people of the church"??? How often do these abusers choose work in a religious field, or with children? Or both!? How many times have we all read about priests, pastors, childrens coaches etc being guilty of abuse, sexual and otherwise. That's not to say that all these people are abusers, and it's not to say that there aren't "normal" looking people who abuse. My point is this: Mark and Debbie are trying to use their religion and Marks activity in the church as proof that they could NEVER abuse their kids. It gets mentioned again and again. But it doesn't prove anything! We all know that people from all walks of life are very much capable of abusing kids.

I read something claiming Mark and Debbie don't understand why the verdict is what it is, even though it was explained to them repeatedly. I can assure you, they thoroughly understand. They simply don't want the public to know because that would be another piece of the puzzle that the general public has no knowledge of. Maybe someday they'll confess all their sins, but I doubt it.

All I ask is that people remember that there are ALWAYS two sides to every story. Most of you seem to only know one side to this story. May the entire truth be told!!! And please also remember that what you may read online or in a newspaper is by all means NOT the gospel truth. There are always many facets left untold. I can't help but wonder how many other stories we've heard on the news or read in the paper that weren't really what we were lead to believe. Very sad, really.....

Hasn't anyone ever noticed the pattern of abuse by "people of the church"???

"Pattern of abuse"?

What I see is that perverts everywhere have put themselves in situations where they can victimize kids.

The TV news and newspapers are what sensationalize the supposedly religious people who commit those crimes so that it seems that there is a disproportionate amount of religious people who are pedophiles.

How many headlines scream "crack addict is convicted kiddie pervert"? Almost none.

The headlines that grab attention are "priest charged with child molestation". The reason is because the world expects "religious" people to be held to a higher standard than everyone else. They love the hypocrisy of the whole thing.

And after all, what crack head isn't abusing his latest girlfriend's kid. Happens all the time, right? So that's not news.

But some priest molested a kid 30 years ago and there's going to be an 8 week exclusive expose` to make sure we all learn to hate and distrust anyone connected to the clergy.

Spitfire, I will entertain your story for a moment, and even if I go with what you say, that there is much more to the story, etc.. and the Baskins are terrible people who abused their children, why, oh why did the Maples not get Michael out of that situation? How could they just leave him there to be treated the way you all say those kids were treated? They were obviously clever people who were able to allude the authorities for years and years, they could have come up with SOMETHING.

If there is so much to this story why would the Baskins go on and on about this? They should know why it happened then and not want to call attention to themselves and all this potentially terrible stuff that has been swept under the rug, never to be heard about from all of us out here in the peanut gallery.

So, as an adult, no, I don't believe that they would ever admit to abuse, if they had done it. But it's a moot point, I don't believe they did anything. I believe the investigation that was done and the conclusion that SEVERAL people in authority have come to, that the children were not abused. I'm sorry that doens't fit in with the Maples story, that doesn't make it any less true.

TracyLynn:

I clearly stated that I wasn't only referring to "people of the church"... my point was that even religious people are guilty of child abuse. Just because the Baskins are religious and very much involved in their church, that doesn't mean it can be automatically assumed that they must have never done anything wrong. I hope that makes more sense.

So, as an adult, no, I don't believe that they would ever admit to abuse, if they had done it. But it's a moot point, I don't believe they did anything. I believe the investigation that was done and the conclusion that SEVERAL people in authority have come to, that the children were not abused. I'm sorry that doens't fit in with the Maples story, that doesn't make it any less true.

This case occurred during the height of the satanic ritual abuse panics - or to put it more bluntly, witch-hunts. And when you are the target of a witch-hunt, it is beside the point whether you have done anything or not, because either way you end up at the stake, so to speak. That was how it was during the original witch-hunts; they were designed to be a fast-track railroad to the stake, no matter what you did - even die in prison - because they just said the Devil had taken you. And witch-hunting lynch mobs didn't care about guilt or innocence - once the cry "Witch!" went up, you were up for a lynching. No, no, witch-hunts weren't about guilt or innocence, they were about scapegoating.

If the people of the satanic ritual abuse panics were victims of witch-hunts, it hardly made any difference whether they had done anything or not - and if they had, it would become irretrievably lost amid a morass of hysteria, contamination, tainted memories etc.

So for these reasons it is vitally important not to turn an allegation of child abuse into a witch-hunt - child abuse or no child abuse!

Atomicfizz:

It's clearly yours, and everyone else's, right, to believe what you choose to believe. I can respect that. I'll try to answer some questions the best I can. The reason the Maples didn't take Michael with them is because Debbie and Mark had him with them. Marvin and Sandra had temporary custody of Christie and Bobby. Simply put, they didn't have access to Michael.

As for the reason the Baskins go on and on about this: Why wouldn't they? If they shut up and went away wouldn't it appear to the general public as if they didn't care about the kids? Maybe they thought that if they just sat back and accepted everything that's happened, people might start to actually give some merit to what the Maples said all along. It's too late for them to change their story now. They're going to put up a fight till the bitter end. As I said earlier, they are fully aware of why the judge ruled as he did. But in order to maintain their innocence they have to act upset and puzzled. In short, it's an act. And very convincing, I might add.

Also, from what I understand, there was evidence supporting the abuse alligations. I'd like to know who the Baskins knew to make this information disappear.

The kids have very good reason to not want to see the Baskins. But it's not my place to publicly announce their reasons. Maybe the rest of the story will eventually be told. I honestly don't know if that will happen. We can only hope, but like I said, it's not up to me to tell it.

I guess we'll all see what the future holds in regards to this situation. All I want is for the truth to be known so that everyone can have closure and move on with their lives, and so that people will finally see that, contrary to what many people choose to believe, the Maples are/were not monsters. Like I said before... things are not always what they appear to be.

I made one of the fishy houses for my cats! (I told you all that I like to sew.) My daughter picked out the fabric. She was about 11 years old at the time and purple was her favorite color. In the bottom picture, Gypsy is the cat inside the fishy.

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL431/477450/7450952/7547210.jpg

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL431/477450/7450952/7547262.jpg

I love your fishy! Do you make a living out of selling these things?

I'm not so much into sewing, but I love spinning, knitting and embroidery. I also enjoy chocolate making and cake decorating.

Maybe the rest of the story will eventually be told. I honestly don't know if that will happen.
Unfortunately, even if BOTH sides write books, neither one will be the whole truth. Both will be full of holes since the whole story is so old and evidence has been lost. Witnesses will tell a variety of tales since memories fade. And, of course, at least one will be full of falsehoods and justifications. Readers will be polarized according to which version they believe, of course, just as they are now.

Spitfire, ... why, oh why did the Maples not get Michael out of that situation? ...

I believe the investigation that was done and the conclusion that SEVERAL people in authority have come to, that the children were not abused.

I'm certainly not Spitfire, and Spitfire has already answered. But, I'd like to add a couple of comments.

As to why the Maples didn't get Michael out of the home, according to the Baptist newspaper online, it said that Debbie and Mark had voluntarily left the kids with the Maples for approximately eight months (well, the article doesn't give exact dates, but it's early summer through some time after Christmas) prior to the abuse allegations being made. The Baskins kept Michael because the Maples were older, and they all agreed that it would be easier for the Maples to keep up with kids who were in school.

As for social workers or even courts being right, that's just not accurate. Here are just a few of the sites that came up when did a search for that idea:

"The agency responsible for protecting abused and neglected children in Los Angeles County sometimes fails to properly assess the risks facing its charges--occasionally failing to conduct monthly visits, screen caretakers' criminal records or provide medical checkups, according to a state audit released Wednesday." http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/23307292.html?dids=23307292:23307292&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Oct+24%2C+1996&author=JAMES+RAINEY&pub=Los+Angeles+Times+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=Flaws+Cited+in+County+Protection+of+Children%3B+Social+services%3A+State+auditor+suggests+a+more+rigorous+system+to+help+social+workers+protect+youths.+Local+officials+angrily+call+the+study+%27baseless.%27&pqatl=google

"Their failure to react quickly and fairly to reported child abuse instances has directly resulted in increased deaths in childhood as well as numerous psychological and developmental obstacles in children today." http://cpsandchildabuse.blogspot.com/2009/04/it-takes-village-to-raise-child.html

"Fifty-three children died between 1998 and 2005 after state child welfare workers assigned to protect them committed serious errors, made lapses in judgment and ignored their own rules." http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-114.htm

"Children were beaten, burned, smothered, shaken and starved to death by their parents or other adults, even though the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services was supposed to be protecting them, according to an investigation by the Belleville News-Democrat." http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-114.htm

"Wearing suits and solemn expressions, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and the city's commissioner of the Administration of Children's Services recently held a press conference to announce the suspension, for 30 days without pay, of the caseworker and supervisor who had mishandled the Elisa Izquierdo case. Elisa was the six-year-old Bronx girl whose grotesque life and death prompted outraged headlines last November. She had been forced to eat her own feces; she had been sexually abused with a hairbrush; her mother had used her head as a floor mop.

"Most maddening of all, city officials had repeatedly been warned by neighbors and school officials that Elisa was in danger, yet they had allowed monitoring of the household to lapse. "It's about time that people be held accountable for their actions, their negligence, and probably even worse than that," the mayor said. "It's the only way you're going to build accountability into the system."

"Giuliani had it right. Despite more than 24 deaths of children whose cases were supposedly being monitored, no child welfare employee had ever been dismissed or even suspended by the city. In the wake of Elisa's death, the Child Welfare Administration refused to answer questions about the services it had--or had not--provided the Izquierdo family. When journalists and city officials finally penetrated the wall of confidentiality, they found that the agency mandated to protect children from abuse was incapable of doing so.

"On average, two children died from abuse and neglect in New York each week. A review of child fatalities by the city's public advocate concluded that "in one third of the cases CWA's own neglect either allowed or contributed to the tragedy." A subsequent state audit found more bad news: In one of five cases child protection workers failed to interview all children in an allegedly abusive family; in two of five cases, workers didn't examine previous reports of child abuse. Nearly a fifth of cases were closed prematurely despite the of risk of future abuse." (I added the bold) http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/archives/9605.stoeszkarger.html

Do you need for me to go on? Just because several people in authority looked into something does NOT mean that the people were blameless or that the situation was safe.

Personally, I do not know whether or not Debbie and/or Mark abused the children. But, I certainly would not make a decision based on the simple fact that they weren't charged or that the kids were going to be sent back to them. I've seen too many social workers make horrendous mistakes. Without the evidence or the supporting reports being made public, I simply cannot take someone else's word for what might or might not have been going on.

These lame a*s reasons the Maples supporters give regarding Michael just make Marvin and Sandra look worse as usual. It's always been this way.

Who cares if the Baskin's had custody of him? And who cares that Michael was "too young" and the Maples were "too old?" This defense argument makes no sense. If they truly believed that Mark and Debbie abused the children, they should have fought tooth and nail to get Michael away from them. Whatever the case, when the Maples decided to BREAK THE LAW and take the children into hiding, they abandoned Michael. They left him behind with parents who they considered abusers. And all these people who are hellbent on supporting the Maples have shown absolutely no concern for Michael themselves. Honestly, where's their sympathy for this boy? Marvin and Sandra's words are as good as gold, apparently. That means Michael had to grow up all these years with these "monsters" raising him...yet we never hear anything about that.

The more you defend these people, the worse you make them sound. It might almost be funny if it weren't so incredibly SAD!

One of the most tragic things about this whole case was the way the legal system handled it in the first place. Luck was the main factor in the Maples being able to BREAK THE LAW and kidnap the children thanks to that windbag Robert Corlew. When the investigation into the Maples abuse allegations started, all three children should have been removed from BOTH the Baskins and Maples until it was completed. That way, Marvin and Sandra wouldn't have so easily been able to BREAK THE LAW like they did once the police found no evidence of their claims. I hope this was an ugly lesson for that judges chamber to learn about how to handle future cases that involve claims of abuse.

Unfortunately, even if BOTH sides write books, neither one will be the whole truth. Both will be full of holes since the whole story is so old and evidence has been lost. Witnesses will tell a variety of tales since memories fade. And, of course, at least one will be full of falsehoods and justifications. Readers will be polarized according to which version they believe, of course, just as they are now.

You're right there, Undecided. And memories not only fade, but they can become distorted or even be fabricated. Don't forget this occurred in the days when authorities didn't fully understand how children should be questioned. They did not understand that repeated questioning can actually coach children to say things, and even implant false memories. And the UM segment said that the Baskin children were questioned repeatedly. Nowadays the protocol is to question a child only once, and get as much as you can out of that one interview. At least, that is how it is in New Zealand now, largely due to our own satanic ritual abuse panic, the Peter Ellis case.

Also, some people can no longer be questioned. Sandra Maple is gone and so is Mac Baskin, for one thing.

And as for your examples of how the authorities have failed abused children and not adequately investigated their cases, now you mention it, New Zealand has been rocked by several scandals of dreadful child abuse and social welfare failing to act properly.

One of the most tragic things about this whole case was the way the legal system handled it in the first place. Luck was the main factor in the Maples being able to BREAK THE LAW and kidnap the children thanks to that windbag Robert Corlew. When the investigation into the Maples abuse allegations started, all three children should have been removed from BOTH the Baskins and Maples until it was completed. That way, Marvin and Sandra wouldn't have so easily been able to BREAK THE LAW like they did once the police found no evidence of their claims. I hope this was an ugly lesson for that judges chamber to learn about how to handle future cases that involve claims of abuse.

Yes, blame for this mess must be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of Judge Corlew. Someone on the Murfreesboro Post said that Corlew had been a 'running joke' in town for decades.

Mind you, even if Corlew had acted properly, something might still have happened. In the parallel Pat Farmer case, the judge did put the child, Jared, in custody of the court while charges of satanic abuse against his mother, LaDonna Morrow, were investigated. When Jared admitted that his grandmother, Pat Farmer, had coached him to say his mother was satanically abusing him, the allegations collapsed and custody was restored to LaDonna - but Farmer was still allowed one last custodial visit. And those not familiar with this case can still guess what happened! Fortunately, Farmer was caught and Jared happily returned to his mother.

One of the most tragic things about this whole case was the way the legal system handled it in the first place. Luck was the main factor in the Maples being able to BREAK THE LAW and kidnap the children thanks to that windbag Robert Corlew. When the investigation into the Maples abuse allegations started, all three children should have been removed from BOTH the Baskins and Maples until it was completed. That way, Marvin and Sandra wouldn't have so easily been able to BREAK THE LAW like they did once the police found no evidence of their claims. I hope this was an ugly lesson for that judges chamber to learn about how to handle future cases that involve claims of abuse.


Your statement (that I've bolded) is so true.

Luck was the main factor in the Maples being able to BREAK THE LAW and kidnap the children thanks to that windbag Robert Corlew. When the investigation into the Maples abuse allegations started, all three children should have been removed from BOTH the Baskins and Maples until it was completed. That way, Marvin and Sandra wouldn't have so easily been able to BREAK THE LAW like they did once the police found no evidence of their claims. I hope this was an ugly lesson for that judges chamber to learn about how to handle future cases that involve claims of abuse.
"Luck" had nothing to do with it. Giving children to relatives (when relatives were available) was standard procedure then, as it still is now. Our system simply doesn't have enough foster care families to provide for all the kids whose parents are under investigation. Or, would you rather see these kids confined in institutional settings? In the majority of cases, family members are wonderfully qualified to care for their relatives. In some, they are not.

In this particular case, the parents themselves were the first ones to place the children in the grandparents' care and voluntarily leave them there for months and months.

"Luck" had nothing to do with it. Giving children to relatives (when relatives were available) was standard procedure then, as it still is now. Our system simply doesn't have enough foster care families to provide for all the kids whose parents are under investigation. Or, would you rather see these kids confined in institutional settings? In the majority of cases, family members are wonderfully qualified to care for their relatives. In some, they are not.

In this particular case, the parents themselves were the first ones to place the children in the grandparents' care and voluntarily leave them there for months and months.

I agree that the foster care system is overcrowded.

Giving the children to relatives would have been fine if they weren't the relatives who had made the accusations. The children should have been found somewhere to stay with a more neutral party within the family if that was possible.

I'm sure that the Baskin's kicked themselves many times for not taking the children home with them the first time they wanted to.

"Luck" had nothing to do with it. Giving children to relatives (when relatives were available) was standard procedure then, as it still is now. Our system simply doesn't have enough foster care families to provide for all the kids whose parents are under investigation. Or, would you rather see these kids confined in institutional settings? In the majority of cases, family members are wonderfully qualified to care for their relatives. In some, they are not.

In this particular case, the parents themselves were the first ones to place the children in the grandparents' care and voluntarily leave them there for months and months.

When I said Baskins and Maples, I meant Mark & Debbie and Marvin & Sandra. I wasn't referencing foster families. A family member who refused to take sides and do what was best for the children would have been just fine. Unless EVERYONE was split down the middle which I hope wasn't the case.

The "convenient" timing of the Maple's abuse claims coming shortly after Mark and Debbie wanting to take Bobby and Christi home should throw out any references to the Baskins leaving them with Sandra and Marvin in the first place. Those were under very different circumstances when the two sides trusted each other and should not place any value into when the investigation later started.

I have to think any sane couple who truly thought their daughter and son-in-law was abusing their grandchildren would have done something OTHER than just kidnap two of them and abandon the third. How about trying to get emotional and psycological HELP for your child? That's your freaking daughter for God's sake! Don't simply call her up, tell her you know she's been molesting the kids and then take them to court without another word. DO WHAT YOU CAN TO HEAL YOUR FAMILY. Don't make things worse by BREAKING THE LAW and seperating everyone. There is no excuse.

Social services found the Baskins to be very fit parents, to the point of allowing them to adopt a child.

And we all know that the agencies aren't just plopping orphans into any old home without a thorough check of all the prospective parents' background, criminal records, friends and associates, etc. etc. etc. And that includes re-investigating the previous (false) allegations of ritual satanic abuse against them regarding their kidnapped, biological children.

If the state thought for even a second that there was abuse in the Baskin household, or even potential for abuse, they would have been declined as prospective adoptive parents. They weren't. Their remaining biological child and his adopted brother are just fine.

And we all know that the agencies aren't just plopping orphans into any old home without a thorough check of all the prospective parents' background, criminal records, friends and associates, etc. etc. etc. And that includes re-investigating the previous (false) allegations of ritual satanic abuse against them regarding their kidnapped, biological children.

If the state thought for even a second that there was abuse in the Baskin household, or even potential for abuse, they would have been declined as prospective adoptive parents. They weren't.
Tracy Lynn, you clearly didn't read any of the articles that I posted yesterday. What you said is simply NOT true. Statistically, social services agencies do NOT do a good job of investigating.

"A subsequent state audit found more bad news: In one of five cases child protection workers failed to interview all children in an allegedly abusive family; in two of five cases, workers didn't examine previous reports of child abuse. Nearly a fifth of cases were closed prematurely despite the of risk of future abuse." Read further for the reasons why this happenes all over the nation every day. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/archives/9605.stoeszkarger.html

But the News-Democrat four-month investigation showed that despite receiving hundreds of specific warnings from July 1998 to June 2005, DCFS caseworkers, child protection investigators, supervisors, and contracted private agency workers made repeated errors and failed to properly gauge danger to children." If you read the rest of this article, you'll heart-wrenching see examples of individuals who died as a result of sloppy investigations! http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-114.htm

"From a phone inside Napa State Hospital, Feliciana Reyes said she was allowed by CPS to keep her 1-year-old daughter even after she stabbed her husband in the back in February 2000 – as long as she attended counseling and parenting classes. The following year, her 4-month-old baby girl died abruptly and was declared a sudden infant death syndrome case. In June 2004, the corpse of another of her babies, 10-month-old Felicia, was found in the back seat of Reyes' car as she drove through Los Angeles." Continue reading for MANY more examples of children being returned to abusers and then being killed. http://www.sacbee.com/502/story/1030603-p2.html

And, I could quote many, many other articles and studies that show the very same thing -- approval by Social Services does not mean that the family has been thoroughly investigated. YES, orphans ARE being plopped into whoever's arms are willing to take them.

A family member who refused to take sides and do what was best for the children would have been just fine. Unless EVERYONE was split down the middle which I hope wasn't the case.
Well, from what I've seen on message boards, it WAS the case and they were all choosing sides. Most families would be.


The "convenient" timing of the Maple's abuse claims coming shortly after Mark and Debbie wanting to take Bobby and Christi home should throw out any references to the Baskins leaving them with Sandra and Marvin in the first place. Those were under very different circumstances when the two sides trusted each other and should not place any value into when the investigation later started.
Mark and Debbie still chose to leave their children with Sandra and Marvin AFTER things got rocky. The Baptist newspaper said that things had deteriorated so that Sandra and Marvin weren't even allowing Debbie and Mark to stay in the Maples' home when the Baskins came for a visit from about Dec to April (I don't have time to look it up, so the exact dates might be wrong). Yet, Debbie and Mark still allowed the children to stay there. So, that showed investigators that Mark and Debbie trusted her parents to care for the kids.

I have to think any sane couple who truly thought their daughter and son-in-law was abusing their grandchildren would have done something OTHER than just kidnap two of them and abandon the third. How about trying to get emotional and psycological HELP for your child? That's your freaking daughter for God's sake! Don't simply call her up, tell her you know she's been molesting the kids and then take them to court without another word. DO WHAT YOU CAN TO HEAL YOUR FAMILY. Don't make things worse by BREAKING THE LAW and seperating everyone. There is no excuse.
Again, the newspapers show that that was not what happened. This happened over the course of almost a year before the courts intervened. And, out-of-state parents (the Maples) of a married, adult child (Debbie) cannot insist that their adult child get help. They can suggest it. However, the only way they can enforce it is to ask the court to require it.

Undecided:

You have made many excellent points in your past several posts. Thank you for keeping an open mind.

I fully realize that if one was not directly involved somehow with the Maples or Baskins, that what a person reads online and in the papers really does make the Maples seem like terrible people for taking the kids. I think that's the point of the news articles... to paint them as monsters. So I can see why some people feel that what the Maples did was wrong, if their only source of information is what they read online or in the papers... meaning, the information that has been allowed to be released to the public. However, there are still things have not become public information.... yet. Who knows if it ever will. There have been many supposed "facts" that were not reported correctly. Some things were left out entirely. Other things were blown out of proportion. Dates and timelines have been screwed up. There have been many "facts" that were truly nothing more than speculation or hearsay. Too many people like to add their own little spin on things. That's usually the way it goes with high profile cases... lots of speculation. He said, she said stuff.

This is the reason I keep stressing that people try to remember that there are always two sides to every story, and that most people are only hearing/reading about a portion of the events that actually happened. Like I said before, it makes me really wonder just how many awful things we've seen on t.v. or read in the newspapers that weren't really the truth. How many other stories were twisted around with lies and misinformation? How many guilty people got off, and how many innocent people got punished? Probably more than any of us realizes.

Tracy Lynn, you clearly didn't read any of the articles that I posted yesterday. What you said is simply NOT true. Statistically, social services agencies do NOT do a good job of investigating.

And, I could quote many, many other articles and studies that show the very same thing -- approval by Social Services does not mean that the family has been thoroughly investigated. YES, orphans ARE being plopped into whoever's arms are willing to take them.

Yes, I am obviously an illiterate moron. :rolleyes:

Just because you post your links and references doesn't mean that they have any bearing on this situation.

Social services, investigating claims of child abuse, etc, have been exposed time after time for allowing the victimized children slip through the cracks, while they do a sloppy job of checking up on the welfare of those kids.

However we are talking about the Baskins, who were accused of ritualized satanic and sexual abuse of their kids. When they applied to adopt a kid, you can bet that there wasn't just any old schmoe doing their background check.

Theirs was a high profile and notorious case. The adoption agency involved would have known that to screw up the placement of the child would be a nationwide fiasco. I'm willing to bet that the Baskins got extra-investigated, just to make sure that the adopted kid would be safe in that home.

Cases and files slip through the cracks every day, in every city. There simply aren't enough case workers and/or money to do a thorough job with every investigation. It's sad, but true. Personally, I would like to see all of this be over and done with. It's time for some closure. I can only guess that all of this has brought up things the "kids" were hoping they could leave in the past. It will be interesting, indeed, to see how the rest of this plays out...

I'm taking bets on the date this thread ends up locked, so step right up, make your predictions, and place yer bets. Double payout if you predict the not only the date but the hour, within 60 minutes of the actual lockdown.

I'm taking bets on the date this thread ends up locked, so step right up, make your predictions, and place yer bets. Double payout if you predict the not only the date but the hour, within 60 minutes of the actual lockdown.
LOL I am betting that we will see a picture of CD in a lip lock on a needle and THREAD anytime now. Time and date not known but I wouldn't be too surprised if it is soon with the way things are going.

Unreal...just as soon as I can find the time and the inclination, I will go back through this thread and do what I did in the locked thread...pull out every mean, nasty, ugly word that has been typed about the Maples and defenders, included those statements that accused Maple defenders of not only defending, but of aiding and abetting, and repost, along with the authors. If any more of my posts are deleted, I'll be expecting to see all of those other posts removed also. This is America, Freedom of Speech and all that good stuff. It wasn't meant to be one sided, everyone has a right to their own opinion, and the right to express it. It wasn't us being mean and argumentative that got the thread locked, because if that was the case it would have been locked from day one. Nearly everyone in here has badmouthed not only the Maples but anyone supporting the Maples...but that's all well and good, because it goes along with the general consensus. What got it locked was us trying to defend our family against all of the craziness being said about them. I have yet to figure out where a couple of the stories you people repeat as gospel originally came from. Such as this whole thing being about differing religions and spite; Sandra giving up religion so she’s going to do whatever she wants, be it good or bad, for the rest of her life; Marvin and Sandra accusing the entire legal system of abusing the kids. HUH?????? That NEVER happened! And as far as Michael, that has been explained over and over and over, and yet it's still being beaten to death. He was in a different state, they did NOT have access, and they DID do something about it, they reported the abuse to the authorities in that state. If the ball was dropped, it wasn't by the Maples, they did what they could. I just thank God that Jennifer and Jonathan are safe, and grew up to be wonderful adults. I pray that Michael never suffered what they did; with any luck, he was safe due to the all of the publicity. But the fact remains, the Maples did what they felt was needed, and it's over. It's Mark and Debbie who have to deal with what they have done; it's also up to them to explain to their other children why they may never see Jennifer and Jonathan again. And then there is God, and I am incredibly glad it won't be me in their shoes when it comes time to own up to their sins.

Spitfire, again I will say this:

Assuming the Maples were correct in what they were saying, they are STILL terrible people for leaving Michael there. There is no way in this situation that they are not. All your excuses for why they left him there to be abused for life are lame and don't make the Maples look any better. They obviously did not care about him and what his life was going to be like. Nice grandparents.

Yes, there are cases that slip through the cracks. But we know that these kids were talked to and the case workers thought they were not abused and were being coached. I don't expect you to understand because you have probably been brainwashed the same way those children are. If you are on the Maples side you are going to believe everything they say. You say that we aren't looking at both sides, well, in my opinion you aren't either. You are blindly believing all this craziness about satanic abuse and what the Maples side of the story is.

I certainly hope that this thread does not get locked. I don't think anyone is being nasty, yes, there are disagreements, but there are going to be in cases like this. I mean I realize that at some point we will all have to agree to disagree, as I don't imagine that anyone is going to change anyone's point of view, but I think a lively debate is always good.

LOL I am betting that we will see a picture of CD in a lip lock on a needle and THREAD anytime now. Time and date not known but I wouldn't be too surprised if it is soon with the way things are going.
TracyLynnS said:

However we are talking about the Baskins, who were accused of ritualized satanic and sexual abuse of their kids. When they applied to adopt a kid, you can bet that there wasn't just any old schmoe doing their background check.

Theirs was a high profile and notorious case. The adoption agency involved would have known that to screw up the placement of the child would be a nationwide fiasco. I'm willing to bet that the Baskins got extra-investigated, just to make sure that the adopted kid would be safe in that home.



This is ALL speculation!!!

Spitfire, again I will say this:

Assuming the Maples were correct in what they were saying, they are STILL terrible people for leaving Michael there. There is no way in this situation that they are not. All your excuses for why they left him there to be abused for life are lame and don't make the Maples look any better. They obviously did not care about him and what his life was going to be like. Nice grandparents.



atomicfizz, again I will say this:

And as far as Michael, that has been explained over and over and over, and yet it's still being beaten to death. He was in a different state, they did NOT have access, and they DID do something about it, they reported the abuse to the authorities in that state. If the ball was dropped, it wasn't by the Maples, they did what they could.

Wow! It's kinda like talking to a brick wall! lmao.... actually, it's not funny...

Seriously, Dipahead, why do we bother? Talk about brainwashing.... these people believe everything hook, line and sinker, just like you said. They have it in their heads that the Baskins are saints and the Maples are devils. I find that thought hilarious! But oh well, at least WE know the truth. It just amazes me that there are so many narrow minded people in this world. Oh well, better them than us, huh?!

Maybe we should start our own discussion, and then when any of these people show up we'll verbally use them, call them names etc., and delete their posts.... see how it feels for the shoe to be on the other foot, so to speak. Ha!

I'm going to feed my new porcupine puffer fish, Frank, now..... you all have a fun and exciting evening.

Oh yeah... hey Dipahead... did you see our "warning" to behave? Why are the "Maple supporters" the only ones getting warnings when the other posters on here have said truly nasty things to us, and about the Maples???? Nope, this isn't a biased thread at all.......

Oh well, to each his own.

I saw, and responded...we'll see how that goes.

Some unpleasant exchanges going on here. I think it's time for some more pet pics to lighten things up!

TracyLynnS said:
After all we are talking about.......Theirs was a high profile and notorious case.

Yup, it sure was / is and so was ours BUT I always tried to take the HIGH road in dealing with others. Pro and con. Best regards.

atomicfizz, again I will say this:

And as far as Michael, that has been explained over and over and over, and yet it's still being beaten to death. He was in a different state, they did NOT have access, and they DID do something about it, they reported the abuse to the authorities in that state. If the ball was dropped, it wasn't by the Maples, they did what they could.

whatever. the point is they left him there when they took the other two children. Another state or not, they did not care about him and they (or at least Marvin) obviously does not care about him now.

So when did the Maples find out about this supposed abuse? Why did they not do anything about it until the Baskins wanted the children back? And if they knew about the abuse before that, why didn't they try and get Michael there, maybe for a weekend or something, while they were still on good terms, and then do what they did that gave them temporary custody of Christie and Bobby, once they had Michael there? Do you not think the timing is very convenient? If they truly thought something was amiss, why not try and get custody as soon as they had them, and not allow the visits with these supposed abusers, rather than all of a sudden having it pop up as soon as they ask for the children back?

I have a question for you both, dipahead and spitfire... did you actually see the abuse happen to Bobby and Christie? If not then you are just as bad as we are in your closed-mindedness. It's just that you are believing the other side. Where are you getting your information about what happened? From the Maple family? If so, OF COURSE you are going to believe that their side is correct, it's all been manufactured to make the Maples look like saints instead of criminals.

Talk about brainwashing.... these people believe everything hook, line and sinker, just like you said. They have it in their heads that the Baskins are saints and the Maples are devils. I find that thought hilarious! But oh well, at least WE know the truth. It just amazes me that there are so many narrow minded people in this world. Oh well, better them than us, huh?!



This is what I am talking about. Reverse this and it is you!

I'm willing to bet that the Baskins got extra-investigated, just to make sure that the adopted kid would be safe in that home.
How do you know that? Did you talk with anyone who did the investigation? It could just as easily have gone the opposite way: the people at the adoption agency were just as busy (and potentially inept) as they are at other social services agencies. So, they assumed that since the Baskins had already been investigated for the allegations, they could let it slide.

Besides that, the adoption agency had little to go on since the kids who had said they were abused were not available for questioning. So, the social workers could not have done much of an investigation besides maybe re-reading the old files and talk again to neighbors, etc. Abuse is usually a hidden act. Without the victims who were actually involved, there wouldn't be much to uncover. But, that doesn't mean that there was nothing to dig up.

I don't know if any abuse happened or not because I wasn't there to see it, to talk with the kids, or to know either of the couples involved. For that very same reasons, I also won't make assumptions about what sort of a job the social workers did. Without meeting them and seeing their records, I cannot guess whether they did an amazingly superhuman job, read everyone's minds, and can be completely trusted to come to a wise decision or whether they did a lackluster job. I think they were human, and vulnerable to human error (either pro or con).

So when did the Maples find out about this supposed abuse? Why did they not do anything about it until the Baskins wanted the children back? And if they knew about the abuse before that, why didn't they try and get Michael there, maybe for a weekend or something, while they were still on good terms, and then do what they did that gave them temporary custody of Christie and Bobby, once they had Michael there? Do you not think the timing is very convenient?

These questions show that you're missing many important facts about the case. According to the Associated Baptist Press, the children were left with the Maples "for the summer" (so that could have been about May or June pf 1987) while Debbie and Mark went to get settled in seminary. Things started to get bad between the two couples over Christmas (that's supposed to be the visit when Debbie first told her mom they wanted the kids back). However, it wasn't till April that the allegations of abuse arose. "Following a visit in April 1988, the Maples petitioned for custody of the two children, claiming Bobby had been molested by both of his parents during their last visit." http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3817&Itemid=53

I'm taking bets on the date this thread ends up locked, so step right up, make your predictions, and place yer bets. Double payout if you predict the not only the date but the hour, within 60 minutes of the actual lockdown.


NO! :soapbox:

No thread is going to get locked if we don't let it turn into a load of name-calling and backbiting. We're a lot wiser to this game than last time and by now we should have a very good idea of how the Maple defenders think and operate. I myself refuse to enter any heated dialogue with them, which I don't even find interesting now, and I strongly urge others not to get into any ugly, protracted arguments with them. ;)

These questions show that you're missing many important facts about the case. According to the Associated Baptist Press, the children were left with the Maples "for the summer" (so that could have been about May or June pf 1987) while Debbie and Mark went to get settled in seminary. Things started to get bad between the two couples over Christmas (that's supposed to be the visit when Debbie first told her mom they wanted the kids back). However, it wasn't till April that the allegations of abuse arose. "Following a visit in April 1988, the Maples petitioned for custody of the two children, claiming Bobby had been molested by both of his parents during their last visit." http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3817&Itemid=53

convenient. this whole story is just so unbelievable. :rolleyes:

So many hypocrites on here...... Say what you will about the "Maple defenders" because we're perfectly capable of not replying to you either. It's always alright for the Baskins group to slander, bad mouth, name call.... yet we speak our mind and we supposedly like to start trouble etc... blah blah blah.

This is such a biased, one sided thread. It's truly ridiculous. Just because we don't agree with your misinformed posts, in your eyes we're liars; trouble makers; backbiters etc. And to top it all off, we get "warned" to behave or we'll have our posts deleted?! It's called Freedom Of Speech, and I will exercise my right to my hearts content, just like allllll the other posters on here. You don't have a problem calling us troll, or satanist....... here's my advice to you... Grow Up Or Shut Up! Oh, and one more thing... please, by all means, get your FACTS straight. Because at this point, you're a LONG way off from knowing the truth!!!

NO! :soapbox:

No thread is going to get locked if we don't let it turn into a load of name-calling and backbiting. We're a lot wiser to this game than last time and by now we should have a very good idea of how the Maple defenders think and operate. I myself refuse to enter any heated dialogue with them, and I strongly urge others not to get into any ugly, protracted arguments with them. ;)



"Or does everyone know what an unbelievably crazy couple they were?"
Briony Coote

"Yes, this case certainly shows how desperation can turn people, ordinary people like you and me into utter monsters."
Briony Coote

"I hope there will be a few very watchful eyes at the funeral in case that lousy Sandra Maples decides to make an appearance."
crystaldawn

"I doubt she would turn up - except maybe from a distance. She may not even have heard that her mother had died. Stupid Sandra!"
Briony Coote

"On the question of Sandra Maple cutting herself off from her entire family by kidnapping her grandchildren, I can think of two reasons in her warped mind:"
Briony Coote

"Stinky Sandra!"
Briony Coote

"And what do they think about Michael? Assuming some members of Sandra's family have turned against Debbie, what are their feelings in regard to her remaining son? Aren't they concerned about Michael's safety? Don't they find it weird that Sandra and Marvin allowed the parents they were accusing of child molesting to stay with them? If so, they were as idiotic as the judge!"
Briony Coote

I deliberately left the comment made by the moderator...but yeah...Briony's idea of a good time, bashing people he knows nothing about. All posts from the locked thread, btw, still haven't had time or inclination to go through all 900 posts in this one.

What got it locked was us trying to defend our family against all of the craziness being said about them.

Is it really so important, what a bunch of geeky UM fans think?

I mean, this is a message board on a site call Sitcoms Online. We discuss a tv show that we all like. A TV show. And you are arguing about your private family business with us.

Since our opinion has no bearing on your family's status, legally or otherwise, you are wasting an awful lot of energy hopping around and screaming your position on the case. And I bet half of us don't even care that much. It was a case on tv, we follow it a bit here and there, the end.

Your energy would be better spent supporting your relatives than arguing with strangers, half of who don't give the whole mess more than a flitting thought.

content deleted, off topic

content deleted, off topic

content deleted, off topic

This is outrageous. :mad: This sends a message to all relatives, in particular grandparents that if you disagree with who is raising your grandchildren, then you can just kidnap them, change their names, hide them from their parents for 20 years, be found, plead to a lesser charge and you can still maintain your relationship with your grandchildren. It is NEVER okay for a grandparent to do this...this is criminal. They have done irreparable damage to their grandchildren. This story is eerily similar to my story: when our kids were 1 week old and 20 months old, my parents came to visit. My husband was attending Bible college and we had difficulties as any married student does. I made the mistake of sharing those difficulties with my parents. Their response: "we're taking the kids, you can come if you want". So for the next 16 years, I was basically held a hostage in my parents' home, until our daughter called the police the last time my mother beat me. I was then able to get away from my parents. Our kids are 21 and 23 now. There is irreparable damage to our relationship now and my parents continue to poison our kids against us. By the way, while I was held hostage by my parents, they told me if I wanted to keep my kids, I had to divorce my husband, which I did. Almost 5 years ago, we were remarried to each other and have never been more happy. But there is a never ending grief over the loss of our kids.

I posted the above as a comment to the article telling of Marvin Maples pleaing out. In response, I got attacked by Spitfire, who doesn't even know me..talk about taking on someone's elses' story and commenting on another person's life when you don't even know them or the facts.

This happened to me. I was there. It was my kids, my marriage, my parents. My father's first name is also Marvin.

By: Spit-Fire on 5/28/09
There is such a thing as free will... maybe you should have used yours. You're only abused and mistreated if you allow yourself to be.

By: Spit-Fire on 5/30/09
Free04: You were "basically" held hostage in your parents home... for 16 years?? Have you ever heard of a telephone?? Why wasn't your husband supporting you and your kids in your own home? Why did you live with your parents, who you CLAIM abused you physically and mentally? Why the HELL didn't you go to a shelter and get the help you claim you needed? I'll tell you why: you didn't use your free will, which God blessed us all with! You ALLOWED your parents to mistreat you. If what you said is even the truth! How are we supposed to know if what you say is true or not? I mean, come on, we're just strangers, sitting here reading what you post! For all we know, you could be a single 20 year old man who likes to make up stories for the fun of it. Are you getting my point yet??? Do you all believe everything you read?? It appears that you do. Good luck with that.

Just wanted to point out that Spitfire is doing the very thing that she is accusing this forum of doing. I used to cower to abusers, but not anymore!

oh gawd

content deleted, off topic

I was invited here from Briony. I am sorry that I upset you. That was not my intention. I thought it might help. Please forgive me for disturbing the peace.

I was invited here from Briony. I am sorry that I upset you. That was not my intention. I thought it might help. Please forgive me for disturbing the peace.

Me? I'm not upset at all. (And disturbing the peace? There is no peace in this thread! lol)

I just don't like either side of the baskin/maple debate bringing their arguments from other sites into this forum with quotes from those arguments.

IMO it increases the chances of the thread getting locked, for a variety of reasons.

However, I'm fairly new here, have no say in how the forum is run, have no influence with the moderators, and have, myself, been corrected for inappropriate posts. So, my ramblings on the subject are, for the most part, meaningless.

First of all, deleted posts won't make me go away. This discussion is open to the public, no invite needed. I have every right to speak my mind, as I've said over and over.... starting to feel like a broken record here.... sheesh! I will continue to post comments when I have the urge to do so. I am just as entitled to say whatever I want as the next person, and so I will. Count on it. I give what I get, so if I'm greeted with rudeness and disrespect, that's what you should expect in return.

Free04:

How sad that you have to copy and paste posts from other sites. Weren't you getting enough sympathy at the other site? As I stated above, I have every right to speak my mind. You shouldn't post personal things if you're not strong enough to handle people's comments and thoughts about your "situation". And please, by all means, attempt to explain to me how or why me saying you didn't use your free will to get out of the situation is somehow mean or hurtful???? How is encouraging a person to be strong and think for themselves a BAD thing??? Don't you WANT to be strong? I was asking you questions that you obviously can't answer, for whatever reason. Sixteen years of being "basically" held hostage by your parents!? Sixteen years??? Your parents??? And you had a husband.... none of that fits... none of that makes any sense. Where was your husband?? Why did you LET your own parents do that to you?? Do you see how one would have multiple questions about your story? So if you don't like my comments, well, I don't know what to tell you. I'm certainly not going to apologize, because I haven't said anything wrong. All I did was question you and your story. You get all bent out of shape and accuse ME of being an abuser. That really made me LMAO!!! Sticks and stones etc....

So anyway, this thread is about the Maples and Baskins.... feel free to continue deleting my posts. I'll just keep on posting. Not a problem. Things were fine until I came along and put a damper on the Maple family bashing. It's a free country, or did certain people forget that? I'm going to continue exercising my right to Freedom of Speech just like everyone else in this thread is doing. Like it or lump it.

Spitfire, WTH are you talking about deleted posts? Who are you accusing of deleting your posts?

The only post of mine that was ever deleted by the mods broke a rule about mentioning a certain site. What rule did your deleted posts break?

And I have to disagree when you say that this discussion is open to the public. It's only open to people who abide by the rules and don't behave in such a way as to get themselves gagged or banned. It's not a free for all.

As I've stated... this is NOT an invite only thread. It IS open for public discussion.

And yes, posts have been deleted. Why? Because Dipahead and I had the nerve to speak our mind. As I've said again and again, it's alright for people to call us names etc. but God forbid we post our thoughts and opinions. If our posts are going to go bye bye, the other peoples rude comments should go as well. What's fair is fair, and judging by what I've seen so far, this is definitely NOT fair. This is a one-sided thread and you've all made it perfectly clear that we are not welcome here. And that's exactly why I'm staying put and continuing to post my thoughts.

That is WTH I'm talking about!!!

Spitfire, WTH are you talking about deleted posts? Who are you accusing of deleting your posts?

The only post of mine that was ever deleted by the mods broke a rule about mentioning a certain site. What rule did your deleted posts break?

And I have to disagree when you say that this discussion is open to the public. It's only open to people who abide by the rules and don't behave in such a way as to get themselves gagged or banned. It's not a free for all.

TracyLynnS you are very aware why your posts have been edited and it isn't necessary to bring it up every chance you get (many times in veiled terms) as well as the website. Its getting old and I'm getting sick of it!!

Obviously everyone who has read this thread knows exactly why dipahead and spit^fire's posts are deleted. They are simply incapable of carrying on a rational discussion without badmouthing the board, the moderator and anyone and everyone who dares to have sympathy for the Baskins. Here's a great suggestion dipahead and spit^fire to you since this is such a terrible and horrible website......LEAVE!!!!! I can guarantee no one will be sad to see you go!!!!

OMG!! The DRAMA in this thread is hilarious!

Guess what?! Not leaving.... deal with it. It's a free country and I can post on here if I want. Keep deleting them... I'm just going to keep posting them. As for Dipahead and I badmouthing etc... take a look back through allllll the pages and pages of other posts from everyone else on here. Rude, mean, disrespectful, insulting, disgusting, evil, immature... need I go on? I think not.

We are just as entitled to have sympathy for the Maples as you are for the Baskins. The people in this thread have no problem dishing it out, yet no one is able to take it when the shoe is on the other foot.

You all have a lovely day! I know I am ; )) Go Red Wings!!

everybodylovesrs
Frequent Poster
Member




Join Date: Dec 12, 2008
Posts: 77

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Shut up troll and Satanist


Ahh, yes... how mature.

TracyLynnS you are very aware why your posts have been edited and it isn't necessary to bring it up every chance you get (many times in veiled terms) as well as the website. Its getting old and I'm getting sick of it!!

Obviously everyone who has read this thread knows exactly why dipahead and spit^fire's posts are deleted. They are simply incapable of carrying on a rational discussion without badmouthing the board, the moderator and anyone and everyone who dares to have sympathy for the Baskins. Here's a great suggestion dipahead and spit^fire to you since this is such a terrible and horrible website......LEAVE!!!!! I can guarantee no one will be sad to see you go!!!!

Crystaldawn...I didn't badmouth you, I QUOTED you! It was you doing the badmouthing!! How dare any of you sit there in front of your computers and try to pretend that if this was YOUR family being trashed that you would not only be angry, but defending them! We tried, several times, to tell you what we knew, and we got more abuse for either not being able to tell you more, or because what we were saying wasn't to your liking! Because it didn't coinside with your precious UM!

TracyLynnS you are very aware why your posts have been edited and it isn't necessary to bring it up every chance you get (many times in veiled terms) as well as the website. Its getting old and I'm getting sick of it!!

Oh my god. What are you talking about? I had no idea that you were so pissed off at me.

I had one post deleted because I broke the rules. If any of my posts were edited by you, I don't recall that happening, or why it would have happened. I try to be careful to follow the forum rules and I don't think that my behavior here has been obnoxious or stands out as any different than most of the regulars here.

In this thread, I was stating to these whiners that when I had that post deleted, I received the proper punishment, as I should have. I was trying to show them that they aren't any more special than the rest of us. We all have to play by the rules or else take our punishment. If they disobey the rules, they should expect the same treatment as anyone else on this board who commits a violation, and that includes expecting that their offensive posts will be removed.

I certainly don't know what you mean by saying that I complain about having my posts deleted or edited "every chance I get". And I bring it up in "veiled terms"?

I have never brought the subject up in a rude manner, or complained that I was treated unjustly when my post was deleted. I always understood exactly why that action had to be taken. I'm not constantly bringing the subject up and complaining about it. It never bothered me at all.

I never spoke of the incident in veiled terms. What do you mean by that?

I may have joked with another poster or two here who committed the same violation that I did, (regarding "that video site") and then said something about that they'd better be careful because such action could get them in trouble, but it was never done in a hateful, spiteful, or grudging manner. It was done very rarely and only as a helpful and friendly warning to be careful about not breaking the rules because I didn't want them to lose their priveleges here through ignorance of the posting rules.

Really, I have about 800 posts on this forum. And you are saying that I'm complaining so often about one of my posts being deleted months ago that you are getting "sick of it!!" I am just floored. Where out of my 800 posts, am I taking every opportunity to complain about one incident that I hold no hard feelings about?

CD,

It's 1:00 in the morning and I just went through dozens and dozens of my posts to see why I'm getting on your nerves so badly.

In the thread called People Interviewed on UM That You Just Didn't Like, I said this:

What's so sad about these Spike eppies is that they cut out goodies like the "michael jordan" part of Danny Wheeler's awesome quote. Even if you go to youknowwheretube and look them up, a lot of people have uploaded the spike versions, so it's hard to find the originals. So that little piece of television gold is lost to history.

So there is a post where I made a veiled reference to that site.


The thread called Unsolved Mysteries Music has an entire conversation:

A poster mentioned YT by name, and put a link to the site in the post. You had to edit the link out of her post. Another poster said that he was surprised that the post hadn’t been deleted by now, which was a couple days later, with the link still intact. I responded:

LOL! Me too! I once posted something like this with veiled language and it got pulled in just a few hours. This post just comes right out and says it all. (In other words, she said it all, with a link to the copyright infringement site, without even trying to tippy toe around subject.)

Then the poster wanted to know why her post was edited and why she couldn’t post a link directly to YT. I answered her:

It's not specificially unsolved mysteries rules, it's the board's rules, and has nothing to do with the UM music you're asking for.

Go read the moderator's "sticky" post about 3 from the top that says something like "No links about youtooooob or buying and selling episodes". (I thought I was being helpful, instructing her where to find the forum rules so that she would understand why certain behaviors are forbidden, and so she wouldn't get herself into trouble.)

Farther into the conversation, one poster mentions that he’s surprised that the thread was still up, and going on day 3 with the YT link still intact.

I joked back to him that we should start taking bets on when the thread would become extinct. Then YOU edited something out of my post, I don’t know what it was but it definitely wasn't a link to that site, and then you joked back to me with a big smile that you would win that bet. I thought you were joking around about it, too.

This was all back in January 2009. I don't think I've mentioned much on the subject since, and never in a negative way. This specific topic was all done in the context of a silly conversation and kind of a cautionary tale to others to remember to observe the rules.

Remember those two women in San Jose who overheard Marvin's intemperate remark - the one that led to his arrest - and reported him to the police? They wanted to remain anonymous, but what if Marvin finds out who they are? It may not be too difficult - or then again, it might be. But if word does leak out, what could happen to them? A lot of it will depend on what the people of San Jose think of it all now. But some of them, at least, will look on those women as rotten snitches who ruined the lives of the Buntings.

Those women must be really worried now that Marvin is coming back to California. I can see why they wanted to remain anonymous.

But if word does leak out, what could happen to them? A lot of it will depend on what the people of San Jose think of it all now. But some of them, at least, will look on those women as rotten snitches who ruined the lives of the Buntings.
Since San Jose is not a small town, most people don't pay a bit of attention to anyone besides themselves. The newspaper made it sound like the way these people knew one another was by hanging out in the same bar (with Marvin drinking juice). So, it will be up to those women if they still choose to hang out with him. There's also the question as to whether he decides to return to his same bar. Either way, hardly anyone outside of that building will pay any attention to either him or the women, I would guess.

Since San Jose is not a small town, most people don't pay a bit of attention to anyone besides themselves. The newspaper made it sound like the way these people knew one another was by hanging out in the same bar (with Marvin drinking juice). So, it will be up to those women if they still choose to hang out with him. There's also the question as to whether he decides to return to his same bar. Either way, hardly anyone outside of that building will pay any attention to either him or the women, I would guess.

Well, you seem to know more about this town than I do, so I hope you're right.

(And disturbing the peace? There is no peace in this thread! lol)
Why do you say that? It seems to me like overall the people here are taking a pretty calm approach considering how volatile the topic can become. Of course, I firmly believe that there's no reason for name-calling or personal generalizations. As Briony and Atomicfizz both said, WE are the ones who are in control of our own conversation. We have the choice to enjoy a lively discussion or to allow it to get nasty. I vote for "lively discussion."

And, I would like to mention something about the photos. You might not realize it, but many Internet providers only allow users to download a certain amount of material per month. Once we go over that, we have to pay horrendous fees. So, having to load all of those pictures each time we opened these pages was cutting into our allotment. I appreciate the moderator taking care of some of that! "Thank you, Crystaldawn!" :talk:

Well, you seem to know more about this town than I do, so I hope you're right.
Well, I could be completely wrong! Patrons of bars do sometimes develop their own social systems and get pretty entrenched in each other's lives. So, they easily might take this more personally than most in the general community would.

Either way, you're right, it would be interesting to see what will come of this. Considering the age of the participants (the people I saw on the news who were interviewed from the bar looked younger than Marvin, but not all that young, either) I doubt that there will be any physical harm done, but there will surely be hard feelings.

CD,

It's 1:00 in the morning and I just went through dozens and dozens of my posts to see why I'm getting on your nerves so badly.

In the thread called People Interviewed on UM That You Just Didn't Like, I said this:

What's so sad about these Spike eppies is that they cut out goodies like the "michael jordan" part of Danny Wheeler's awesome quote. Even if you go to youknowwheretube and look them up, a lot of people have uploaded the spike versions, so it's hard to find the originals. So that little piece of television gold is lost to history.

So there is a post where I made a veiled reference to that site.


The thread called Unsolved Mysteries Music has an entire conversation:

A poster mentioned YT by name, and put a link to the site in the post. You had to edit the link out of her post. Another poster said that he was surprised that the post hadn’t been deleted by now, which was a couple days later, with the link still intact. I responded:

LOL! Me too! I once posted something like this with veiled language and it got pulled in just a few hours. This post just comes right out and says it all. (In other words, she said it all, with a link to the copyright infringement site, without even trying to tippy toe around subject.)

Then the poster wanted to know why her post was edited and why she couldn’t post a link directly to YT. I answered her:

It's not specificially unsolved mysteries rules, it's the board's rules, and has nothing to do with the UM music you're asking for.

Go read the moderator's "sticky" post about 3 from the top that says something like "No links about youtooooob or buying and selling episodes". (I thought I was being helpful, instructing her where to find the forum rules so that she would understand why certain behaviors are forbidden, and so she wouldn't get herself into trouble.)

Farther into the conversation, one poster mentions that he’s surprised that the thread was still up, and going on day 3 with the YT link still intact.

I joked back to him that we should start taking bets on when the thread would become extinct. Then YOU edited something out of my post, I don’t know what it was but it definitely wasn't a link to that site, and then you joked back to me with a big smile that you would win that bet. I thought you were joking around about it, too.

This was all back in January 2009. I don't think I've mentioned much on the subject since, and never in a negative way. This specific topic was all done in the context of a silly conversation and kind of a cautionary tale to others to remember to observe the rules.

I will address your comments via pm.

Why do you say that? It seems to me like overall the people here are taking a pretty calm approach considering how volatile the topic can become. Of course, I firmly believe that there's no reason for name-calling or personal generalizations. As Briony and Atomicfizz both said, WE are the ones who are in control of our own conversation. We have the choice to enjoy a lively discussion or to allow it to get nasty. I vote for "lively discussion."

And, I would like to mention something about the photos. You might not realize it, but many Internet providers only allow users to download a certain amount of material per month. Once we go over that, we have to pay horrendous fees. So, having to load all of those pictures each time we opened these pages was cutting into our allotment. I appreciate the moderator taking care of some of that! "Thank you, Crystaldawn!" :talk:

No one instructed me to remove the photos I posted. I took them down myself because I didn't want anyone looking at them anymore.

No one instructed me to remove the photos I posted. I took them down myself because I didn't want anyone looking at them anymore.
Then, I thanked the wrong person -- thank YOU for removing them.

Remember those two women in San Jose who overheard Marvin's intemperate remark - the one that led to his arrest - and reported him to the police? They wanted to remain anonymous, but what if Marvin finds out who they are? It may not be too difficult - or then again, it might be. But if word does leak out, what could happen to them? A lot of it will depend on what the people of San Jose think of it all now. But some of them, at least, will look on those women as rotten snitches who ruined the lives of the Buntings.

Those women must be really worried now that Marvin is coming back to California. I can see why they wanted to remain anonymous.

I wouldn't worry if i were them. I'm sure that Marvin wants to get back to his quiet life. He has only himself to blame (or effects from his stroke) for talking and getting caught.

I wouldn't worry if i were them. I'm sure that Marvin wants to get back to his quiet life. He has only himself to blame (or effects from his stroke) for talking and getting caught.


He may not see it that way. Others in San Jose may not either.

If I were Debbie I would sue Marvin and put a lein on his house. His actions have cost her and he should pay. It would perhaps be in Californias court jurisdiction. It shouldn't make a difference to Christie who her landlord is, she could still live there. And sure, some will say "see, I told you so. Debbie's just in it for the money". But I am sure that Debbie is a grown up girl by now who doesn't care if some people pretend to "withdraw their approval" of her, when they always had it in for her anyway. What's right is right.

If I were Debbie I would sue Marvin and put a lein on his house. His actions have cost her and he should pay. It would perhaps be in Californias court jurisdiction. It shouldn't make a difference to Christie who her landlord is, she could still live there. And sure, some will say "see, I told you so. Debbie's just in it for the money". But I am sure that Debbie is a grown up girl by now who doesn't care if some people pretend to "withdraw their approval" of her, when they always had it in for her anyway. What's right is right.

It might widen the gap between Debbie and her children even further, though.

Marvin hasn't faced Debbie yet, has he? That's something that's really disappointed me. There was probably no opportunity in Tennessee, (we don't know if Debbie was present at the hearings or not) but he refused to see her when he was picked up in California. If they did meet face to face, it may or may not open up channels to healing.

By the way, what's going to happen to Sandra's grave? They will probably leave her where she is, but is someone going to change the inscription to show her real name?

I think that a loss by Marvin in court would further clarify his guilt in the court system. (at least in California). Kind of like what the Goldmans did to O.J.Simpson after O.J. got off on the murder charges of his wife.

I was kind of against the civil courts attacking an "innocent" man (O.J.). I think that his first verdict should have been final. O.J. was legaly innocent. But Marvin, on the other hand is legaly guilty, at least of "interference to custody". And his "interference" cost Debbie plenty.

Sandra doesn't have a grave.

Debbie had a chance to see her dad while he was in TN. She was allowed to, but chose not to. She also had a scheduled meeting with his attorney, but she didn't show up for their appointment. Hmmm, I wonder why.

As for Debbie suing her dad. She and Mark tried to sue him, her mom, and both of her sisters 20 years ago, for $250,000. When she found out there were no assets to collect because her parents sold their home she was furious. And what their reason was for their attempted law suit is beyond me. She and Mark have been compensated for the past 20 years. They still maintain a bank account with the money they collect from sympathetic people to apparently help them in their search for Jennifer and Jonathan. However, there was no money needed for the search... the FBI and Police get paid to do that for them.

What I also find strange is that, after the kids were gone with the Maples, Mark and Debbie moved... not once, not twice, but several times. Why would parents keep moving from state to state (Kentucky, Georgia, Florida) if they had hopes of their children tracking them down? Wouldn't it make more sense to stay put, where the kids remembered them being? Also, I can't help but wonder if they used the "sympathy money" to fund all their moves. Maybe they moved so many times because they knew the kids would never want to see and/or talk to them again. I'd say that the Baskins have been compensated more than enough.

I think that a loss by Marvin in court would further clarify his guilt in the court system. (at least in California). Kind of like what the Goldmans did to O.J.Simpson after O.J. got off on the murder charges of his wife.

I was kind of against the civil courts attacking an "innocent" man (O.J.). I think that his first verdict should have been final. O.J. was legaly innocent. But Marvin, on the other hand is legaly guilty, at least of "interference to custody". And his "interference" cost Debbie plenty.

I don't know what the future will bring, but you may be on the right track in terms of this not being over in the courts. There could still be lawsuits. But who will sue whom, for what and how much? It was said earlier that Marvin could sue for being arrested on a bad warrant. Debbie could sue her father. And what about the social workers, lawyers and other officials who the Maples also accused of child molesting? Could they have grounds to sue, or would the case be too old for that?

And (HORRIBLE THOUGHT!!:eek:) could Bobby and Christi sue Debbie and Mark for alleged abuse?

I agree with 99% of everyone else in here in saying this is horrific and despicable. :( Marvin being allowed to go home without any jail time sends a message that what he did is okay. Maybe that'll even encourage someone in a similar situation to the 1989 Maples to go on the run.

Heck, I'm a liberal left wing guy, and this slap on the wrist (it's not even that much!) really ticks me off as much as anybody. Especially after years of clinging to the slim hope that the Maples would be caught and have to explain themselves.

Sadly I think after a few years into it, it was probably too late... especially after the kids became adults. If they had been found, say prior to 1997ish (before they'd be in high school) I believe it would've been possible although still tough, to reestablish a relationship with Mark and Debbie.

I imagine the fact that they've become independent, well off adults (that's probably the only positive thing about this whole case) on their own, probably means they feel Marvin at least (and probably Sandra too) did a good job raising them, and they don't want outside interference. I bet that's why they're sticking by Marvin's side too.

I truly hope they'll at least talk to Michael, he didn't have anything to do with this, and he was just a kid in '89. He'd be old enough to remember them from back then, and I'm sure he would want a relationship with them. Why should he have to suffer just because of the Maples' brainwashing?

I truly hope they'll at least talk to Michael, he didn't have anything to do with this, and he was just a kid in '89. He'd be old enough to remember them from back then, and I'm sure he would want a relationship with them. Why should he have to suffer just because of the Maples' brainwashing?


Yes, Michael couldn't have taken any role in abusing them, if there was ever any abuse to begin with. It can't be much of an affront to their loyalty to Marvin to talk to Michael. Marvin can't have any reason to come between Bobby, Christi and their youngest brother, and he no longer has reason to hide the older children.

"Luck" had nothing to do with it. Giving children to relatives (when relatives were available) was standard procedure then, as it still is now. Our system simply doesn't have enough foster care families to provide for all the kids whose parents are under investigation. Or, would you rather see these kids confined in institutional settings? In the majority of cases, family members are wonderfully qualified to care for their relatives. In some, they are not.

In this particular case, the parents themselves were the first ones to place the children in the grandparents' care and voluntarily leave them there for months and months.


Rather odd thing for the parents to leave the children voluntarily with relatives if they were abusing them. A bit risky as the children might blab.

Undecided, it's not putting the children in the care of relatives that's the problem - it was putting them in the hands of the accusers! This would give the accusers the opportunity to brainwash and coach the children (whether intentionally or unintentionally through ignorance and hysteria), or even, as we have seen, abduct them. And how do we know it was the accusers and not the accused who were abusing the children? In the interests of justice and fairness, it would have made sense to remove all three children and put them in foster care while the charges were being investigated. This is what the judge in the parallel Pat Farmer case did, a jolly sensible decision in my opinion.

The third child was not removed from the alleged abusers, nor would the grandparents seem to make any move to remove him - the ongoing sticking point that prevents people on the Baskin side to consider the Maple side more.

On our old thread, someone also said that Judge Corlew violated the custodial rights of the Baskins by granting interim custody of the children to the grandparents - without speaking to the Baskins, having them represented in his chambers and hearing their side of things, or even telling the Baskins of his decision. The Baskins got their parental rights pulled out right from under them without their even being told about it!

And why go through all the fuss and expense of suing for custody, anyway? Why not simply go to the police?

I see some parallells between this case and the Amy Billig case (except, sadly, Billig was never found). If you have sympathy for teh Billig family, I don;t see how you cannot have sympathy for the Baskin. Both families were victims of felony kidnapping (in some ways, the Baskins may be hurt deeper because the kidnapping--and that is EXACTLY what it was-- was perpertrated by a family member (her own parents). We have the greatest criminal justice system in the world but it didn't do its job in the case of Marvin Maples.

I may be out of line.--and CD, forgive me if I am-- but it seems the only way justice would be served in this case is if Marvin Maple has a brother who owes Jesse James Hollywood drug money. I don't know how a kidnapped Marvin would schmoozing with young ladies and taking large amounts of valium and marijuana...but in the end we all know what happens (markowitz did ot deserve his end. Maple does).

Rather odd thing for the parents to leave the children voluntarily with relatives if they were abusing them. A bit risky as the children might blab.
That's not how the newspaper said it happened. The Baptist paper that I linked earlier said that the abuse occurred during the April visit which was almost a year after the Baskins had left the children with her parents.

Undecided, it's not putting the children in the care of relatives that's the problem - it was putting them in the hands of the accusers! This would give the accusers the opportunity to brainwash and coach the children (whether intentionally or unintentionally through ignorance and hysteria), or even, as we have seen, abduct them. And how do we know it was the accusers and not the accused who were abusing the children? In the interests of justice and fairness, it would have made sense to remove all three children and put them in foster care while the charges were being investigated. This is what the judge in the parallel Pat Farmer case did, a jolly sensible decision in my opinion.

Well, foster care can be quite traumatic. Or, maybe there weren't any foster placements available. So, courts often put the children with family; and often with the family who is doing the accusing. In a perfect world, this wouldn't happen. But, this isn't a perfect world.

On our old thread, someone also said that Judge Corlew violated the custodial rights of the Baskins by granting interim custody of the children to the grandparents - without speaking to the Baskins, having them represented in his chambers and hearing their side of things, or even telling the Baskins of his decision. The Baskins got their parental rights pulled out right from under them without their even being told about it!

I've seen it happen that way in other cases, too. Doesn't seem legal, but it does happen. We don't even know for sure if what was said in that thread is true, or if it's actually what happened in this case. It would be interesting to see the court records and/or to know how similar cases were being handled in that area at that time.

And why go through all the fuss and expense of suing for custody, anyway? Why not simply go to the police?
Probably because the Baskins had already left the children with the Maples for almost a year. So, the Maples might have figured that since the kids were settled and they were all comfortable together, they'd go ahead and get custody. If they just went to the police, the kids would probably be thrown into the foster care system. Why do that to them as if they didn't have a home, especially since they were living in a place that was far from the accused abusers?

Undecided: Well, foster care can be quite traumatic. Or, maybe there weren't any foster placements available. So, courts often put the children with family; and often with the family who is doing the accusing. In a perfect world, this wouldn't happen. But, this isn't a perfect world.

Are you saying that Corlew's decision to allow the Maples interim custody without speaking to the Baskins was - and is - not that unusual? And what's more, it was a product of the times, when fears and hysteria of satanic ritual abuse were rampant, and authorities didn't fully understand how to interview children (my view). Hmmm...well, I shall see what others think...

Certainly there is widespread feeling, expressed not only here but on other forums and threads, is that Judge Corlew, to put it succinctly, screwed up on this case with his decision to grant interim custody to the Maples (while letting two alleged child abusers retain custody of the third child) and blame for the kidnapping and the failure of the courts must be laid fairly and squarely at his door. However typical his decision may have been in comparison to other judges, I think the Baskin case is going to be on his tombstone....:rip:

Come to that, from what I've been able to gather from the Internet there are several people who have a very low opinion of Judge Corlew, and not just over the Baskin case. One person said Corlew had been a "standing joke" :joke: in Murfreesboro for "decades".

How do you know all these things, by the way? Do you work with the courts and custody disputes?

Are you saying that Corlew's decision to allow the Maples interim custody without speaking to the Baskins was - and is - not that unusual?

Those weren't anywhere near the words I used. I said that I've seen it happen; I did not say that it's common.

And, widespread feeling or a comment on a message board does not make something true. I don't know what happened in that courtroom; do you? I wasn't there; were you? I didn't read about the case in the newspaper as it happened, nor do I have access to the court records; do you? I have no idea whether the judge acted incorrectly or not for the time and the setting and the whole situation. He might have acted completely inappropriately, or he might not. I'm sure not going to base my decision on a message board's report of the feeling of several people (which isn't necessarily accurate, and is very probably biased).

To learn about these sorts of things, I don't rely on message boards. Instead, I read magazines, newspapers, and books, I take classes, I do research, I study the events in the world, and I talk with many people around me to learn from their experiences in life. And, yes, a judge severed a friend's parental rights illegally with improper notice. After that, I listened whenever the topic came up and found others who went through similar situations.

However, I do not see how he can be blamed for the kidnapping. If the Maples had threatened it, or even whispered about it, and he had heard their plans and yet done nothing, THEN I could blame him. But, I don't expect him to read minds. So, I can't "blame" him for their actions. Sure, he put the kids in the hands of the Maples, but Debbie and Mark did that long, long before he did.

However, I do not see how he can be blamed for the kidnapping. If the Maples had threatened it, or even whispered about it, and he had heard their plans and yet done nothing, THEN I could blame him. But, I don't expect him to read minds. So, I can't "blame" him for their actions. Sure, he put the kids in the hands of the Maples, but Debbie and Mark did that long, long before he did.

According to the UM segment, (I don't know if you have seen it or not) Karen Hornsby who represented the children said the Baskins warned her repeatedly that the Maples might abduct the children, but she didn't take their warnings seriously - and has regretted it ever since.

According to the UM segment, (I don't know if you have seen it or not) Karen Hornsby who represented the children said the Baskins warned her repeatedly that the Maples might abduct the children, but she didn't take their warnings seriously - and has regretted it ever since.
So, the person whose responsibility it was to care for the children's welfare, and who had more ongoing personal interaction with the children and the parents, believed that the warning was not something serious. In situations like that, the judge usually goes on the information that was filtered through people like her.

So, the person whose responsibility it was to care for the children's welfare, and who had more ongoing personal interaction with the children and the parents, believed that the warning was not something serious. In situations like that, the judge usually goes on the information that was filtered through people like her.

It was more over the fact that she was being told fantastic things by BOTH sides. She had the Baskins telling her that they were afraid Marvin and Sandra were going to take the kids and run (which of course ended up happening) and at the same time, she had the Maples telling her that Mark and Debbie were satan worshippers in a cult who mollested their children. In her mind, she must have thought that this was just a feuding family and she chose not to take sides while the investigation was going on. She had no idea that the Maples would actually go so far as to abduct the children like they did.

I have never understood how parents could have done this to their own kids/grandkids. This is the case from Tennessee, right? Glad this one finally got resolution.

However, I do not see how he can be blamed for the kidnapping. If the Maples had threatened it, or even whispered about it, and he had heard their plans and yet done nothing, THEN I could blame him. But, I don't expect him to read minds. So, I can't "blame" him for their actions. Sure, he put the kids in the hands of the Maples, but Debbie and Mark did that long, long before he did.

In the Unsolved Mysteries segment, Mark Baskin said that Corlew took the Maples word at face value without even talking to Mark, Debbie OR the children first. And Judge Corlew did not deny that fact in the segment either. He is partly responsible for this whole mess. To this day, I'm still shocked that he was able to take custody rights away from the Baskins simply because Marvin and Sandra walked into his office and told them what "monsters" Mark and Debbie were.

And once again, this argument over the Baskins leaving the children in the care of the Maples is moot. When they first did that, their relationship wasn't strained. But within 7 months, it was. Plain and simple. You can't compare those two time frames. The nature of their relationship was too different.

In her mind, she must have thought that this was just a feuding family and she chose not to take sides while the investigation was going on. She had no idea that the Maples would actually go so far as to abduct the children like they did.
Exactly! And, that's the reason I can't see why people want to put "blame" on the judge. No one can read minds.

Exactly! And, that's the reason I can't see why people want to put "blame" on the judge. No one can read minds.

We put blame on the judge because, unlike Karen Hornsby, judge Corlew DID take sides. It's not about being able to read minds at all. The Maples told him something and he believed it without talking to the other parties. THAT is why many people hold him partly responsible for this whole mess. He screwed up and he deserves all the critisism he gets.

In the Unsolved Mysteries segment, Mark Baskin said that Corlew took the Maples word at face value without even talking to Mark, Debbie OR the children first. And Judge Corlew did not deny that fact in the segment either. He is partly responsible for this whole mess. To this day, I'm still shocked that he was able to take custody rights away from the Baskins simply because Marvin and Sandra walked into his office and told them what "monsters" Mark and Debbie were.
Well, to get into technical terms, the court did not take the custody rights away immediately. It was a temporary order while it was under investigation. Yes, the court does that all the time. When someone makes a call to report suspected child abuse, it MUST be investigated. As I recall, the Baskins had already given the Maples some sort of paperwork saying they had a type of custody when they first left the kids with them.

And once again, this argument over the Baskins leaving the children in the care of the Maples is moot. When they first did that, their relationship wasn't strained. But within 7 months, it was. Plain and simple. You can't compare those two time frames. The nature of their relationship was too different.
Debbie and Mark CONTINUED to leave the kids with her parents even AFTER the relationship was strained. According to UM, it was in Dec that it got uncomfortable, but not till April that the Maples went to the authorities. Therefore, there was a number of months during which Debbie and Mark could have retrieved the children.

Well, to get into technical terms, the court did not take the custody rights away immediately. It was a temporary order while it was under investigation. Yes, the court does that all the time. When someone makes a call to report suspected child abuse, it MUST be investigated. As I recall, the Baskins had already given the Maples some sort of paperwork saying they had a type of custody when they first left the kids with them.


Debbie and Mark CONTINUED to leave the kids with her parents even AFTER the relationship was strained. According to UM, it was in Dec that it got uncomfortable, but not till April that the Maples went to the authorities. Therefore, there was a number of months during which Debbie and Mark could have retrieved the children.


Yes, the Baskin's did continue leave the kids there and I'm sure they have kicked themselves many times over for doing that. Still if the children had been placed with a neutral party, the kidnapping may have been avoided (and possibly some of the issues could have been sorted out more quickly, as the children would not have been under the unfluence of either party). In regards to leaving the children with the grandparents past Christmas, mostly the Baskin's are guilty of being naive when it came to Debbie's parents. Debbie was trying to assuage her Mother and had no idea what was about to happen.

In regards to leaving the children with the grandparents past Christmas, mostly the Baskin's are guilty of being naive when it came to Debbie's parents. Debbie was trying to assuage her Mother and had no idea what was about to happen.
Please be careful to keep my comments in context. At that point in my note, I was NOT talking about "guilt" or "blame." I was answering dynoguy's comment where he claimed that the fact that the Baskins originally left the kids with the Maples was at a period of time when everyone was getting along and can't be used as a reason for the judge to continue to leave them there. So, I pointed out the fact that the kids were left there long after relations were strained.

Has everyone involved in the case kicked themselves? I'm certain that they have, many many times!

We put blame on the judge because, unlike Karen Hornsby, judge Corlew DID take sides. It's not about being able to read minds at all. The Maples told him something and he believed it without talking to the other parties.
Usually, it's not the judge's place to be the person who talks to anyone. Other people do that. Social workers interview parents and children, police officers often help with the investigation, experts such as pediatricians examine the children, etc. At a later date, they all take their reports to the judge.

Many children have died between the time that they told an adult about the abuse and the time they were taken out of the home. So, the court has learned to act quickly for the safety of the children. They remove the children from potential danger, and then do the investigation. Not the other way around.

I have a few more thoughts on general reasons for not notifying the parents. This school in MD expresses it well in their policies for handling suspected abuse:

"Although the regulations express a preference for parental notification, the school principal or the principal's designee is not required to notify parents or guardians of investigations on school premises involving suspected child abuse or neglect. The principal, in consultation with the Protective Services Caseworker, may decide whether the parents should be informed of the investigative questioning. It may be determined, for example, that disclosure to the parents would create a threat to the well-being of the child."
http://www.ga.k12.md.us/Policies/400/474_232.htm

And, in regards to the Baskin case, the Maples might have actually been the "guardians" since they needed to have that sort of authority for schooling and medical care. If that's the case, then legally, the parents would not have to be notified any earlier. Especially when they were the ones who were suspected of being the abusers.

I have a few more thoughts on general reasons for not notifying the parents. This school in MD expresses it well in their policies for handling suspected abuse:

"Although the regulations express a preference for parental notification, the school principal or the principal's designee is not required to notify parents or guardians of investigations on school premises involving suspected child abuse or neglect. The principal, in consultation with the Protective Services Caseworker, may decide whether the parents should be informed of the investigative questioning. It may be determined, for example, that disclosure to the parents would create a threat to the well-being of the child."
http://www.ga.k12.md.us/Policies/400/474_232.htm

And, in regards to the Baskin case, the Maples might have actually been the "guardians" since they needed to have that sort of authority for schooling and medical care. If that's the case, then legally, the parents would not have to be notified any earlier. Especially when they were the ones who were suspected of being the abusers.


Lumme, I'm beginning to think we need a legal expert to provide an informed opinion! We don't fully understand what the legal criteria and procedures were at the time, which were unfortunately compounded by the widespread fears of satanic ritual abuse, so we don't know how closely Corlew followed legal procedures, even if they did seem adverse and unfair to the Baskin parents.

I wonder if there were any legal proceedings and lawsuits filed after the children were kidnapped. There have been stories that Debbie unsuccessfully sued her family for helping the grandparents abduct the children. I don't know if that's true or not, but I take it with a pinch of salt as it comes from the Maple relatives. There is another that the Baskins successfully filed grievance claims against Corlew, but I don't have any source to verify this, so I cannot say if that is true or not.

Yes, the Baskin's did continue leave the kids there and I'm sure they have kicked themselves many times over for doing that. Still if the children had been placed with a neutral party, the kidnapping may have been avoided (and possibly some of the issues could have been sorted out more quickly, as the children would not have been under the unfluence of either party). In regards to leaving the children with the grandparents past Christmas, mostly the Baskin's are guilty of being naive when it came to Debbie's parents. Debbie was trying to assuage her Mother and had no idea what was about to happen.


I remember in the parallel Pat Farmer case (also on Unsolved Mysteries) the judge had the child Jared placed in custody of the court while the allegations against his mother, Ladonna Morrow, were investigated instead of letting the accusing grandmother, Pat Farmer, have interim custody of him. It didn't stop her kidnapping the boy in the end, as she was allowed one last custodial visit, but I think it was a very wise move to put him in custody of the court. This case was later dramatised as "A Kidnapping in the Family".

I remember in the parallel Pat Farmer case (also on Unsolved Mysteries) the judge had the child Jared placed in custody of the court while the allegations against his mother, Ladonna Morrow, were investigated instead of letting the accusing grandmother, Pat Farmer, have interim custody of him. It didn't stop her kidnapping the boy in the end, as she was allowed one last custodial visit, but I think it was a very wise move to put him in custody of the court. This case was later dramatised as "A Kidnapping in the Family".


Oh yes, I remember that even when in foster care, she was able to kidnap Jared. So there would have been no guarantees if the Baskin children had been placed, but it would have made it more difficult, which I know Briony that you agree with me about.

To me, it's also about the kids being in the environment where, IF they were being coached or influenced, that would have been minimized if they were not living with the accusers.

Oh yes, I remember that even when in foster care, she was able to kidnap Jared. So there would have been no guarantees if the Baskin children had been placed, but it would have made it more difficult, which I know Briony that you agree with me about.

To me, it's also about the kids being in the environment where, IF they were being coached or influenced, that would have been minimized if they were not living with the accusers.

YEAH!

Unfortunately, they didn't fully understand the dangers of coaching, repeated questioning (which the segment says the Baskin children were subjected to) and contaminating children's evidence. It was the days when "children don't lie about such things" was such Gospel and satanic ritual abuse panics were at their peak. But "lie" is the key word - they may not lie, but they can be influenced and brainwashed into saying things that aren't true and even have false memories implanted.

Anyway, for these reasons they may not have fully understood the necessity of putting - all three children - into neutral territory and getting them out of the hands of the accusers as well as the alleged abusers.

And here's another thing that I'd love to see Corlew explain - if he was following procedures in his decision regarding Bobby and Christi, why didn't he order Michael removed as well? He didn't answer this question on the segment but we don't know if UM asked him. The only mention of it was Debbie and Mark saying they argued this point with the courts - if you think we're guilty, why are we allowed to keep Michael - but they said that the courts weren't interested in Michael. Later, a newspaper correspondent from Murfreesboro Post told me by private message that Mark says the authorities did investigate Michael's welfare and found no cause for concern.

And here's another thing that I'd love to see Corlew explain - if he was following procedures in his decision regarding Bobby and Christi, why didn't he order Michael removed as well?
Have you done research to find out what the procedure is? I don't know what it is, so I don't know if he did it properly or not. But, without that information, you can't very well accuse him of not following procedure. In many states, not all of the children are removed when there is a report of abuse. Often, it's just the one who is the subject of the investigation.

If anyone on here is as interested as they seem to be to hear what Christie/Jennifer and Bobby/Jonathan have to say about all of this, then order the transcript from Mr. Maple's last hearing... it's public record. Read the last portion of the DA's statement (after all the legal posturing to make sure all bases are covered).

It's pretty interesting, and as they seem to be intensely private people it very well may be all anyone will ever hear from them on the matter.

Have you done research to find out what the procedure is? I don't know what it is, so I don't know if he did it properly or not. But, without that information, you can't very well accuse him of not following procedure. In many states, not all of the children are removed when there is a report of abuse. Often, it's just the one who is the subject of the investigation.

I don't know if Corlew followed procedure or not. Michael was in the State of Kentucky at the time, so it would have had to be a judge/court there. Maple family members did say that the Maple's did try to do something in Kentucky about Michael. That might have been what prompted the authorities to check on his welfare as stated in one of Briony's posts.

If anyone on here is as interested as they seem to be to hear what Christie/Jennifer and Bobby/Jonathan have to say about all of this, then order the transcript from Mr. Maple's last hearing... it's public record. Read the last portion of the DA's statement (after all the legal posturing to make sure all bases are covered).

It's pretty interesting, and as they seem to be intensely private people it very well may be all anyone will ever hear from them on the matter.

Good idea. Sounds like you read it. If you did, what did it say?

If anyone on here is as interested as they seem to be to hear what Christie/Jennifer and Bobby/Jonathan have to say about all of this, then order the transcript from Mr. Maple's last hearing... it's public record.
Since you already have it, could you post it? Or, at least let us know where to order it? Thanks!

If anyone on here is as interested as they seem to be to hear what Christie/Jennifer and Bobby/Jonathan have to say about all of this, then order the transcript from Mr. Maple's last hearing... it's public record. Read the last portion of the DA's statement (after all the legal posturing to make sure all bases are covered).

It's pretty interesting, and as they seem to be intensely private people it very well may be all anyone will ever hear from them on the matter.

Yes, I'd love to have a look too! I just hope it doesn't say that Bobby and Christi believe their parents molested them.

Yes, I'd love to have a look too! I just hope it doesn't say that Bobby and Christi believe their parents molested them.

I emailed the court to ask how to get it. However, I hope the original poster JustStoppingBy will post it here instead of all of us bothering the people working at the courthouse to get individual copies.

I don't know if Corlew followed procedure or not. Michael was in the State of Kentucky at the time, so it would have had to be a judge/court there.
LOL. Good point! In other words, there is NO reason to "blame" Corlew for not taking Michael, since he had no authority to do that, anyway.

Have you done research to find out what the procedure is? I don't know what it is, so I don't know if he did it properly or not. But, without that information, you can't very well accuse him of not following procedure. In many states, not all of the children are removed when there is a report of abuse. Often, it's just the one who is the subject of the investigation.

Really? That sounds odd to me - haven't they ever heard of the phrase "better safe than sorry"?

LOL. Good point! In other words, there is NO reason to "blame" Corlew for not taking Michael, since he had no authority to do that, anyway.

Maybe while the Baskins were in Kentucky. But what about when the Baskins moved back to Tennessee? Wouldn't Corlew be empowered to do something then? And the Maples apply for custody of Michael in case he was being abused as well? And even if the Maples couldn't get hold of Michael, wouldn't they have been worried sick about him for 20 years, or have concerns about Bobby and Christi being traumatised over being separated from their brother?

But what about when the Baskins moved back to Tennessee? Wouldn't Corlew be empowered to do something then?
Legally, no. A judge is not a crime-hunter. He acts on cases that are brought to him. If no one made a complaint about Michael, then he has no jurisdiction.

Really? That sounds odd to me - haven't they ever heard of the phrase "better safe than sorry"?
Sounds odd to me, too. But, we live in the land of "innocent until proven guilty."

Maybe while the Baskins were in Kentucky. But what about when the Baskins moved back to Tennessee? Wouldn't Corlew be empowered to do something then? And the Maples apply for custody of Michael in case he was being abused as well? And even if the Maples couldn't get hold of Michael, wouldn't they have been worried sick about him for 20 years, or have concerns about Bobby and Christi being traumatised over being separated from their brother?

I don't know that the Baskin's ever moved back to TN. They visited for court dates and visitation with Christi & Bobby.

I remember that in some interview Mark Baskin does state that he voiced that he thought that Bobby & Christi s/b placed in foster care while the allegations of abuse were investigated.

Yes, I still believe that Marvin & Sandra should have tried harder to save Michael if they truly believed he needed saved. They made at least that one attempt with KY authorities, then ultimately fled. Who knows what they thought about that for the next 20 yrs.

I emailed the court to ask how to get it. However, I hope the original poster JustStoppingBy will post it here instead of all of us bothering the people working at the courthouse to get individual copies.

Thanks for doing that. I looked up the telephone numbers and such yesterday, but hadn't done anything. Let me know if you need any help.

Sounds odd to me, too. But, we live in the land of "innocent until proven guilty."

Yes, that's the way it's supposed to be. Unfortunately, sometimes the reverse is the reality. In a lot of the satanic ritual abuse cases, hysteria overrode commonsense and legal propriety, so the axiom "innocent until proven guilty" got twisted around - at least that's Bobby Finje, one of the people prosecuted during the ritual satanic abuse scares - and a child himself! - feels. Although a minor, Bobby was tried as an adult and if convicted, would have been sent to an adult prison. Thankfully the jury acquitted him.

I don't know that the Baskin's ever moved back to TN. They visited for court dates and visitation with Christi & Bobby.

I remember that in some interview Mark Baskin does state that he voiced that he thought that Bobby & Christi s/b placed in foster care while the allegations of abuse were investigated.

Yes, I still believe that Marvin & Sandra should have tried harder to save Michael if they truly believed he needed saved. They made at least that one attempt with KY authorities, then ultimately fled. Who knows what they thought about that for the next 20 yrs.

Yes, I remember Mark Baskin saying that he tried to have Bobby and Christi placed in foster care but Corlew wouldn't allow it. I think there was also something about Mark trying to lodge a counterclaim of abuse against the Maples, or something like that, because he became frustrated at the court's handling of the case.

Somebody posted to the Baskin UM segment on YouTube (which got pulled again) that after the kidnapping the Baskins successfully filed a grievance against Corlew. He ended up removed from the bench and sanctioned. They said they found this through lots of Internet research but didn't provide any links so I could check. So I don't know if it is true or not.

Even if Michael had been in another state and the Maples legally unable to get custody of him - or kidnap him - it, to my mind, still doesn't adequately explain why they left him behind. I don't know if the Maples did voice concerns about Michael to the courts and urge them to do something, but if I was a grandmother who really believed the parents were abusive, I wouldn't allow any of my grandchildren to stay with them.

Have you done research to find out what the procedure is? I don't know what it is, so I don't know if he did it properly or not. But, without that information, you can't very well accuse him of not following procedure. In many states, not all of the children are removed when there is a report of abuse. Often, it's just the one who is the subject of the investigation.

Oh, I remember reading somewhere that not all children may be abused by an abusive parent. It would be a mistake to assume that no child in the family is being abused just because one looks all right. It was in a Reader's Digest account called "The Murder of Robbie Wayne". Robbie Wayne was murdered but his sister (or stepsister, I can't remember which) was left untouched because she was the favourite. Unfortunately that was not the case with a newborn baby sister who was born after Robbie's murder and his stepmother was in prison. I got rid of that digest because the account was too distressing.:(

Somebody posted to the Baskin UM segment on YouTube (which got pulled again) that after the kidnapping the Baskins successfully filed a grievance against Corlew. He ended up removed from the bench and sanctioned. gThey said they found this through lots of Internet research but didn't provide any links so I could check. So I don't know if it is true or not.
No -- if you search the Murfreesboro Post newspaper online, you'll see that he's still on the bench.

Thanks for doing that. I looked up the telephone numbers and such yesterday, but hadn't done anything. Let me know if you need any help.
Thanks for the offer! I'll let you know if I hear back from them.

No -- if you search the Murfreesboro Post newspaper online, you'll see that he's still on the bench.

I thought being removed from the bench and sanctioned didn't match with the other stuff I've found about Corlew on the Internet (although there were some things that didn't seem to cast him in a favourable light).

I wonder how Corlew feels about this whole business and Marvin being caught. On the segment he defended his decision to remove Bobby and Christi based on what the Maples told him in chambers. I don't know how he felt or what he said when he discovered he had made the wrong decision which led to a kidnapping. Probably nobody does.

I thought being removed from the bench and sanctioned didn't match with the other stuff I've found about Corlew on the Internet (although there were some things that didn't seem to cast him in a favourable light).

I wonder how Corlew feels about this whole business and Marvin being caught. On the segment he defended his decision to remove Bobby and Christi based on what the Maples told him in chambers. I don't know how he felt or what he said when he discovered he had made the wrong decision which led to a kidnapping. Probably nobody does.

Corlew could have been sanctioned (disciplined) for a time way back then, then re-instated. I don't know.

Corlew could have been sanctioned (disciplined) for a time way back then, then re-instated. I don't know.

Oh yeah, that's another possibility. I wish that respondent had sent me links about this sanctioning so I could check it out for verification. And pass the links over to you, of course.

Found this video from 6/3/09, reaction to Marvin's sentence of 4 years probation.

http://www.wsav.com/sav/news/local/article/grandfather_accused_of_kidnapping_avoids_prison_time/13119/

The reporter also says at the end that the Baskin's are working on a Dateline episode.

Found this video from 6/3/09, reaction to Marvin's sentence of 4 years probation.

http://www.wsav.com/sav/news/local/a...on_time/13119/

According to the end of this segment, the Baskins are filming a Dateline episode. Hopefully, someone will hear about it and post the info to this forum before it airs (I honestly don't trust myself not to have it slip my mind, but I'll try to keep a lookout). Dateline episodes are usually available online later as well.

According to the end of this segment, the Baskins are filming a Dateline episode. Hopefully, someone will hear about it and post the info to this forum before it airs (I honestly don't trust myself not to have it slip my mind, but I'll try to keep a lookout). Dateline episodes are usually available online later as well.

I wonder who is going to be there besides Mark and Debbie? Marvin? Bobby and Christi? Maple relatives? The Maple relatives say that UM denied them permission to speak on the segment because they felt they had all the facts and didn't need them along. I don't know what UM would say about that, but I'm taking everything the Maple relatives say with a pinch of salt now.

Mind you, it could be interesting if Spit-Fire comes to the Dateline episode...

LOL. Good point! In other words, there is NO reason to "blame" Corlew for not taking Michael, since he had no authority to do that, anyway.


People discussing the action of Corlew might be interested in this link to where Rutherford judges are rated. The link leads to four ratings of Judge (Chancellor, as he is now) Robert Corlew. All four give him the thumbs down: two on account of the Baskin case, one because of corruption and tampering with jury selection, and the last for being "so crooked" (no details).

http://www.courthouseforum.com/forums/popupcomments.php?judge=175827&classify=0&gtkaefjdh5ddk0lgjhvrv07jq1

I wonder who is going to be there besides Mark and Debbie? Marvin? Bobby and Christi? Maple relatives? The Maple relatives say that UM denied them permission to speak on the segment because they felt they had all the facts and didn't need them along. I don't know what UM would say about that, but I'm taking everything the Maple relatives say with a pinch of salt now.

Mind you, it could be interesting if Spit-Fire comes to the Dateline episode...

I would imagine the any people interviewed from the Maple side of the family would be Debbie's sisters and Marvin's sister. The person you mentioned was just in her late teens to early 20's at the time all this happened and probably rec'd all information 2nd hand through her mother. Who knows though!

I would imagine the any people interviewed from the Maple side of the family would be Debbie's sisters and Marvin's sister. The person you mentioned was just in her late teens to early 20's at the time all this happened and probably rec'd all information 2nd hand through her mother. Who knows though!

Oh, and I should probably say that I don't mean to speak for Dateline or for the poster mentioned. I did though, kinda.

I would imagine the any people interviewed from the Maple side of the family would be Debbie's sisters and Marvin's sister. The person you mentioned was just in her late teens to early 20's at the time all this happened and probably rec'd all information 2nd hand through her mother. Who knows though!


How about Marvin himself? For one thing, I'd be far more interested to listen to him than Debbie's sisters, who probably didn't see much of the custody battle first hand anyway. And as yet there has been no face-to-face confrontation between Debbie and her father - at least, not to the best of my knowledge. They may have faced eachother during the hearing; I don't know.

Still, from what we've seen from the Maple defenders, if anyone is invited from the Maple side - Dateline had better brace itself for really ugly fireworks!

How about Marvin himself? For one thing, I'd be far more interested to listen to him than Debbie's sisters, who probably didn't see much of the custody battle first hand anyway. And as yet there has been no face-to-face confrontation between Debbie and her father - at least, not to the best of my knowledge. They may have faced eachother during the hearing; I don't know.

Still, from what we've seen from the Maple defenders, if anyone is invited from the Maple side - Dateline had better brace itself for really ugly fireworks!

It would be good to hear from Marvin. The way things seem to be going, probably just a statement from him through his lawyer.

I don't know if airing all this in a Dateline episode will be helpful or harmful to building a future relationship with Christi & Bobby, but I guess right now the Baskin's feel like it's useful to them. They have every right to put their side of the story out there, again.

They've been trying to get some contact with Christi & Bobby to no avail. I hope Christi & Bobby are doing alright. At the same time I can't imagine the pain their brother is going through because they have not contacted him.

The sad thing about this is that Sandra Maples will never have to answer for her actions because she died. Hopefully Marvin Maples will talk about why he did this and spend the rest of his life in jail. That's still not long enough for what he did to this family.

This thread will have to be Stickie'd!
hope she got hit by a mack truck

hope she got hit by a mack truck


According to an article in the February issue of People (which I was not able to get hold of, unfortunately) Sandra Maple aka Frances Bunting died of cancer. What type of cancer I don't know, but I strongly suspect that psychological elements (resentment, anger, guilt, worry) from this whole affair contributed to the cancer, as there is a correlation between physical illness and psychological problems ie psychological problems manifesting themselves physically in the body. They were probably linked with Marvin's stroke as well.

If Sandra was alive, it would be interesting to hear what she has to say about all this. Ten to one she would have been granted probation as well, and probably hitting Marvin over the head with a rolling pin for making that slip at the bar.

It would be good to hear from Marvin. The way things seem to be going, probably just a statement from him through his lawyer.

I don't know if airing all this in a Dateline episode will be helpful or harmful to building a future relationship with Christi & Bobby, but I guess right now the Baskin's feel like it's useful to them. They have every right to put their side of the story out there, again.

They've been trying to get some contact with Christi & Bobby to no avail. I hope Christi & Bobby are doing alright. At the same time I can't imagine the pain their brother is going through because they have not contacted him.


I guess I could (sadly) understand their not wanting to see their parents right now, but I wonder why they haven't contacted Michael? Come to that, does Marvin want to see Michael? After all, neither he nor the Maple relatives can call Michael a child molester who abused Bobby and Christie. And hasn't he been wondering about his third grandchild for 20 years?

I can just imagine what will happen on the show. The newsmen will be knocking on the doors of the Maples Kinfolk and the maples will slam the door and refuse to speak. Then on the same evening the Maples Kinfolk will be blogging about how the biased newsmedia is rigged and won't report the Maples side of the story, as hard as the Maples try to get their side of the story out.

The problem is, I don't think that legally the newsmedia even could repeat the allegations if they are just unsubstanitated scizophrenic rambling with no verifiable proof.

I can just imagine what will happen on the show. The newsmen will be knocking on the doors of the Maples Kinfolk and the maples will slam the door and refuse to speak. Then on the same evening the Maples Kinfolk will be blogging about how the biased newsmedia is rigged and won't report the Maples side of the story, as hard as the Maples try to get their side of the story out.

The problem is, I don't think that legally the newsmedia even could repeat the allegations if they are just unsubstanitated scizophrenic rambling with no verifiable proof.


The Maple family moaned that UM wouldn't let them speak on the segment, but yes, what you have described is far more likely to be what had happened. Even if they did appear on Dateline, if they follow the pattern of Spitfire and Dipahead, they will be far more damaging than defending to the Maple cause, so if they don't show, it will be just as well.

I don't know if the original allegations will be even admissible in court. For one thing, the evidence is very old, some of it may be lost and irretrievable, and statutes of limitations may have run out.

There is the question of contamination because this occurred during the satanic ritual abuse panics, when people didn't understand how improper and repeated questioning, and mass hysteria, could brainwash children and implant false memories. The UM segment said the Baskin children were questioned repeatedly. This alone could have their evidence ruled inadmissible because the standard now is for children to be questioned only once, and to get as much as you can out of that one interview.

And from the sound of it, there is no independent evidence to corroborate the allegations (mind you, that didn't stop the prosecutions of the McMartins, Kelly Michaels, Bobby Finje, Peter Ellis, and others!). When the Michaels case was to go back for retrial, they very sensibly held a "taint hearing" first, to rule whether the original testimony from the children was reliable enough for retrial or was too contaminated. They decided on the latter, "like unscrambling an egg", and dismissed the case.

Talking of Peter Ellis, there is still no breakthrough in his case, but the recent acquittal of David Bain has inspired new hope - especially since the Privy Council's ruling which led to the retrial has direct bearing on the Ellis case.

Thanks for doing that. I looked up the telephone numbers and such yesterday, but hadn't done anything. Let me know if you need any help.
I still haven't received an answer to my email (I sent it a second time, also). So, since you have the phone numbers, maybe your call will get things moving more rapidly.

Yes, that's the way it's supposed to be. Unfortunately, sometimes the reverse is the reality. In a lot of the satanic ritual abuse cases, hysteria overrode commonsense and legal propriety, so the axiom "innocent until proven guilty" got twisted around - at least that's Bobby Finje, one of the people prosecuted during the ritual satanic abuse scares - and a child himself! - feels. Although a minor, Bobby was tried as an adult and if convicted, would have been sent to an adult prison. Thankfully the jury acquitted him.

First, the fact that someone is tried does NOT negate the "innocent until proven guilty" theory. The trial IS the opportunity for the evidence to be heard, to see whether or not there is enough to prove that an innocent person is guilty. The action of the jury acquitting him showed that they did, indeed, find him "innocent" and not "proven guilty."

As for him being tried as an adult, that's normal. Many minors are tried as adults for serious crimes that can result in the death penalty, such as murder. When they're convicted and given "adult" sentences, they are NOT sent to adult prison immediately. They serve their time in a juvenile facility until they're 18, and then are transferred to an adult prison.

First, the fact that someone is tried does NOT negate the "innocent until proven guilty" theory. The trial IS the opportunity for the evidence to be heard, to see whether or not there is enough to prove that an innocent person is guilty. The action of the jury acquitting him showed that they did, indeed, find him "innocent" and not "proven guilty."

As for him being tried as an adult, that's normal. Many minors are tried as adults for serious crimes that can result in the death penalty, such as murder. When they're convicted and given "adult" sentences, they are NOT sent to adult prison immediately. They serve their time in a juvenile facility until they're 18, and then are transferred to an adult prison.


*Sigh* we are all supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and any trial in the Western world is supposed to be based on that principle. Unfortunately, in reality sometimes public feeling, prosecution pressures, and even judicial bias (although judges are not supposed to be biased) are so strong they override that principle and turn a trial into a travesty. The defendant can end up condemned before they have even walked into the courtroom and they can be convicted when they should have been acquitted under the evidence available. Fortunately this did not happen in the Bobby Finje case and the parallel McMartin case, but there have been so many cases where it did.:(

And just look at the Maple relatives like Spitfire and Dipahead. The principle "innocent until proven guilty" seems to be totally lost on them when it comes to Debbie and Mark Baskin. Although the Baskins were cleared by the courts ie "not proven guilty" the Maple relatives have made it clear that they do not accept that ruling and deem the Baskins guilty of the allegations Sandra and Marvin made against them although the Baskins have not been tried, much less found guilty of them, in any courtroom - no "innocent until proven guilty" there!

The defendant can end up condemned before they have even walked into the courtroom and they can be convicted when they should have been acquitted under the evidence available. Fortunately this did not happen in the Bobby Finje case and the parallel McMartin case, but there have been so many cases where it did.:(

Please provide specific examples.

And, I'll add the fact that we're ALL human. So, some people will certainly leap over the "innocent" to "guilty" when they hear the testimony of the victim. That's another reason that there are twelve people on a jury, not just one.

Have you ever sat on a jury? It's not easy first to listen to the evidence while trying to maintain an open mind. Then, it's even harder to go into that jury deliberation room and defend your opinion while also hearing how other jurors heard the same evidence but came to the opposite conclusion regarding guilt or innocence.

And just look at the Maple relatives like Spitfire and Dipahead. The principle "innocent until proven guilty" seems to be totally lost on them when it comes to Debbie and Mark Baskin.

We as a nation are NOT required to uphold the "innocent" principle in our daily lives. That's a courtroom concept that governs who will or will not have to go to jail/prison. It is not an idea that we have to keep sacred at home. You have not heard all of the evidence, have you? Yet, you have made your own decisions regarding who is guilty and who is not. As Americans, we all have the right to come to our own conclusions.

Please provide specific examples.

And, I'll add the fact that we're ALL human. So, some people will certainly leap over the "innocent" to "guilty" when they hear the testimony of the victim. That's another reason that there are twelve people on a jury, not just one.

Have you ever sat on a jury? It's not easy first to listen to the evidence while trying to maintain an open mind. Then, it's even harder to go into that jury deliberation room and defend your opinion while also hearing how other jurors heard the same evidence but came to the opposite conclusion regarding guilt or innocence.



We as a nation are NOT required to uphold the "innocent" principle in our daily lives. That's a courtroom concept that governs who will or will not have to go to jail/prison. It is not an idea that we have to keep sacred at home. You have not heard all of the evidence, have you? Yet, you have made your own decisions regarding who is guilty and who is not. As Americans, we all have the right to come to our own conclusions.

Examples? Let me see...more extreme examples include Leo Frank, Alfred Dreyfus and the Scotsboro Boys.

More recent examples include Lindy Chamberlain, the Guilford Four, the Birmingham Six and Kelly Michaels (I've talked about her already on this thread).

No, I've not sat on a jury, but I may do so soon as I am going for jury service in a few weeks. I know a few things about how juries work myself, so I know it is definitely not easy keeping an open mind, suspending judgement and make evaluations based on evidence, or resisting pressure from jurors who have made their own decision and want everyone else to decide so they can get out of there. However, If I end up in that sort of situation, I will do my best.

Perhaps we have the right to come to our own conclusions and don't have to hold the "innocent until guilty" principle outside the courtroom - but neither should we tolerate people who flaunt dingo t-shirts expressing their belief in someone's guilt (Lindy Chamberlain), break into jails to lynch people (Leo Frank), or allow mass hysteria to override common sense so they can actually believe someone can stick a knife into a boy's penis without leaving a mark (Kelly Michaels).

Leo Frank was in 1915 -- almost 100 years ago! I'd say our courts have changed a lot since then, wouldn't you? Think about it, Wikipedia says that he was the "ONLY known Jew in history to be lynched on American soil." Of course, each life is important, and it's sad that he was lynched. But if only one man out of all of the similar court cases that have been heard both before and since then is killed unjustly, then that's a pretty good record, I'd say.

Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton, too, was before blood testing was reliable. They did release her four years later, when more evidence was found. Dreyfus was in FRANCE and two of your other examples were in the UK (Guilford Four and Birmingham Six). Whatever does that have to do with the justice system in the United States???

Really, I'm way too tired to look up the other examples, and feel that it will be a waste of my time if they're as weak as these. I'll certainly agree that "some" have been convicted wrongly -- but not "so many" as you say. Even if your seven were truly miscarriages of justice, those are a pretty small percentage compared with the number of cases that are heard each and every day!

Besides that, there are plenty of people who are guilty but have been released anyway (OJ being the classic example). Across the nation, many are let free every week due to lack of evidence or legal technicalities. Our system is strongly biased toward giving the accused the benefit of the doubt.

While I would not wear a t-shirt expressing my opinion of something controversial, it's certainly allowed under our laws of free speech. I haven't heard of any lynch mobs breaking into jails recently, have you???

Besides that, there are plenty of people who are guilty but have been released anyway (OJ being the classic example). Across the nation, many are let free every week due to lack of evidence or legal technicalities. Our system is strongly biased toward giving the accused the benefit of the doubt.


All too true, and I would say that Marvin Maple is another classic example of a guilty person who walked free due to legal technicalities.

P.S. I don't have any opinion as to whether OJ is guilty or not.

All too true, and I would say that Marvin Maple is another classic example of a guilty person who walked free due to legal technicalities.
Again, I ask: did you hear the original evidence regarding Maple? Did you read the court transcripts? Was there a recent trial at which he testified? Without any of those, there is no way to tell what the court would have decided regarding whether he was guilty or not if there had been a trial. In this thread, there was a great discussion started by "yuppielawyer" about the "necessity defense" that could have just as easily have lead to a "not guilty" decision. http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?p=4134477#post4134477

P.S. I don't have any opinion as to whether OJ is guilty or not.
As for OJ, yes, I did watch the first trial and even read some of the transcripts. I felt that the evidence against him was overwhelming (though probably presented in a way that was too technical way for many of the jurors to understand it when DNA evidence was so new). On top of that, some of the jurors on the first jury who have spoken afterwards have said that they were dazzled by his fame, and at least one said that led to an immediate determination to let OJ go free.

You accuse judges and juries of allowing "public feeling, prosecution pressures, and even judicial bias (although judges are not supposed to be biased)" to "override that principle and turn a trial into a travesty." Yet, it can be the opposite, where the defendant can end up found NOT guilty before they have even walked into the courtroom and they can be acquitted when they should have been convicted under the evidence available.

Again, I ask: did you hear the original evidence regarding Maple? Did you read the court transcripts? Was there a recent trial at which he testified? Without any of those, there is no way to tell what the court would have decided regarding whether he was guilty or not if there had been a trial. In this thread, there was a great discussion started by "yuppielawyer" about the "necessity defense" that could have just as easily have lead to a "not guilty" decision. http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?p=4134477#post4134477


As for OJ, yes, I did watch the first trial and even read some of the transcripts. I felt that the evidence against him was overwhelming (though probably presented in a way that was too technical way for many of the jurors to understand it when DNA evidence was so new). On top of that, some of the jurors on the first jury who have spoken afterwards have said that they were dazzled by his fame, and at least one said that led to an immediate determination to let OJ go free.

You accuse judges and juries of allowing "public feeling, prosecution pressures, and even judicial bias (although judges are not supposed to be biased)" to "override that principle and turn a trial into a travesty." Yet, it can be the opposite, where the defendant can end up found NOT guilty before they have even walked into the courtroom and they can be acquitted when they should have been convicted under the evidence available.


Marvin Maple did abduct the children and violated a court order - of that he is hands down guilty of. It is purely academic now whether his lawyer would have pushed a necessity defence, much less whether it would have succeeded or not. It must have seemed to Reed that arguing defects in the warrant would be a more successful defence than "necessity defence" - which indeed it was.

There have indeed been cases where people walk free despite the evidence - one infamous example are the cops who beat up Rodney King. Their guilt was indisputable, being plastered all over a video recording, but their first jury acquitted them. If I remember correctly, the second jury did convict them of the charge the first jury disagreed on. But on the other side of it are people who have been convicted despite the evidence - or lack of adequate evidence - available.

The Baskins have been cleared by the courts of any child molesting - not proven guilty - and the maxim "innocent until proven guilty" must apply, regardless of what the Maple family and some members of the general public may think.

Now if you will excuse me, I am getting a little tired of this arguing and I bet others are too, so I am off to deal with more pressing matters.

Marvin Maple did abduct the children and violated a court order - of that he is hands down guilty of.
In the court's eyes, that has NOT been decreed. Instead, a plea bargain was struck and he's on probation. He was NOT found guilty of "abducting children" (or for "kidnapping" or any other such term). He pled guilty to two class-E felonies of custodial interference.

The Baskins have been cleared by the courts of any child molesting - not proven guilty - and the maxim "innocent until proven guilty" must apply, regardless of what the Maple family and some members of the general public may think.
Again, no, there is no requirement in this country that says that "innocent until proven guilty" must apply to what we think. YOU think things that are opposite of what a court decrees. In fact, you have just proven that you think that Maple is guilty of more than the court said. Everyone else is allowed that same freedom of thought.

As I've tried to explain before, "innocent until proven guilty" applies to how the judicial system treats people who are accused of crimes, and is an important factor in whether or not they go to jail or prison. But, the average person is not required to enforce that in their home or their opinion-making. If it were a requirement, then you would be guilty of violating it.

Now if you will excuse me, I am getting a little tired of this arguing and I bet others are too, so I am off to deal with more pressing matters.
Funny how you're willing to "discuss," but when each and every one of your points is shown to be invalid, you suddenly call that very same discussion an "argument." :) I'll bet that if it had been the other way around and you were able to shoot down my ideas, you would still be calling it a "discussion."

Honestly, I wish that your points had been better researched and better proven, as I do appreciate a good discussion, and was NOT actually arguing at all. Just talking about legal theories. A friendly debate.

There have indeed been cases where people walk free despite the evidence - one infamous example are the cops who beat up Rodney King. Their guilt was indisputable, being plastered all over a video recording, but their first jury acquitted them.
Yet again, you're making your decision on only PART of the evidence. Remember that the video did NOT show the beginning of the incident. Since it did NOT show King's erratic behavior that led up to the confrontation, it is nowhere near "indisputable."

For a thorough overview, please read the Wikipedia article I linked (I don't generally rely on Wikipedia, but this one is based on some pretty detailed research that includes some of the court documents). That will help you see that the jury actually had much more of the evidence than just the video, and came to a more informed decision than the general public because of the testimony they had available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King

All too true, and I would say that Marvin Maple is another classic example of a guilty person who walked free due to legal technicalities.


You are correct! :) Honestly, it doesn't matter what the plea bargain was. He didn't have legal right to take those kids and he did. Then the parents had to live without them for years, and now may never hear from them again. End of story.

Undecided: Pleading to a lesser charge doesn't mean one isn't truly guilty of a more serious crime. I'm talking about the ACTUAL offense, not what the court found (and yes, that is the real point here).

Undecided: Pleading to a lesser charge doesn't mean one isn't truly guilty of a more serious crime. I'm talking about the ACTUAL offense, not what the court found (and yes, that is the real point here).
You're welcome to feel that he is "guilty" in a non-judicial sense just as I'm welcome to not be sure either way because feel that it's important to see the evidence before I make a decision.

I still haven't received an answer to my email (I sent it a second time, also). So, since you have the phone numbers, maybe your call will get things moving more rapidly.

Hello all,

I made 2 phone calls this a.m. Was told to send a request with $1 w/a S.A.S.E. the size to hold a CD. They will copy and burn hearing transcript to CD.

I'll see if I can find a few minutes to do this, this week.

Let you know when I receive it. phone:

You're welcome to feel that he is "guilty" in a non-judicial sense just as I'm welcome to not be sure either way because feel that it's important to see the evidence before I make a decision.

The fact that Marvin Maple abducted the children is indisputable. Nobody can contest that in court. It was his motive ie necessity defence that was the issue, not whether he was the correct person who committed the offence. He is the correct person. In many cases the identity of the offender is not in doubt. In such circumstances it becomes a question of intent, mitigating factors, mental competency and so forth.

Yes, there are cases where it is a question of whether the defendant is the correct person who committed the crime: this is known as "identification". This happened in the case of Timothy Hennis of Fayetteville North Carolina: had he been correctly identified as the offender who murdered Kathryn Eastburn and her two daughters? The first jury decided he was the correct person, but the case went for retrial and the second jury decided he wasn't. Hennis is currently facing a third trial before a military tribunal, the outcome of which remains to be seen.

And there are cases as to whether a crime had been committed at all, such as in the case of Kelly Michaels: it was not so much a question of whether she had abused the children at the day care centre where she worked, but whether there was ever any abuse at all.

But to come back to Marvin Maple, the necessity defence yuppielawyer mentioned was never tested in court because his lawyer advanced the defective warrant defence instead. So we will never know whether he would have had a valid necessity defence or not.

The fact that Marvin Maple abducted the children is indisputable. Nobody can contest that in court. It was his motive ie necessity defence that was the issue, but that was never tested in court because his lawyer advanced the defective warrant defence instead. So we will never know whether he would have had a valid necessity defence or not.
No matter how many times you say that, it still won't be change and suddenly be accurate. Yet again, is it NOT an indisputable fact that they "abducted" or "kidnapped" the children. And yes, that supposed-fact CAN be contested in court.

As yuppielawyer explained way back in Feb, "It is undisputed that they took the children without having legal custody." Time shows that he was right, because that is what the court did find Maple guilty of: two class-E felonies of custodial interference.

If you want to try to phrase anything as an "indisputable fact," you could say that the children lived with the Maples without the court's permission and the Maples kept them from their parents for almost 20 years. That's a fact.

Hello all,

I made 2 phone calls this a.m. Was told to send a request with $1 w/a S.A.S.E. the size to hold a CD. They will copy and burn hearing transcript to CD.

I'll see if I can find a few minutes to do this, this week.

Let you know when I receive it. phone:
Thanks for the update!!!

No matter how many times you say that, it still won't be change and suddenly be accurate. Yet again, is it NOT an indisputable fact that they "abducted" or "kidnapped" the children. And yes, that supposed-fact CAN be contested in court.

As yuppielawyer explained way back in Feb, "It is undisputed that they took the children without having legal custody." Time shows that he was right, because that is what the court did find Maple guilty of: two class-E felonies of custodial interference.

If you want to try to phrase anything as an "indisputable fact," you could say that the children lived with the Maples without the court's permission and the Maples kept them from their parents for almost 20 years. That's a fact.

Okay, now would a necessity defence have been succcessful against two class-E felonies of custodial interference? Again, we'll never know because Marvin's lawyer didn't advance any. It became a plea-bargain (guilty plea in exchange for probation), for reasons we don't quite know. We may do if somebody gets hold of the court report (I think that was discussed earlier on that thread) and see what people, including Bobby and Christi, had to say. I shall be interested to read it, so I hope somebody can show us soon.

Okay, now would a necessity defence have been succcessful against two class-E felonies of custodial interference? Again, we'll never know because Marvin's lawyer didn't advance any. It became a plea-bargain (guilty plea in exchange for probation), for reasons we don't quite know.
The reason for dismissing the kidnapping charges seems to be simple common sense and expediency. In EVERY case, a lawyer's first goal is to get the charges dropped (not to wait to go to trial and then trot out a whole lot of other defenses). So, that's what he did. When he saw that the warrant was not written corectly, he asked for and received the dismissal. No need to bother with anything further.

Anyone have any info about when that interview with the Baskin kids is going to be?

The reason for dismissing the kidnapping charges seems to be simple common sense and expediency. In EVERY case, a lawyer's first goal is to get the charges dropped (not to wait to go to trial and then trot out a whole lot of other defenses). So, that's what he did. When he saw that the warrant was not written corectly, he asked for and received the dismissal. No need to bother with anything further.

Yes, the kidnapping charges were dismissed because of defects in the warrant. Guilty plea to the custodial interference charges, probation granted, record expunged after a four-year period for good behaviour. No necessity defence, no disputation of the kidnapping charges in court, so we will never know if either would have been successful or valid.

By the way, remember what you said about OJ Simpson's defence being successful despite, in your evaluation of the trial, evidence pointing to his guilt? Yes, a successful defence does not necessarily mean it is just as well. There are cases where it is, of course.

Yes, a successful defence does not necessarily mean it is just as well. There are cases where it is, of course.
Yep, some are just and some are not.

Anyone have any info about when that interview with the Baskin kids is going to be?

Hi,

The last link that I posted, in the video at the very end, the reporter stated that Mark & Debbie Baskin were working with DATELINE filming an episode. Didn't mention Christi or Bobby participating or not. The interview is about the fact that Christi & Bobby have not made contact with their parents or brothers, that they have hired a lawyer and the lawyer has promised to forward any letters written to Christi & Bobby to them.

We'll have to wait and see. We'll all be keeping our ears open for an air date. I'd guess sometime this coming fall.

Hi,

The last link that I posted, in the video at the very end, the reporter stated that Mark & Debbie Baskin were working with DATELINE filming an episode. Didn't mention Christi or Bobby participating or not. The interview is about the fact that Christi & Bobby have not made contact with their parents or brothers, that they have hired a lawyer and the lawyer has promised to forward any letters written to Christi & Bobby to them.

We'll have to wait and see. We'll all be keeping our ears open for an air date. I'd guess sometime this coming fall.


I kept trying the video, but it wouldn't play. Do you know where there might be a synopsis or something, please?

I kept trying the video, but it wouldn't play. Do you know where there might be a synopsis or something, please?

Hi,
There really isn't.

Maybe I can transcribe it later....

^ I agree Crotchetbuff, thanks for transcribing. :)

It's so hard to not feel for the Baskins, especially Debbie, although I don't blame her one bit for being angry at her dad. I can just sense her heartbreak at the idea that the (now young adult) "kids" still won't talk to her. :(

I really think they should concentrate on a reunion or communication as much as possible rather than sentencing Marvin (I hate to see him practically get away with this as much as anyone, but the system messed up in alot of ways), since at least there's some possibility for that.

The kids have been through alot (and 1989 WAS 20 years ago now, not 5 when an easier reunion might've still been kinda possible), so they should do it really gradually and carefully, like maybe through a third party. I wonder if even one of them would be willing to do that? Even if they merely explained the reasons why they didn't want to see Mark and Debbie, and at least hear them out... I'm sure that would at least be SOME closure, eather than just being brushed off.

No matter what the reasons (which was probably brainwashed into them by Sandra and Marvin, and early on too), it's sadly clear that Bobby and Christie don't want to talk to them face to face.

I wonder if they've ever seen the original UM segment. If someone showed that to them, maybe it would jog some memories, and they could see it from everyone else's perspective (including the '89 version of their parents).

^ I agree Crotchetbuff, thanks for transcribing. :)

It's so hard to not feel for the Baskins, especially Debbie, although I don't blame her one bit for being angry at her dad. I can just sense her heartbreak at the idea that the (now young adult) "kids" still won't talk to her. :(

I really think they should concentrate on a reunion or communication as much as possible rather than sentencing Marvin (I hate to see him practically get away with this as much as anyone, but the system messed up in alot of ways), since at least there's some possibility for that.

The kids have been through alot (and 1989 WAS 20 years ago now, not 5 when an easier reunion might've still been kinda possible), so they should do it really gradually and carefully, like maybe through a third party. I wonder if even one of them would be willing to do that? Even if they merely explained the reasons why they didn't want to see Mark and Debbie, and at least hear them out... I'm sure that would at least be SOME closure, eather than just being brushed off.

No matter what the reasons (which was probably brainwashed into them by Sandra and Marvin, and early on too), it's sadly clear that Bobby and Christie don't want to talk to them face to face.

I wonder if they've ever seen the original UM segment. If someone showed that to them, maybe it would jog some memories, and they could see it from everyone else's perspective (including the '89 version of their parents).


I know that originally when Christi & Bobby were found, Ernie Allen from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children stated to Meredith Viera that he had a facilitator/counselor who specializes in these kind of cases, trying to get in touch with them to offer them help in this process. Help that I think would be invaluable to all parties involved. I don't know if any contact was ever made. I could understand that Christi & Bobby (and espcecially Marvin) could view anyone from the NCMEC as "the enemy" so to speak. Since that group along with many others were out there helping to find them all these years and has worked with Mark & Debbie.

I would imagine that Christi & Bobby have seen the UM segment. If not before they were found, then after. At least Bobby seemed aware of their situation before they were found, not sure about Christi.

Such a sad situation. Still, as I've stated so many times, it is really bothering me that they still haven't made contact with their brother. I don't understand that. Makes me wonder. Even just a quick note to say they are working through things and will be in touch someday. He must be very sad, and I hope that he, along with his parents, can remain strong through all this.

O.K., guess I had some time on my hands!

Transcript of video found at: http://www.wsav.com/sav/news/local/article/grandfather_accused_of_kidnapping_avoids_prison_time/13119/
Crochetbuff, you were sweet and thoughtful to have done this transcript. Unfortunately, I'm very sensitive to copyright issues (I have friends who are authors, etc.). Blatant copyright violations (such as copying whole news articles into posts instead of just the link and a few key words) are done on message boards so often that I usually avoid saying anything (even though it's truly illegal). But, I've just gotta mention that this is a clear copyright violation.

Even though they do have their video posted online, they have full and complete rights as to how it is presented and what other forms it's put into. Part of the reason for them to be protective is that the prices they can charge advertisers depends on the number of people who visit their site, etc. So, having a copy of their work reproduced here takes away from that since people can read it here instead of going to their site.

If you ask them, they might very happily give you permission to keep this up (especially since you did include the link to their site). I'm sorry to have brought this up, but from a legal standpoint you should either receive permission or else just take this down since the person who requested it has now read it.

You are probably right, moderator can take it down if she wants to! Otherwise, I'm not worried. :wave:
You're right that you're safe and have nothing to worry about; it's not like the original authors will hunt you down or anything -- because they don't even know what's going on, so they don't know that there's anything to hunt for. Instead, copyright violation is like stealing something that a person had in a box in the back of the garage. They don't necessarily know that it's missing. But, it's still theirs and it has still been stolen.

I'm sorry you're not going to do the right thing and take it down yourself instead of just to wait to see whether the moderator notices it.

You're right that you're safe and have nothing to worry about; it's not like the original authors will hunt you down or anything -- because they don't even know what's going on, so they don't know that there's anything to hunt for. Instead, copyright violation is like stealing something that a person had in a box in the back of the garage. They don't necessarily know that it's missing. But, it's still theirs and it has still been stolen.

I'm sorry you're not going to do the right thing and take it down yourself instead of just to wait to see whether the moderator notices it.

Oh brother! I told you that you were probably right and I didn't even show any irritation whasoever at your telling me about all the legalities, yet you continue to speak to me as if you are my mother!?

BTW I removed the post. Hope everyone has a good holiday weekend!

Oh brother! I told you that you were probably right and I didn't even show any irritation whasoever at your telling me about all the legalities, yet you continue to speak to me as if you are my mother!?

BTW I removed the post. Hope everyone has a good holiday weekend!
"Mother"??? Nope, not at all. "Peer who's concerned about the legalities of copyright and then surprised when you acknowledge that you knew that it was wrong but were choosing to leave it up anyway"? Yes -- absolutely.

Thank you for taking it down!!!

(Unfortunately, it's still fully quoted in Briony's post. Briony, would you also please take it down?)

"Mother"??? Nope, not at all. "Peer who's concerned about the legalities of copyright and then surprised when you acknowledge that you knew that it was wrong but were choosing to leave it up anyway"? Yes -- absolutely.

Thank you for taking it down!!!

(Unfortunately, it's still fully quoted in Briony's post. Briony, would you also please take it down?)

Its up to myself and the Administrator, not you, to decide if something posted is in violation of copyright rules.

I know that originally when Christi & Bobby were found, Ernie Allen from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children stated to Meredith Viera that he had a facilitator/counselor who specializes in these kind of cases, trying to get in touch with them to offer them help in this process. Help that I think would be invaluable to all parties involved. I don't know if any contact was ever made. I could understand that Christi & Bobby (and espcecially Marvin) could view anyone from the NCMEC as "the enemy" so to speak. Since that group along with many others were out there helping to find them all these years and has worked with Mark & Debbie.

I would imagine that Christi & Bobby have seen the UM segment. If not before they were found, then after. At least Bobby seemed aware of their situation before they were found, not sure about Christi.

Such a sad situation. Still, as I've stated so many times, it is really bothering me that they still haven't made contact with their brother. I don't understand that. Makes me wonder. Even just a quick note to say they are working through things and will be in touch someday. He must be very sad, and I hope that he, along with his parents, can remain strong through all this.

That's good to know they at least attempted, but I agree with you. Who knows what Marvin and probably Sandra before she died, told them. They might think the entire media (including the old original UM segment) was biased.

This is a very sensitive issue and I hate to sound like I'm insulting them (they are the victims...in two ways! The original kidnapping, as well as being brainwashed and turned against their parents), but it kinda rubs me the wrong way that they refuse to even talk to their brother Michael or give any explanation.

Hypothetically even if they think their parents hurt, abused or lied to them... what could a then 6 or 7 year old kid have had to do with it? I'm sure they can remember him enough and vice versa...to miss him. Mike doesn't even have to be the mediator, they could just talk to him on the phone by himself (especially since they are all adults).

Then again I have no idea what they went through between '89/90 and last year, and people usually have reasons for feeling a certain way (even if it doesn't make sense from an outsider's perspective). It's been only a few months, I'm sure they're still reeling from shock and trying to adjust for a second time in their life, probably not knowing what to believe. Everyone handles things differently, maybe theirs is to want to simply be left alone.

Still though, when the time is right, I hope even if they choose to not reestablish contact with the Baskins (or even their brother) they at least explain why. Even if they just made a five minute statement or interview with the media. I'm sure the silence and still "not knowing why" is killing the Baskins, especially Debbie.

Its up to myself and the Administrator, not you, to decide if something posted is in violation of copyright rules.
That would be true if I were talking about the site's rules -- but I'm talking about United States Federal law. And, it's really clear that it's illegal to reproduce another person's work without their permission. Here's a link to the law to help you both in making your decision. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102

"Mother"??? Nope, not at all. "Peer who's concerned about the legalities of copyright and then surprised when you acknowledge that you knew that it was wrong but were choosing to leave it up anyway"? Yes -- absolutely.

Thank you for taking it down!!!

(Unfortunately, it's still fully quoted in Briony's post. Briony, would you also please take it down?)


For now I shall not take it down, but I have put in an acknowledgement of Holly Bounds owning the copyright. But if Crystaldawn tells me to remove it, I will.

For now I shall not take it down, but I have put in an acknowledgement of Holly Bounds owning the copyright. I have written university essays, and I believe that as long as you acknowledge your sources, there is no plagiarism at least. But if there is a further dispute over copyright, I will remove it.
From writing essays, you should remember another factor -- amount of the original that is quoted. It's called "fair use." You may only use a PART of someone's work, not the whole item. The rule of thumb that schools use is 10% or less. This transcript is 100%. http://home.earthlink.net/~cnew/research.htm#Questions%20and%20Restrictions.

That would be true if I were talking about the site's rules -- but I'm talking about United States Federal law. And, it's really clear that it's illegal to reproduce another person's work without their permission. Here's a link to the law to help you both in making your decision. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102


Actually, it's never been "really clear" what "reproduce", "work", and "permission" have ever meant in terms of legality. Copyright law is one of the most complex and widely interpreted areas of the legal system. Unless you happen to be an attorney, I really don't think you're in a position to interpret it for everyone on this board--especially not in a regulatory capacity.

I would also imagine crystaldawn really does not need your assistance in determining what is appropriate to post on the board.

MegtheEgg86- That is quite the dashing picture you have of Mr. Stack as your avatar! So handsome!;)

MegtheEgg86- That is quite the dashing picture you have of Mr. Stack as your avatar! So handsome!;)

Thank you! He was an absolutely beautiful man, indeed. :)

For now I shall not take it down, but I have put in an acknowledgement of Holly Bounds owning the copyright. But if Crystaldawn tells me to remove it, I will.

Last edited by Briony Coote : 07-02-2009 at 08:57 PM.

You know, Briony, when you go back in and edit your words in such a way as to take out the ones that make you look foolish because they have been quickly disproved in a following note, you should only do it when your original words are not clearly posted here on the board in someone else's note:

For now I shall not take it down, but I have put in an acknowledgement of Holly Bounds owning the copyright. I have written university essays, and I believe that as long as you acknowledge your sources, there is no plagiarism at least. But if there is a further dispute over copyright, I will remove it.