Agreed. It's just strange they don't even seem interested in hearing the other side.

The other side of ... child abuse? :crazy:

I haven't followed this case too much. One question that's always stood out in my mind though when reading about it is "Why?"

If Mark/Debbie did indeed abuse their kids, why would Debbie's parents take Bobby/Christi, but leave the others?? Why wouldn't Marvin/Sandra have engineered some scheme/excuse to take all of them, or at the very least take Bobby/Christi and then call the police to safeguard the others??

The story I think the boy had told, as an adult, was that the grandparents thought it was now or never to flee when they did and at the time they only had the 2 kids.

The story I think the boy had told, as an adult, was that the grandparents thought it was now or never to flee when they did and at the time they only had the 2 kids.

But it just doesn't make sense, and that story has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. If they were truly in danger, you would never leave one child behind and break up siblings permanently. This was a terrible thing to do. The Maples were far better off to stay very tight with the Baskin kids and monitor the situation and if need be keep fighting the system if there really was abuse. Then save all three of them, the right way, after all is said and done.

Here is the thing, if Michael, and their other son they adopted - Paul - were never abused and lived in a loving home, then how much does that hurt the Maples' account of things?

"monitor the situation"

How would this fabled monitoring have worked, exactly? They didn't live with the child abuser. Were they going to ask the person abusing a child "did you abuse the child today?" while the children continued to be abused and then just take the child abuser at their word that they didn't?

Taking the two they had, when it was the only chance they had, makes complete logical sense. Save the two they could or let them all suffer. It's basic casualty mitigation in the face of a difficult choice. There is no "swiss cheese". You're just attaching a moral judgement to their math.

"monitor the situation"

How would this fabled monitoring have worked, exactly? They didn't live with the child abuser. Were they going to ask the person abusing a child "did you abuse the child today?" while the children continued to be abused and then just take the child abuser at their word that they didn't?

Taking the two they had, when it was the only chance they had, makes complete logical sense. Save the two they could or let them all suffer. It's basic casualty mitigation in the face of a difficult choice. There is no "swiss cheese". You're just attaching a moral judgement to their math.

Not to mention that the Maples had legal custody of Jon and Jennifer at the time. They did not have custody of Michael, because Mark and Debbie kept him while they allowed their other two children to stay with the Maples while they attempted to find jobs. I'm not saying what the Maples did was right, but there is a bit of context missing when discussing "why didn't they take Michael too".

"monitor the situation"

How would this fabled monitoring have worked, exactly? They didn't live with the child abuser. Were they going to ask the person abusing a child "did you abuse the child today?" while the children continued to be abused and then just take the child abuser at their word that they didn't?

Taking the two they had, when it was the only chance they had, makes complete logical sense. Save the two they could or let them all suffer. It's basic casualty mitigation in the face of a difficult choice. There is no "swiss cheese". You're just attaching a moral judgement to their math.

Again, these were accusations that were never found to be true. That's a huge gamble to do something that you don't have any proof over. Taking children from their parents isn't the way to do it, and leaving one behind to take the supposed brunt of it all (if it were true) is some sort of bizarre code that might apply to a war or something. Not a kid.

When I say they still monitor the situation I mean they are still close to the kids and stay in their lives. They could still be a safe house for them, and maybe even a permanent residence. That is if there was anything there to run from. What the Maples did was flee based on something they had no proof of and them leaving meant they could never return and help their other grandchild. I just can't get behind that, sorry. Especially since there wasn't any evidence.

Not to mention that the Maples had legal custody of Jon and Jennifer at the time. They did not have custody of Michael, because Mark and Debbie kept him while they allowed their other two children to stay with the Maples while they attempted to find jobs. I'm not saying what the Maples did was right, but there is a bit of context missing when discussing "why didn't they take Michael too".

However they were supposed to give them back to the Baskins before they fled. It isn't as if they couldn't have still stayed in their life and been close with them. Still kept fighting.

However they were supposed to give them back to the Baskins before they fled. It isn't as if they couldn't have still stayed in their life and been close with them. Still kept fighting.

This is not true. They had legal custody of them at the time. They fled roughly 3 weeks before a hearing to determine who would gain custody of the children. Illegal and wrong, yes. But if they believed what Jon and Jennifer were telling them, why would they want to risk having them go back into the hands of their abusers?

This is not true. They had legal custody of them at the time. They fled roughly 3 weeks before a hearing to determine who would gain custody of the children. Illegal and wrong, yes. But if they believed what Jon and Jennifer were telling them, why would they want to risk having them go back into the hands of their abusers?

Okay fine, so they were waiting for a hearing that was assumed they would go back to the Baskins, but fled instead. Not good.

I don't put a line in the sand and say that what I think happened is exactly what happened. I can admit that the Baskins can be guilty and the Maples can be heroic, if that were true. But there just isn't anything that indicated that the Baskins were doing anything sinister to their children. And in case people wanted to know for sure, they raised two children in that same home. Why didn't something at least point them to the fact that the Maples were truthful?

Fortunately, these "satanic ritualistic sexual abusing" cults have all virtually been invented for children and by children. Huge fad in the mid 80s to early 90s that was every parents worse fear.

I was really hoping the Baskin children would "adult-up" at some point, but it appears not. I suppose the only narrative you hear and rehearse(by his own admission) somehow becomes truth.

He sums it up pretty well though. When your chips are "all in" I guess you stay the course. Won't go into specifics but it involved sexual, physical and emotional abuse, that was so bad that it caused a broken ankle. Take my word for it.

Not one shred of evidence corroborated any of the allegations against the Baskins. Like all the other satanic cults infiltrating our neighborgoods and opening daycares solely to molest our children.

While I'm sure all this is "very real" to him, he still acts like a bright eyed kid when he elaborated on the fantasy of going on the lam and picking his own middle name. Because hey, when our children are abused by these satanic ritualistic sex abusing cults, our first order of business is to get their input and see if they are ready to go on the lam!

These kids have lived a fantasy for 30 years. Time to be an adult. I'm willing to bet that even though the narrative is that these poor kids were abused physically, sexually and emotionally, the grandparents out of fear of exposure didn't put them in therapy. Probably aren't now either.


There was a case in Saskatchewan, Canada just like this in the early 90s. It happened at a day care, where a parent with that was obviously mentally unstable, managed to convince people that the couple who ran a day care, their son, and five Police Officers, were involved in a satanic cult where children were being sexually abused.

It created complete hysteria in the town, and led to a huge investigation. People were charged, and all but one was cleared. Several would later go on to sue, and win millions for malicious prosecution. It turns out that some of the child psychiatrists were coaching the children, rewarding them with candy for telling the more creative and bizarre stories that they made up.

It's terrible that the children were brainwashed like this. For the Grandparents to do this to their own daughter is disgusting. They should have been locked away for life.

This is not true. They had legal custody of them at the time. They fled roughly 3 weeks before a hearing to determine who would gain custody of the children. Illegal and wrong, yes. But if they believed what Jon and Jennifer were telling them, why would they want to risk having them go back into the hands of their abusers?


The grandparents accusations were proven to be completely fictitious, and without merit. There is a word for it- PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome).

The grandparents obviously brainwashed the children, since they either did not want to give the children back, or were punishing the daughter (probably both).

They even threatened to kill the children if they were ever sent back to live with their parents. When someone can threaten to kill children, and it's been proven the allegations were without merit, the grandparents were going to lose the custody battle. I honestly can't believe you would defend those horrible monsters.

Again, these were accusations that were never found to be true. That's a huge gamble to do something that you don't have any proof over. Taking children from their parents isn't the way to do it, and leaving one behind to take the supposed brunt of it all (if it were true) is some sort of bizarre code that might apply to a war or something. Not a kid.

When I say they still monitor the situation I mean they are still close to the kids and stay in their lives. They could still be a safe house for them, and maybe even a permanent residence. That is if there was anything there to run from. What the Maples did was flee based on something they had no proof of and them leaving meant they could never return and help their other grandchild. I just can't get behind that, sorry. Especially since there wasn't any evidence.


It's pointless even arguing. Some people just choose to believe the World is a very evil place, where satanic cults exist to molest children, and that every third person is involved. It's a BS conspiracy and it still happens today. Look at Pizzagate in the US.

People look at this from an emotional angle, and ignore facts and evidence that points to this being complete rubbish. The parents only mistake, was to trust their mentally unstable Grandparents, who were mentally abusing their grandchildren.

This type of thing is very common in the Family Law system, especially in bitter custody disputes. In nearly every case, it's a manipulative parent trying to turn their child against the other parent.

It's pointless even arguing. Some people just choose to believe the World is a very evil place, where satanic cults exist to molest children, and that every third person is involved. It's a BS conspiracy and it still happens today. Look at Pizzagate in the US.

People look at this from an emotional angle, and ignore facts and evidence that points to this being complete rubbish. The parents only mistake, was to trust their mentally unstable Grandparents, who were mentally abusing their grandchildren.

This type of thing is very common in the Family Law system, especially in bitter custody disputes. In nearly every case, it's a manipulative parent trying to turn their child against the other parent.

If you haven't read about the McMartin case.. Take the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial

I mean.. Kids saying they saw witches flying.. Were flushed down toilets.. Abused in a hot air balloon.. Even to recent times.. There've been ground penetrating radar scans at the former location trying to find the 'tunnels' that kids say they were taken to and abused.

In other words.. There's STILL people out there who believe it.

I was.. 12 or so at the time.. I was aware of the case, but not the details. I read up on this about 20 years ago and.. Sadly, found myself laughing at how damned ridiculous the allegations were and that anyone in ANY position of authority believed it.

It's pointless even arguing. Some people just choose to believe the World is a very evil place, where satanic cults exist to molest children, and that every third person is involved. It's a BS conspiracy and it still happens today. Look at Pizzagate in the US.

People look at this from an emotional angle, and ignore facts and evidence that points to this being complete rubbish. The parents only mistake, was to trust their mentally unstable Grandparents, who were mentally abusing their grandchildren.

This type of thing is very common in the Family Law system, especially in bitter custody disputes. In nearly every case, it's a manipulative parent trying to turn their child against the other parent.

I believe there ought to be some evidence of it by now, if it were true. The Baskins were devout Christians then. They are the same 35 years later. Nothing changed. I am wondering, did Debbie's siblings retract their suspicions? Because they've had 30+ years to see whether or not the Maples were lying about them, or if they weren't.

The grandparents accusations were proven to be completely fictitious, and without merit. .

By people who weren't there and the internet.

By people who weren't there and the internet.

Wrong, dude. By the court. Allegations were unfounded. The case was dismissed “with prejudice.” You can say the judge, jury et al. “weren’t there” but they never are and that would be a weak argument anyway. By the way, you weren’t there either.

The grandparents accusations were proven to be completely fictitious, and without merit. There is a word for it- PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome).

Why did Mark Basin file charges of child abuse against his father in the summer of 1986?

The grandparents obviously brainwashed the children, since they either did not want to give the children back, or were punishing the daughter (probably both).

The man himself remembers the abuse and has spoken about it repeatedly.

I honestly can't believe you would defend those horrible monsters.

The funny thing is, is that you nor I know the absolute truth...so you could be the one defending "those horrible monsters".

The funny thing is, is that you nor I know the absolute truth...so you could be the one defending "those horrible monsters".

And there in lies the interest we all have in "Unsolved Mysteries". They didn't put the slam dunk episodes on for a reason. They put the ones on that we weren't sure the truth. Even decades later.

Why did Mark Basin file charges of child abuse against his father in the summer of 1986?



The man himself remembers the abuse and has spoken about it repeatedly.



The funny thing is, is that you nor I know the absolute truth...so you could be the one defending "those horrible monsters".

None of us really know the truth. But.. we do know what is out in public.

I presume you mean Bobby as far as speaking about it repeatedly? Do you have anything where he's said anything of substance? Other than generically that he was mentally, physically and sexually abused by his parents?

Again.. I think maybe we're on to something with the grandfather's abuse. It seems.. That 100% happened.

But.. Any evidence that the PARENTS abused them.. Seems to be quite lacking. Unless.. We take that theory that they were going to continue to have them visit and see the grandparent. Which.. I can start to understand it at that point.. Though.. That certainly is not the parents sexually abusing them. It's piss-poor explaining the problem if that's what it is. They are accusing the parents of DIRECT abuse. Not abuse-by-proxy or allowing the abuse to happen to them. They're saying the parents abused them..

Either the parents did or they didn't. Requiring them to visit the grandparent might be facilitating abuse.. But it's not direct abuse. Which is what the kids are accusing.

They could clear this up in 3 seconds. If they said "Our parents were going to force us to see the grandfather that abused us".. Boom.. Done. And.. I'd presume that most of us would side up with them, at least moreso than we do right now. Still may not have been the right way to handle, but, I think all of us could at least understand.. I'd, personally, still be pissed a bit if that was the case because they intentionally misled people for 30+ years.. But..

Right now, they seem to be sticking that the parents were the abusers. And.. There's little to back that up. Especially with the other kids never reporting anything.

I would be.. not surprised at all if this were almost a Duggar type situation.. Where they sent the abuser off for 'counseling' and afterwards he'd have access to the kids again. And.. If that's the case, things really swing in favor of the grandparents in what they did.

Though.. we still have the issue of leaving the youngest.. And the accusations of DIRECT abuse against the parents..

This post is over 5 years old, but since there's not a 'like' button here or anything like it, I just want to say that I wholeheartedly agree with freakbook here.

This is indeed entirely a private family matter and IMO keeping this thread is in poor taste

Allow me to join the chorus of “Lock this thread.” It is no longer a criminal matter; it is a private family one.

I admit I have my doubts regarding Jon’s story, but I am also aware that a 15 minute segment isn’t what you’d call an unimpeachable source. There are probably details we don’t know about, and it’s not really our business to know about.

They made it all a non-private matter when they appeared on Unsolved Mysteries. And when it was in the headlines in the newspapers. Don't go a'kidnappin, you won't be on Unsolved Mysteries. Don't go a'kidnappin, you won't be on Unsolved Mysteries.

I don't know for sure what happened...I guess I lean towards believing the parents over the grandparents -- because I don't think the parents would open themselves up to more investigation if they really did abuse the kids and they had a psychologist/member of the police on camera indicating their professional opinion was that it didn't happen.

But regarding the idea that this thread should be locked is kind of silly - because we could find a reason to lock every thread.

Jule Caylor logs onto the board and says his wife left him -- boom thread locked.

Charles Horvath's mom logs onto the board and says she 100% believes her son decided to disappear on his own -- boom thread locked.

We'd have no reason to have a thread for the Alex Cooper case, so on and so forth.

Well the "they" in this case were children who couldn't give consent then and are grown now so they didn't make it a non-private matter.

Allow me to join the chorus of “Lock this thread.” It is no longer a criminal matter; it is a private family one.

I admit I have my doubts regarding Jon’s story, but I am also aware that a 15 minute segment isn’t what you’d call an unimpeachable source. There are probably details we don’t know about, and it’s not really our business to know about.

We both know that is not going to happen. As long as there are people who believe Mark and Debbie were falsely accused of abuse and lost their two oldest children because of it will likely go on. To many people are mortified by that possibility to really let this go. And the unsolved mystery is no longer where Bobby and Christi are, but whether or not the abuse allegations were actually true. We may never know for sure.

I'm still in the camp that believes they were not true, to many things just don't add up for me to believe that they are abusers which I and many others have pointed out. Obviously these things aren't as profound to those who believe the Maples, but its all in how you look at things.

for my own part, I simply find it easier to believe children could be brainwashed into believing these things happened, than I can that Mark and Debbie went all these years with no further evidence surfacing that they were pedophiles. At least based on the info we have now. I may learn something tomorrow that changes my mind, but as of now I believe the Baskins.

We both know that is not going to happen. As long as there are people who believe Mark and Debbie were falsely accused of abuse and lost their two oldest children because of it will likely go on. To many people are mortified by that possibility to really let this go. And the unsolved mystery is no longer where Bobby and Christi are, but whether or not the abuse allegations were actually true. We may never know for sure.

I'm still in the camp that believes they were not true, to many things just don't add up for me to believe that they are abusers which I and many others have pointed out. Obviously these things aren't as profound to those who believe the Maples, but its all in how you look at things.

for my own part, I simply find it easier to believe children could be brainwashed into believing these things happened, than I can that Mark and Debbie went all these years with no further evidence surfacing that they were pedophiles. At least based on the info we have now. I may learn something tomorrow that changes my mind, but as of now I believe the Baskins.

A big part in the above there.. Many of us look at the.. Basically zero evidence against the parents.. And are horrified that.. Hey.. If it happened to them, it could happen to us.

Tell me everyone here who questions whether the abuse really happened.. If you dig down.. Doesn't that thought enter your head at least a little bit?

It's like you see these cases on the news where someone is pulled over and arrested for being on drugs because a cop found the glaze from a Krispy Kreme and his little test pouch said it was crystal meth.

Now.. While Krispy Kreme might be just as addictive as meth.. It's not meth. and people have spent very long times in jail because of this.

Or.. The cops who pull someone over for DUI.. They blow a 0.00.. Then the cop starts asking when they smoked weed.. And they get arrested.. Drug test comes back weeks later and all charges are dropped.. But the cop will say "I am more sensitive than a test"

It's all bullcrap.. And it ticks us off.. And it scares us.. Because.. Who's to say that won't be us next?

I'll take off my amateur psychoanalyst hat now. Not good at it anyway.. But.. Think I'm probably closer to being right than wrong.

The man himself remembers the abuse and has spoken about it repeatedly.


You really think that a 5, 6 or 7 year old kid can't misremember things? You think they're immune to suggestion or having their memories warped by adults?

You really think that a 5, 6 or 7 year old kid can't misremember things? You think they're immune to suggestion or having their memories warped by adults?

I think it depends on the child. I have accurate memories going back to that age. But then there’s my middle son- he will bring up a past event and the way that he remembers it is quite different from the way that it actually happened.

You really think that a 5, 6 or 7 year old kid can't misremember things? You think they're immune to suggestion or having their memories warped by adults?

He remembers it as physical pain. Yes, he can remember things. I remember crashing by bike and thinking I broke every bone in my body when I was 6 or 7. This idea that grandparents decide to leave not only their lives, but everyone else in their family, including their own children behind because they wanted custody of these two children has never made any sense what so ever to me.

He remembers it as physical pain. Yes, he can remember things. I remember crashing by bike and thinking I broke every bone in my body when I was 6 or 7. This idea that grandparents decide to leave not only their lives, but everyone else in their family, including their own children behind because they wanted custody of these two children has never made any sense what so ever to me.

Maybe they didn't like their lives or the rest of their family and didn't care about leaving it. They obviously sure didn't like or care about Debbie anymore. I imagine because they didn't like Mark or his family, seen many times parent disown their children because they dislike their in laws. It does happen.

As for his memories, no one who has been brainwashed ever admits it. Or they wouldn't be brainwashed. Granted, I sometimes find it hard to believe that they managed to do that great a job on them. But since they were children at the time I still think its possible.

I find it harder to believe Mark and Debbie raised two other children including Michael without any further evidence surfacing that they were satanic abusers. and that if the Maples were these noble heroes yet made no effort to get Michael out of that situation. Michael just makes their whole story stink to high heaven and I can't get past it frankly. Not sure I ever will.

A big part in the above there.. Many of us look at the.. Basically zero evidence against the parents.. And are horrified that.. Hey.. If it happened to them, it could happen to us.

Tell me everyone here who questions whether the abuse really happened.. If you dig down.. Doesn't that thought enter your head at least a little bit?

It's like you see these cases on the news where someone is pulled over and arrested for being on drugs because a cop found the glaze from a Krispy Kreme and his little test pouch said it was crystal meth.

Now.. While Krispy Kreme might be just as addictive as meth.. It's not meth. and people have spent very long times in jail because of this.

Or.. The cops who pull someone over for DUI.. They blow a 0.00.. Then the cop starts asking when they smoked weed.. And they get arrested.. Drug test comes back weeks later and all charges are dropped.. But the cop will say "I am more sensitive than a test"

It's all bullcrap.. And it ticks us off.. And it scares us.. Because.. Who's to say that won't be us next?

I'll take off my amateur psychoanalyst hat now. Not good at it anyway.. But.. Think I'm probably closer to being right than wrong.

I think you are probably close to on the money here.

That being said, I do believe those of us who still believe the Baskins should acknowledge that it was probably engrained in us by the Unsolved Mysteries episode to villainize the Maples and sympathize with them. I believe it was Mark Twain who said it is a lot easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they have been fooled. I think pride has a lot to do with it, no one likes to admit they have been wrong, especially when it is something they have believed for many years. and frankly it takes a lot of courage and a lot of character to do so. But by that same token, that can be applied to Jon and Jennifer as well.

Still though, my inclination to believe the Baskins is in large part due to what I've learned since the episode.

But I think no matter which camp you are in, we should all acknowledge we might be wrong because none of us were there.

I think you are probably close to on the money here.

That being said, I do believe those of us who still believe the Baskins should acknowledge that it was probably engrained in us by the Unsolved Mysteries episode to villainize the Maples and sympathize with them. I believe it was Mark Twain who said it is a lot easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they have been fooled. I think pride has a lot to do with it, no one likes to admit they have been wrong, especially when it is something they have believed for many years. and frankly it takes a lot of courage and a lot of character to do so. But by that same token, that can be applied to Jon and Jennifer as well.

Still though, my inclination to believe the Baskins is in large part due to what I've learned since the episode.

But I think no matter which camp you are in, we should all acknowledge we might be wrong because none of us were there.

I'd venture a guess that what you're basically describing here is that the first story we hear we accept as fact.

And.. I would not disagree with that. Other than.. Once more information becomes available.. And you do look at it in its entirety.. You can and will usually adjust your thinking.

I'll bring the McMartin case back up. Everyone was all up in arms about that. Then the facts started coming out.. And, people started saying "Hey.. Hold up here.. The kid is saying he saw another kid flushed down the toilet to an 'abuse dungeon'.. Something don't add up here"

I believe many of us are at this "Something don't add up here" spot.

I leave open the possibility that there's more to the story that we haven't heard.. I've tried to come up with some ideas that might fit not only the facts that we know, but the narrative put out by the grandparents and the kids.

SOMEONE is not being fully honest here. The question is.. Is it the grandparents and the kids or the parents?

Everyone can believe what they like.. But.. I can't reconcile that the parents SEXUALLY abused the kids themselves.. And then didn't abuse their other kids.

Because, either that's what happened, or the grandparents/kids are the ones who aren't being fully truthful. I don't see any other options.

Now.. Do I say that the kids should now be forced to visit their parents? no, of course not. In fact, I think that it would be a pretty horrible idea. It's sad, but I believe the best thing here is that everyone lives their lives separately.

I'd venture a guess that what you're basically describing here is that the first story we hear we accept as fact.

And.. I would not disagree with that. Other than.. Once more information becomes available.. And you do look at it in its entirety.. You can and will usually adjust your thinking.

I'll bring the McMartin case back up. Everyone was all up in arms about that. Then the facts started coming out.. And, people started saying "Hey.. Hold up here.. The kid is saying he saw another kid flushed down the toilet to an 'abuse dungeon'.. Something don't add up here"

I believe many of us are at this "Something don't add up here" spot.

I leave open the possibility that there's more to the story that we haven't heard.. I've tried to come up with some ideas that might fit not only the facts that we know, but the narrative put out by the grandparents and the kids.

SOMEONE is not being fully honest here. The question is.. Is it the grandparents and the kids or the parents?

Everyone can believe what they like.. But.. I can't reconcile that the parents SEXUALLY abused the kids themselves.. And then didn't abuse their other kids.

Because, either that's what happened, or the grandparents/kids are the ones who aren't being fully truthful. I don't see any other options.

Now.. Do I say that the kids should now be forced to visit their parents? no, of course not. In fact, I think that it would be a pretty horrible idea. It's sad, but I believe the best thing here is that everyone lives their lives separately.

Oh yes, I never suggested that. They are adults, obviously you can't force anything like that, its their decision and their business if they won't want to. I think its sad, but its their business. And if they still believe this happened I can totally understand not wanting to.

What I don't understand is not wanting to meet their brother. And the reasons they gave for that are completely ridiculous. I mean they literally said that they feared getting ambushed by Mark and Debbie if they met him. Really? Even if you feared that, they could at least talk on the phone.

That type of irrational reasoning is another sign to me that the brainwashing might have been real. I don't know if you watched the interview with Jon, I think in most respects he came off as fairly normal and intelligent, but to me there were very subtle cracks there and something didn't seem quite right. And that was the main thing that did.

Obviously I'm just speculating, but I think the real reason they don't want to meet Michael is because if he comes off as normal, strong, and denies any abuse happened to him it will cast doubt on their whole belief system and world they had built around them. And I think they fear that. That's just another way Michael is really the monkey wrench in the Maples' whole story.

But as i said before in this thread, i wonder too what Michael's attitude towards this is now, and towards them. I mean think about it, he was probably to young to even have any memories of Bobby and Christy. And here you have two older siblings who not only have been badmouthing his mother and father as abusers for years, but apparently want nothing to do with him as well even though he had nothing to do with what happened. I'm not even sure if I was Michael I would even want to meet them anymore. He is in his late 30's now and may well have an attitude towards Jon and Jennifer well piss on you then.

But then again maybe not, because if Mark and Debbie are who they say they are, I'm sure they have taught Michael not to resent his older brother and sister despite all this and sympathize with them, but I'm sure since he has no memory of them he probably doesn't sympathize with them like his parents do and may even resent them now on behalf of his parents. Hard to say.

Sad story all the way around. I still hope the truth comes out. But like you, I don't think Mark and Debbie abused their two oldest children and then didn't do it to the two youngest. Just can't fathom that.

Oh yes, I never suggested that. They are adults, obviously you can't force anything like that, its their decision and their business if they won't want to. I think its sad, but its their business. And if they still believe this happened I can totally understand not wanting to.

What I don't understand is not wanting to meet their brother. And the reasons they gave for that are completely ridiculous. I mean they literally said that they feared getting ambushed by Mark and Debbie if they met him. Really? Even if you feared that, they could at least talk on the phone.

That type of irrational reasoning is another sign to me that the brainwashing might have been real. I don't know if you watched the interview with Jon, I think in most respects he came off as fairly normal and intelligent, but to me there were very subtle cracks there and something didn't seem quite right. And that was the main thing that did.

Obviously I'm just speculating, but I think the real reason they don't want to meet Michael is because if he comes off as normal, strong, and denies any abuse happened to him it will cast doubt on their whole belief system and world they had built around them. And I think they fear that. That's just another way Michael is really the monkey wrench in the Maples' whole story.

But as i said before in this thread, i wonder too what Michael's attitude towards this is now, and towards them. I mean think about it, he was probably to young to even have any memories of Bobby and Christy. And here you have two older siblings who not only have been badmouthing his mother and father as abusers for years, but apparently want nothing to do with him as well even though he had nothing to do with what happened. I'm not even sure if I was Michael I would even want to meet them anymore. He is in his late 30's now and may well have an attitude towards Jon and Jennifer well piss on you then.

But then again maybe not, because if Mark and Debbie are who they say they are, I'm sure they have taught Michael not to resent his older brother and sister despite all this and sympathize with them, but I'm sure since he has no memory of them he probably doesn't sympathize with them like his parents do and may even resent them now on behalf of his parents. Hard to say.

Sad story all the way around. I still hope the truth comes out. But like you, I don't think Mark and Debbie abused their two oldest children and then didn't do it to the two youngest. Just can't fathom that.

I wasn't suggesting you WERE suggesting that.. So, sorry if I made it sound like that. The part about them meeting was.. Just a natural flow of what I had been talking about is all.

Why don't they want to meet their brother? That is a good question. My thought on it.. Narrative. He doesn't follow theirs. Sorry, not sorry. That's what i'm thinking. Of course, other reasons are possible. Maybe he won't see them since they won't see/have trashed the parents. Have you seen anything written about this? I haven't, so.. all speculation.

I don't particularly care for the term 'brainwashing'. One side is lying here. Plain and simple. This isn't a 'this is the truth as I see it' situation. Either the parents abused the children or they didn't. Even if, as I've suggested, it had to do with the grandfather.. It's still BS on the kids' part.

Looks like we're on the same basic thought process on Michael and.. Whatever the other (adopted) kid's name is. And.. Honestly for the whole situation.

as for the people calling for the topic to be locked.. The Baskin kids are claiming they were victims of a crime. A serious crime. You don't get to drop that mic and just walk away.

I wasn't suggesting you WERE suggesting that.. So, sorry if I made it sound like that. The part about them meeting was.. Just a natural flow of what I had been talking about is all.

Why don't they want to meet their brother? That is a good question. My thought on it.. Narrative. He doesn't follow theirs. Sorry, not sorry. That's what i'm thinking. Of course, other reasons are possible. Maybe he won't see them since they won't see/have trashed the parents. Have you seen anything written about this? I haven't, so.. all speculation.

I don't particularly care for the term 'brainwashing'. One side is lying here. Plain and simple. This isn't a 'this is the truth as I see it' situation. Either the parents abused the children or they didn't. Even if, as I've suggested, it had to do with the grandfather.. It's still BS on the kids' part.

Looks like we're on the same basic thought process on Michael and.. Whatever the other (adopted) kid's name is. And.. Honestly for the whole situation.

as for the people calling for the topic to be locked.. The Baskin kids are claiming they were victims of a crime. A serious crime. You don't get to drop that mic and just walk away.

Meh..... the Maples could very well have been lying yes, but I still think that Jon and Jennifer really believe this all happened. Otherwise, you have to buy the scenario that at a young age they for whatever reason decided they hated their parents and decided to go along with a lifelong lie about them. I can't quite make myself believe that.

I do believe also that there was genuine abuse, but not necessarily by Mark and Debbie but by Mark's father. And the Maples due to disgust over this decided to put the blame on Debbie and all her in laws and that's what drove them to do what they did. the fact that abuse did actually occur makes it easier to believe the children could have been duped or brainwashed into believing Mark's whole family was responsible, and even Debbie just for staying with him.

To me, its the only thing that make's sense. I think the whole thing probably started with Mark's father, and the Maples out of disdain for Debbie's in laws and what his father did just went overboard and disowned her and Mark by association.

Again, could be totally wrong. But that's my theory.

Meh..... the Maples could very well have been lying yes, but I still think that Jon and Jennifer really believe this all happened. Otherwise, you have to buy the scenario that at a young age they for whatever reason decided they hated their parents and decided to go along with a lifelong lie about them. I can't quite make myself believe that.

I do believe also that there was genuine abuse, but not necessarily by Mark and Debbie but by Mark's father. And the Maples due to disgust over this decided to put the blame on Debbie and all her in laws and that's what drove them to do what they did. the fact that abuse did actually occur makes it easier to believe the children could have been duped or brainwashed into believing Mark's whole family was responsible, and even Debbie just for staying with him.

To me, its the only thing that make's sense. I think the whole thing probably started with Mark's father, and the Maples out of disdain for Debbie's in laws and what his father did just went overboard and disowned her and Mark by association.

Again, could be totally wrong. But that's my theory.


I concur with that theory and agree totally with the caveat that.. We don't know for sure.. but, it's the best theory that (mostly) allows all the pieces to add up. However.. To loop back to what I said.. If that theory is fact. Then the kids and the grandparents both are liars.

Because they have said that the parents THEMSELVES sexually abused them. Not that they allowed the abuse. Not that they knew they were being abused and did nothing. Not that they were forcing them to visit with the abuser.

They said the parents were the abusers.

If the theory is correct.. Then they are and have been lying.

The boy was.. What? 8 when he was taken? Yes.. They know who did what to them by that age. They know right from wrong at that age. So.. If they're saying they were abused by the parents, and it's because the parents allowed/knew/whatever abuse.. again. That is a lie.

If that were the case.. I wouldn't blame them for not wanting to see the parents. I would have far more sympathy for the grandparents and.. While I would likely stop short of approving of what they did.. I would understand it.

I cannot understand accusing someone of sexually abusing you who did NOT sexually abuse you. I fail to see a difference between that and someone who falsely alleges rape. Same thing in my eyes. In todays world.. Accusing someone of sexual abuse and specifically, sexually abusing a child is likely the single most devastating thing that could be done.

I think I brought the Duggars up in the past here.. If you think about it.. Assuming the theory here is true.. Not much difference between the Baskins and the Duggar parents. But. No one is saying the Duggar parents sexually abuse kids. While I certainly don't agree or condone what the hell they did when they found out their kid was abusing other kids.. Calling them sexual abusers would be just as false as calling the Baskins abusers.

And.. again.. It just doesn't make sense if the theory is correct that they would CONTINUE the lie. the kids and the grandparents, who, of course, don't give a rats butt about how they're viewed now since they're dead.. Look FAR better in this situation if they're honest. Just saying "Hey, the parents were forcing contact with someone who assaulted the kids".. If that was the story from the start.. Wouldn't you think better of the grandparents and totally understand why the kids want no contact? That would have just been. Boom.. Done. If they were to say it now.. that would end things in my eyes as well.. However, the grandparents and the kids will still have the stink of lying about it stuck to them. Though.. I still understand why they would want no contact, I would understand why the grandparents felt compelled to do what they did.. And.. Why not say that at the start? It's almost like they started with the lie and just kept doubling down when honesty probably would have just made everything far simpler.

That much for me to basically say "Honesty is the best policy"

Sharon Stevens was a young girl. Is she misremembering? Should she meet with her father to make sure?

Sharon....you mean the one with the rather plain face and messed up teeth who found the Zelinskys?

Sharon Stevens was a young girl. Is she misremembering? Should she meet with her father to make sure?

There was no alleged brainwashing in Sharon Stevens' case. Plus she was older than Jon or Jennifer when all that happened. And there are actually police reports confirming that abuse as well as an arrest. Two cases are not comparable.

There was no alleged brainwashing in Sharon Stevens' case. Plus she was older than Jon or Jennifer when all that happened. And there are actually police reports confirming that abuse as well as an arrest. Two cases are not comparable.

Made me think tho.. Went looking for any info on the Zelenskis.. Best I can tell, they are still alive.. Which seems a touch strange. They seemed to be in their 50's or maybe 60's back in '89.

They'd be.. Pretty old right now if they were still alive.

Found this.. https://mountsinaiparks.org/obituaries/cynthia-e-zelinsky/11049/guestbook/

Plausible based on location, but.. Name is with a y instead of an i.. And the DOB of 1943 doesn't seem overly right.. Unless they just looked older than they were in the episode.

What does the Sharon case have to do with the Baskin one

I was curious why we pick and choose when we believe kids that are abused.

I was curious why we pick and choose when we believe kids that are abused.

Its not really about picking and choosing, its about looking at the facts of each individual case and drawing the best conclusion you can.

People on here have been pretty clear why they believe the abuse allegations against the Baskins were not true. Evidently those reasons are not as compelling to you, and that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I was curious why we pick and choose when we believe kids that are abused.

Cathy Loving-Williams was raped by her stepfather and when she went to the police they locked her up.

Sharon Stevens was a young girl. Is she misremembering? Should she meet with her father to make sure?

That's not anywhere in the same ballpark, and actually a really pathetic comparison. She was how old? A lot older than 5 and 6 and 7. Also, the school reported her father for abuse and he was arrested, so they apparently noticed the bruises and welts on her face.

Cathy Loving-Williams was raped by her stepfather and when she went to the police they locked her up.

This, also, is a bit of an unfair comparison.

You can pick which part of the unfairness was MOST unfair there.

1) Her stepfather was a cop
2) It happened in Chicago. Notorious for corruption
3) It was the 60's
4) She was black

The miracle of this.. She met a good cop who believed her.

Though.. One problem I have here.. There's never been a definitive answer as to what happened to the stepfather. There were 'rumors' that he was killed, but.. There should be more concrete information than that.

He remembers it as physical pain. Yes, he can remember things. I remember crashing by bike and thinking I broke every bone in my body when I was 6 or 7. This idea that grandparents decide to leave not only their lives, but everyone else in their family, including their own children behind because they wanted custody of these two children has never made any sense what so ever to me.

I suggest you read through this entire thread, and numerous other information available online. The Maples didn't walk away from "everyone else in their family." There's enough out there to indicate the Maples regularly kept in touch with other relatives. They were kept abreast of what was going on. The only ones they DIDN'T keep in touch with were Mark and Debbie.

I'll tell you one thing I've never understood; there came a time when Mark and Debbie were no longer allowed to visit Bobby and Cristy in the Maples' home. The Baskin's instead took their children to, in Jon's words, "a cheap motel" where is was allegedly abused. So, either the Maples KNEW Mark and Debbie were Devil worshipping pedophiles and they let them take the children for a visit anyway, OR

They DIDN'T know. And they still didn't want them setting foot in their home to visit the kids because...???

Either way, either scenario is so outrageous.

Another thing I don't get is the alleged participation in abuse by Debbie despite the fact she really wasn't all that into it. To me that sounds like a made up fantasy. If you're not into pedophelia, you don't get any jollies from it, you're not going to suddenly start participating in it anyway.

As for the physical pain, I think people have misconstrued what Jon said. During his interview he said he remembered the pain of breaking his ankle, and that apparently made the memory all that more vivid. But let's just suppose he was trying to communicate that, it (the abuse and the pain of it) was akin to the pain of breaking his ankle. OK. Fine. I don't want to sound like I'm blowing it off by saying that's neither here nor there, but it is neither here nor there.

We all believe something happened to Bobby. I believe it was at the hands of his paternal grandfather. Evidence "disappeared" and when he had to, Bobby couldn't testify. He sat there and cried instead. Of course! He was like, five years old.

Then, later, when asked to tell doctors, psychiatrists, etc. what his parents had done to him, and show these professionals with dolls, he stated "I didn't know these people. I didn't feel comfortable telling them." Bobby's unwillingness to "tell" and "show" didn't help his case.

And while you won't find specific details, you'll find various mentions of how the children and Maples' stories were inconsistent, and/or changed. The Maples even went so far as to implicate people investigating the case. Because, Hell yeah! Mark and Debbie, Satanists par excellence that they were (are?) had the judge and DA and psychiatrists and whoever else wrapped around their finger. :rolleyes:

I mean, the Maple's HAD to know making false, wild allegations weren't going to help the children, right? Right?????

The claims went unfounded for a reason. And I DO believe that Bobby's memories got warped and twisted. It happens. I have worked with children for YEARS. They've come from good homes and terrible ones. Sometimes children insert and implicate other things and people into incidences that, you know they happened, but they didn't happen LIKE THAT!

All of this, all the history, and the claims, and the he said, they said leaves room for doubt. I'd like to say "sorry about that" but I can't. In such cases that's just the way it is.

To be honest, I can't find any heroes here. If my parents were keeping my children from me, (I have none, so replace children with dogs) not letting me come visit, you can bet your sweet, bottom dollar I'd be showing up with the cops to take MY CHILDREN back! I wouldn't care if they never spoke to me again. Mark and Debbie were either too nice or too stupid to do so.

And *IF* the Maples knew their grandkids were being abused in the slightest by "satanists" and they let them have a visit in a cheap motel anyway (or any visit anywhere for that matter?)? I mean, how stupid can you be?

I suggest you read through this entire thread, and numerous other information available online. The Maples didn't walk away from "everyone else in their family." There's enough out there to indicate the Maples regularly kept in touch with other relatives. They were kept abreast of what was going on. The only ones they DIDN'T keep in touch with were Mark and Debbie.

There is nothing concrete to suggest that they kept in touch with their other relatives. That's why it took them so long to find them. They left one of their adult daughters (who was living with them at the time) high and dry.

I'll tell you one thing I've never understood; there came a time when Mark and Debbie were no longer allowed to visit Bobby and Cristy in the Maples' home. The Baskin's instead took their children to, in Jon's words, "a cheap motel" where is was allegedly abused. So, either the Maples KNEW Mark and Debbie were Devil worshipping pedophiles and they let them take the children for a visit anyway, OR

They DIDN'T know. And they still didn't want them setting foot in their home to visit the kids because...???

From Jon's own words, he didn't tell the Maples about his birth parents until the abuse that allegedly happened in the hotel.

Either way, either scenario is so outrageous.

How so?

As for the physical pain, I think people have misconstrued what Jon said. During his interview he said he remembered the pain of breaking his ankle, and that apparently made the memory all that more vivid. But let's just suppose he was trying to communicate that, it (the abuse and the pain of it) was akin to the pain of breaking his ankle. OK. Fine. I don't want to sound like I'm blowing it off by saying that's neither here nor there, but it is neither here nor there.

So you think Jon is lying, when he said:

It hasn’t crossed my mind because it’s too vivid. It’s too clear. There are too many details. If someone is planting memories in your head that were not there, they would not be accompanied by a memory of physical pain. They would not be accompanied by those shadows. I have real memories of like, breaking my ankle. And I remember the pain associated with that. I remember physical pain. They are in glowing detail. Technicolor. 3D.

We all believe something happened to Bobby. I believe it was at the hands of his paternal grandfather. Evidence "disappeared" and when he had to, Bobby couldn't testify. He sat there and cried instead. Of course! He was like, five years old.

Wait. I thought that all of the abuse claims were ridiculous and unfounded? There were also rumors that the grandfather was a well connected guy with friends in high places. Perhaps that's why evidence "disappeared"?

Then, later, when asked to tell doctors, psychiatrists, etc. what his parents had done to him, and show these professionals with dolls, he stated "I didn't know these people. I didn't feel comfortable telling them." Bobby's unwillingness to "tell" and "show" didn't help his case.

You can't use his age to excuse his unwillingness to testify and then use it as a cudgel as to why he wouldn't tell strangers what his parents did to him.

And while you won't find specific details, you'll find various mentions of how the children and Maples' stories were inconsistent, and/or changed. The Maples even went so far as to implicate people investigating the case. Because, Hell yeah! Mark and Debbie, Satanists par excellence that they were (are?) had the judge and DA and psychiatrists and whoever else wrapped around their finger. :rolleyes:

Has this ever been proven that they were alleging all of these people were devil worshipping Satanists who were trying to sacrifice the children?

The claims went unfounded for a reason. And I DO believe that Bobby's memories got warped and twisted. It happens. I have worked with children for YEARS. They've come from good homes and terrible ones. Sometimes children insert and implicate other things and people into incidences that, you know they happened, but they didn't happen LIKE THAT!

If Jennifer came out and backed up what Jon has claimed, would you think she was lying and/or brainwashed too? What about the other family members of the Maples, who have consistently backed their version of events. Are they lying or have they been brainwashed?

To be honest, I can't find any heroes here. If my parents were keeping my children from me, (I have none, so replace children with dogs) not letting me come visit, you can bet your sweet, bottom dollar I'd be showing up with the cops to take MY CHILDREN back! I wouldn't care if they never spoke to me again. Mark and Debbie were either too nice or too stupid to do so.

Mark and Debbie were kind enough to dump their children with their grandparents for the summer...which then became through Christmas...and then did nothing in an effort to get their children back until after they were accused of molesting Jon. They can claim financial hardship all they want, but they did nothing to try and get their children back.

And *IF* the Maples knew their grandkids were being abused in the slightest by "satanists" and they let them have a visit in a cheap motel anyway (or any visit anywhere for that matter?)? I mean, how stupid can you be?

The hotel visit happened in April. They petitioned for custody in May. So they did not know about the abuse until after Jon told them about it. Either you believe Jon or you don't. It seems odd to me that a seemingly well rounded and educated individual wouldn't sit back at some point and realize that he had been brainwashed by his grandparents. Or he could be telling the truth.

The miracle of this.. She met a good cop who believed her.

And Jon had grandparents who believed him.

And Jon had grandparents who believed him.

Or brainwashed him

And Jon had grandparents who believed him.

and the McMartin case had a jury that believed that Ray Buckley flushed kids down the toilet to a dungeon where they'd be abused.

here, we have grandparents and kids vs.. Pretty much everyone else. Judges, lawyers, case workers.. Lots of other people.

Now, does that automatically mean that the side with the most people wins? Not really.. I mean.. Michael Jackson. That's one where you have to look and say.. You know.. There's lots of smoke there. and that's a case where the supposed abused did themselves no favors by saying there wasn't abuse, then.. Yeah, there was when they were going after money. So.. that one, goes under the "Probably" header for me. I can't prove it.. But.. Damn.

To me.. The keys are Michael and the other child. First off.. Michael.. How must he feel? I don't think any of us doubt that the grandparents, for right or wrong reasons, believed the children were being sexually abused. But.. How would you feel if you were Michael? "Sorry, bud.. Couldn't get you"

Anyway.. I stick by my theory that the grandfather was the one who abused the kids.. Not the parents. and some massive hatred developed between the grandparents and parents. The story was embellished a bit.

In other words.. The truth likely lies, as it often does, somewhere in the middle.

The REAL truth. Not the truth according to the parents. Not the truth according to the grandparents. and, yes, not the truth according to the kids because I think their truth is the same as the grandparents.

I've read a bit that the fact that the Baskins were Baptists apparently may have been a problem for the grandparents.. Still trying to find more on that. Seems.. Strange. I mean, generally, in the south, so long as you're Christian, that's good enough. Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.. All good. And yes.. I realize how that sounds, but..

The satanic worship angle as well.. That's.. Usually a crutch that is leaned on when your case can't stand on its own two feet.

I was curious why we pick and choose when we believe kids that are abused.

I won't disparage anyone that thinks the abuse happened ... but in this case there is a psychologist on camera saying it was their opinion it didn't happen.

and the McMartin case had a jury that believed that Ray Buckley flushed kids down the toilet to a dungeon where they'd be abused.

here, we have grandparents and kids vs.. Pretty much everyone else. Judges, lawyers, case workers.. Lots of other people.

Now, does that automatically mean that the side with the most people wins? Not really.. I mean.. Michael Jackson. That's one where you have to look and say.. You know.. There's lots of smoke there. and that's a case where the supposed abused did themselves no favors by saying there wasn't abuse, then.. Yeah, there was when they were going after money. So.. that one, goes under the "Probably" header for me. I can't prove it.. But.. Damn.

To me.. The keys are Michael and the other child. First off.. Michael.. How must he feel? I don't think any of us doubt that the grandparents, for right or wrong reasons, believed the children were being sexually abused. But.. How would you feel if you were Michael? "Sorry, bud.. Couldn't get you"

Anyway.. I stick by my theory that the grandfather was the one who abused the kids.. Not the parents. and some massive hatred developed between the grandparents and parents. The story was embellished a bit.

In other words.. The truth likely lies, as it often does, somewhere in the middle.

The REAL truth. Not the truth according to the parents. Not the truth according to the grandparents. and, yes, not the truth according to the kids because I think their truth is the same as the grandparents.

I've read a bit that the fact that the Baskins were Baptists apparently may have been a problem for the grandparents.. Still trying to find more on that. Seems.. Strange. I mean, generally, in the south, so long as you're Christian, that's good enough. Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.. All good. And yes.. I realize how that sounds, but..

The satanic worship angle as well.. That's.. Usually a crutch that is leaned on when your case can't stand on its own two feet.

Assuming Michael was never abused, and there is nothing to indicate he was, then he knows the truth about his parents and knows they aren't abusers. Unless you think that Mark and Debbie abused their two older children and reformed with Michael and his stepbrother Paul. Which I suppose is possible but I seriously doubt it.

I would love to see him interviewed and how he comes off. If he comes off like he has it together and staunchly defends his parents it would solidify by belief even more the whole thing was garbage. I can't even really imagine how he must feel hearing his parents slandered his whole life as abusers by his older siblings, older siblings who want nothing to do with him either even though he did nothing wrong to them. I don't know how I'd feel in his shoes, I'd probably want nothing to do with them either by this point. He's a man now in his late 30's.

I think most of us in the Baskin camp agree, Michael is the one thing in the whole story that makes the whole Maple side of the story stink to high heaven. Their abandoning him in that situation despite their belief that his parents were satanic abusers is absolutely appalling. And of course if they are lying about the whole thing and brainwashed those kids that is even more disgusting. He makes them look bad either way.

As for Jon and Jennifer, again the reasons they gave for not meeting their brother are ridiculous. And makes their story look even more shaky. As I said, I truly believe they don't want to meet him for the fear of their whole narrative collapsing.

Assuming Michael was never abused, and there is nothing to indicate he was, then he knows the truth about his parents and knows they aren't abusers. Unless you think that Mark and Debbie abused their two older children and reformed with Michael and his stepbrother Paul. Which I suppose is possible but I seriously doubt it.

I would love to see him interviewed and how he comes off. If he comes off like he has it together and staunchly defends his parents it would solidify by belief even more the whole thing was garbage. I can't even really imagine how he must feel hearing his parents slandered his whole life as abusers by his older siblings, older siblings who want nothing to do with him either even though he did nothing wrong to them. I don't know how I'd feel in his shoes, I'd probably want nothing to do with them either by this point. He's a man now in his late 30's.

I think most of us in the Baskin camp agree, Michael is the one thing in the whole story that makes the whole Maple side of the story stink to high heaven. Their abandoning him in that situation despite their belief that his parents were satanic abusers is absolutely appalling. And of course if they are lying about the whole thing and brainwashed those kids that is even more disgusting. He makes them look bad either way.

As for Jon and Jennifer, again the reasons they gave for not meeting their brother are ridiculous. And makes their story look even more shaky. As I said, I truly believe they don't want to meet him for the fear of their whole narrative collapsing.

It is probably the most likely reason they wouldn't want to meet him. Even if you are able to find the truth out one way or another most people don't want to shake the world they live in. Imagine the years you lost if you find out your parents were actually good parents. There are some people that would rather never know that out of sheer fear. Or having to eat crow. Or it is so much built inside of them already that they couldn't believe it either way. That is the take I get even just from Jon's interview.

Oh yes, I never suggested that. They are adults, obviously you can't force anything like that, its their decision and their business if they won't want to. I think its sad, but its their business. And if they still believe this happened I can totally understand not wanting to.

What I don't understand is not wanting to meet their brother. And the reasons they gave for that are completely ridiculous. I mean they literally said that they feared getting ambushed by Mark and Debbie if they met him. Really? Even if you feared that, they could at least talk on the phone.

That type of irrational reasoning is another sign to me that the brainwashing might have been real. I don't know if you watched the interview with Jon, I think in most respects he came off as fairly normal and intelligent, but to me there were very subtle cracks there and something didn't seem quite right. And that was the main thing that did.

Obviously I'm just speculating, but I think the real reason they don't want to meet Michael is because if he comes off as normal, strong, and denies any abuse happened to him it will cast doubt on their whole belief system and world they had built around them. And I think they fear that. That's just another way Michael is really the monkey wrench in the Maples' whole story.

But as i said before in this thread, i wonder too what Michael's attitude towards this is now, and towards them. I mean think about it, he was probably to young to even have any memories of Bobby and Christy. And here you have two older siblings who not only have been badmouthing his mother and father as abusers for years, but apparently want nothing to do with him as well even though he had nothing to do with what happened. I'm not even sure if I was Michael I would even want to meet them anymore. He is in his late 30's now and may well have an attitude towards Jon and Jennifer well piss on you then.

But then again maybe not, because if Mark and Debbie are who they say they are, I'm sure they have taught Michael not to resent his older brother and sister despite all this and sympathize with them, but I'm sure since he has no memory of them he probably doesn't sympathize with them like his parents do and may even resent them now on behalf of his parents. Hard to say.

Sad story all the way around. I still hope the truth comes out. But like you, I don't think Mark and Debbie abused their two oldest children and then didn't do it to the two youngest. Just can't fathom that.

The fact that the Maples took two of the kids, but left two more with parents who were supposedly devil-worshipping abusers is the crux of it, I don't care how you spin that - it just doesn't sit right with me.

If Mark/Debbie were truly abusers, there would be no way, absolutely no way they would inflict that kind of cruelty on 2 of their kids and then not subject their other 2 to even an ounce of the same.

The fact that the Maples took two of the kids, but left two more with parents who were supposedly devil-worshipping abusers is the crux of it, I don't care how you spin that - it just doesn't sit right with me.

If Mark/Debbie were truly abusers, there would be no way, absolutely no way they would inflict that kind of cruelty on 2 of their kids and then not subject their other 2 to even an ounce of the same.

If I'm not mistaken, I don't believe the Baskins adopted their youngest child until after the Maples were gone with Jon and Jennifer. So they would not have known about him. I don't think it would have mattered even if they had if they didn't even care about Michael, they don't sound like the type who would have cared about anyone who was not their own flesh and blood anyway. I am betting they probably had sort of a tribalist mentality and that was the start of this, they developed a hatred of Mark and his family enough it caused them to disown their own daughter.

No matter, Michael alone made the whole thing abhorrent. Their disdain for Mark's family was justified in the beginning if the abuse allegations against Mark's father were true. But of course I believe they went way to far with it.

is there anyway I can watch the segment?

If I'm not mistaken, I don't believe the Baskins adopted their youngest child until after the Maples were gone with Jon and Jennifer. So they would not have known about him. I don't think it would have mattered even if they had if they didn't even care about Michael, they don't sound like the type who would have cared about anyone who was not their own flesh and blood anyway. I am betting they probably had sort of a tribalist mentality and that was the start of this, they developed a hatred of Mark and his family enough it caused them to disown their own daughter.

No matter, Michael alone made the whole thing abhorrent. Their disdain for Mark's family was justified in the beginning if the abuse allegations against Mark's father were true. But of course I believe they went way to far with it.

You are correct about the timing. When the kids were absconded with.. Michael was the only other child.

Now, i'm not talking, when I say think of how Michael must feel.. Whether he was abused or not is basically irrelevant. The grandparents honestly believed that there was behavior that the kids needed to be removed from. I do actually believe that. They might have had twisted thinking to think that, but, it was an honest belief.

So, regardless of whether Michael was abused. You had people who THOUGHT he was, and left him to the wolves(At least in their minds eye).

Can't be good for the psyche.

There is nothing concrete to suggest that they kept in touch with their other relatives. That's why it took them so long to find them. They left one of their adult daughters (who was living with them at the time) high and dry.

There’s nothing concrete to suggest they DIDN’T keep in touch. Except family members in threads elsewhere online who went on diatribes and tirades and said things that gave the impression that yes, the Maples DID keep in contact with relatives. It was easy to back then. No cell phones. No IP or MAC addresses.

So you think Jon is lying, when he said:
I’m not sure where in my paragraphs I mentioned that I thought Jon was “lying."

Wait. I thought that all of the abuse claims were ridiculous and unfounded? There were also rumors that the grandfather was a well connected guy with friends in high places. Perhaps that's why evidence "disappeared"?

Why are you asking me? Information regarding the case against Mac Baskin being dropped and evidence disappearing is available online if you look for it. And as far as unfounded and ridiculous claims, I was specifically talking about those made by the Maples. The allegations WERE unfounded.

You can't use his age to excuse his unwillingness to testify and then use it as a cudgel as to why he wouldn't tell strangers what his parents did to him.

Yes I can. In the case against Mac Baskin, Bobby couldn’t testify and broke down crying. He was 5 I believe. Later on, it was his level of discomfort with these people who were trying to get information out of him that prevented him from saying anything. Two completely different things. Would he have been more comfortable had he been 12 years old? We'll never know.

Has this ever been proven that they were alleging all of these people were devil worshipping Satanists who were trying to sacrifice the children?

Has ANYTHING from either side been “proven?” To your standard or the standard of any jury or any judge? If you need to have it “proven” to you before you can believe it, then you shouldn’t believe anything from either side of this mess.

If Jennifer came out and backed up what Jon has claimed, would you think she was lying and/or brainwashed too? What about the other family members of the Maples, who have consistently backed their version of events. Are they lying or have they been brainwashed?

As I mentioned before, or maybe I forgot, but, relatives of the Maples believing the Maples’ side of things isn’t a surprise and holds no bearing. When children accuse someone of abuse, family members take sides. As for Jennifer, yeah, I do think she was brainwashed. She was stunned and in disbelief that her “dad” (Marvin) kidnapped them. According to Jon, he knew they were on the run and that Marvin was his grandpa and not his dad. Jennifer must have been really out of it, or she bought into everything 1000% and completely forgot her first 8 years of life.

But, what bothered me is Jennifer “not approving” of her brother talking to the media about this, according to the news reporter. The guy was like 35 at the time. She probably didn’t want him talking about what happened because it wouldn’t perpetuate the world she lives in. In any event, if, when I was 35, my older brother told me he didn’t “approve” of who I talked to, I would've told him what he could do with his disapproval.

Mark and Debbie were kind enough to dump their children with their grandparents for the summer...which then became through Christmas...and then did nothing in an effort to get their children back until after they were accused of molesting Jon. They can claim financial hardship all they want, but they did nothing to try and get their children back.

This sounds like what someone unfamiliar with the case would say. There is a story that, allegedly, the Baskin's first left Bobby with the Maples because they thought moving him out of state after what he had recently been through (Mac Baskin trial) was too much for him. Christi joined him later.

I’m no fan of the Baskin’s for leaving their children with the grandparents, ESPECIALLY AFTER the Maples refused to let the Baskin’s visit their children. The Baskin’s were too nice AND too stupid to call the cops to retrieve their kids. According to the UM segment, and other readings found online, the Baskin’s tried unsuccessfully to convince the Maples to give them back their kids, and when it was soon the time to take them back, the Maples ran to court with allegations of abuse. I read the reason you gave above, but all in all, it was rather convenient timing.

The hotel visit happened in April. They petitioned for custody in May. So they did not know about the abuse until after Jon told them about it. Either you believe Jon or you don't. It seems odd to me that a seemingly well rounded and educated individual wouldn't sit back at some point and realize that he had been brainwashed by his grandparents. Or he could be telling the truth.

Two things; Why the hell did the Maple’s not let the Baskin’s visit with their own children? If it wasn’t allegations of abuse, what then? They didn’t like the color of toilet paper the Baskin’s were buying?

Also, you’re under the assumption that Jon should just “know better” had he been brainwashed. This is a man who doesn’t believe his grandparents kidnapped him because they had custody when they left. This is also a man who believes that since Marvin pled to a lesser charge, it wasn’t really kidnapping. I don’t know what fantasy world Jon lives in, but this way of thinking is akin to the criminal who says, “I didn’t get caught, so I technically didn’t break the law.” “No one saw me, so technically I wasn't even there.” “I never heard her say "No," so technically, I didn’t assault her.” “It was a mistrial, so technically, I’m not guilty.”

He went back and forth with some user on technicalities and semantics. It struck me as a really desperate and pathetic attempt. Probably, if he believed that Marvin kidnapped him, it would shatter the perfect "savior" image he has of his grandpa.

I think Marvin himself knew he kidnapped the children better than Jon ever will.

All of Jon’s education and “well roundedness” and he can't even adhere to the reality that he was indeed kidnapped. Leaves a lot of room for speculation and doubt on virtually anything he says. It shouldn't strike you as odd. I mean, it's pretty glaring!

There is a lot out there to read on this subject. This board alone has two threads, each with 20 plus pages. Each page with multiple posts and responses and dialog. There’s a couple of lengthy threads elsewhere on the web. There’s newspaper articles, The lost and found blog where more of what Jon said was posted. There’s the original UM segment with information that would have easily answered some of your questions beforehand. I suggest diving deep and familiarizing yourself with all this information again.

There’s nothing concrete to suggest they DIDN’T keep in touch. Except family members in threads elsewhere online who went on diatribes and tirades and said things that gave the impression that yes, the Maples DID keep in contact with relatives. It was easy to back then. No cell phones. No IP or MAC addresses.

They weren't found until 2009, when IP addresses were definitely a thing. And the only reason they were found was because Marvin started blabbing to people at a bar.


I’m not sure where in my paragraphs I mentioned that I thought Jon was “lying."

So he isn't lying. What is it then?

Information regarding the case against Mac Baskin being dropped and evidence disappearing is available online if you look for it.

Okay, can you point me in the direction of this information?

Yes I can. In the case against Mac Baskin, Bobby couldn’t testify and broke down crying. He was 5 I believe. Later on, it was his level of discomfort with these people who were trying to get information out of him that prevented him from saying anything. Two completely different things. Would he have been more comfortable had he been 12 years old? We'll never know.

Why is this any different for someone, regardless of if they are 5 or 9 years old, describing abuse to a room full of strangers?

Has ANYTHING from either side been “proven?” To your standard or the standard of any jury or any judge? If you need to have it “proven” to you before you can believe it, then you shouldn’t believe anything from either side of this mess.

I actually do not believe either side of this mess and think there is truth in both sides. It's the disciples of the Baskins, who, for whatever reason, get really worked up when you dare to question their version of events.

As I mentioned before, or maybe I forgot, but, relatives of the Maples believing the Maples’ side of things isn’t a surprise and holds no bearing.

Maybe to you it doesn't. To me, the fact that the entire family was aligned with them, does hold weight in the fact that maybe they weren't total whackjobs dead set on kidnapping their grandchildren because they didn't want to give them back to their parents.

But, what bothered me is Jennifer “not approving” of her brother talking to the media about this, according to the news reporter. The guy was like 35 at the time. She probably didn’t want him talking about what happened because it wouldn’t perpetuate the world she lives in. In any event, if, when I was 35, my older brother told me he didn’t “approve” of who I talked to, I would've told him what he could do with his disapproval.

Why does this bother you at all? Are you a relative?

This sounds like what someone unfamiliar with the case would say. There is a story that, allegedly, the Baskin's first left Bobby with the Maples because they thought moving him out of state after what he had recently been through (Mac Baskin trial) was too much for him. Christi joined him later.

This is literally what they said in the UM segment. They left them with the Maples due to "financial hardship".

Two things; Why the hell did the Maple’s not let the Baskin’s visit with their own children? If it wasn’t allegations of abuse, what then? They didn’t like the color of toilet paper the Baskin’s were buying?

I won't pretend to know what exactly transpired between the two parties. It could have been something as simple as the Baskin's saying they didn't think Mac Baskin did anything to Jon; which led to a rift between the two. But the aww shucks Christian Baskins still did nothing in an effort to get their children back. If you left your children with a grandparent and said grandparents wouldn't allow you to visit them...you would just accept that? Don't buy it.

Also, you’re under the assumption that Jon should just “know better” had he been brainwashed. This is a man who doesn’t believe his grandparents kidnapped him because they had custody when they left. This is also a man who believes that since Marvin pled to a lesser charge, it wasn’t really kidnapping. I don’t know what fantasy world Jon lives in, but this way of thinking is akin to the criminal who says, “I didn’t get caught, so I technically didn’t break the law.” “No one saw me, so technically I wasn't even there.” “I never heard her say "No," so technically, I didn’t assault her.” “It was a mistrial, so technically, I’m not guilty.”

It's really bizarre to see people not connected with this case get so worked up over what people who actually were involved with this case have said.

All of Jon’s education and “well roundedness” and he can't even adhere to the reality that he was indeed kidnapped. Leaves a lot of room for speculation and doubt on virtually anything he says. It shouldn't strike you as odd. I mean, it's pretty glaring!

Because I don't think he believes he was. From a legal standpoint he absolutely was. But, if what he is saying is the truth (and not "his truth"), I could see why he would be steadfast in his belief that he wasn't kidnapped.

There is a lot out there to read on this subject. This board alone has two threads, each with 20 plus pages. Each page with multiple posts and responses and dialog. There’s a couple of lengthy threads elsewhere on the web. There’s newspaper articles, The lost and found blog where more of what Jon said was posted. There’s the original UM segment with information that would have easily answered some of your questions beforehand. I suggest diving deep and familiarizing yourself with all this information again.

I've read most of the information. And I do not believe the Baskins version. Nor do I believe the Maples side of things either. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Were the Baskins molesting the kids? My gut says no. Did Jon and Jennifer suffer abuse at the hands of their paternal grandparents? My gut says probably. Did the Maples use this abuse and a fear that the Baskins would ingratiate said paternal grandparents back into the kids' lives as a jumping point to exaggerate more instances of abuse? Maybe. Do I think the Maples spent most of their life on the run living in an apartment, financially struggling, constantly looking over their shoulder because they thought it was "fun" to raise two young children? Absolutely not.

https://open.substack.com/pub/jswb/p/reclaiming-lived-truth?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=4g1ftg

I'm totally with you on this, Zero.

"the Baskin’s tried unsuccessfully to convince the Maples to give them back their kids, and when it was soon the time to take them back, the Maples ran to court with allegations of abuse."

Exactly.

It is easier to believe the false world their grandparents put up for them to believe then because of all the trauma and pain they were put through. It is easy to tell 7 and 8 year old kids that things they experience are abuse when they are not. yes they were kidnapped. the grandparents took the day they had no custody of them anymore and were to turn them over the day they left and di not show up that is kidnapping. It is sad there mentality is still when they were 7 and 8 and still think they will be taken back to their parents as adults. The grandparents are going to have to explain the damage they did to their maker. They as adults choose to live in the fantasy the grandparents made for them. To pain full for them to believe reality or even read the trial transcripts. nothing we can do we are just tv viewers.

https://open.substack.com/pub/jswb/p/reclaiming-lived-truth?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=4g1ftg

That is an actual article from Jon I suppose? The thing with him is that the rare time we have seen or heard him in interviews his explanations are very vague. If he has memory of abuse why not state it very clearly in this article about who, what and when it was? This is one of those cases where the more I hear him talk about it the more it seems like his grandparents were the true villains here, and not his parents.

is there anyway I can watch the segment?

Go down the list to the Ts for The Maples.

https://archive.org/details/unsolved-mysteries-lost-segment-archive-new/Unsolved+Mysteries+Special+1+(Full).mp4

That is an actual article from Jon I suppose? The thing with him is that the rare time we have seen or heard him in interviews his explanations are very vague. If he has memory of abuse why not state it very clearly in this article about who, what and when it was? This is one of those cases where the more I hear him talk about it the more it seems like his grandparents were the true villains here, and not his parents.

Yeah I do believe that is him.

I honestly don't know what to believe on this anymore. I still lean towards the Baskins, but I don't know.

If the Baskins story is true, then this might be the most infuriating case I ever read about. If i lost my children to someone lying about me like this, I honest to God don't know what I'd do.

Of course if it was true, they got less than they deserved.

That is an actual article from Jon I suppose? The thing with him is that the rare time we have seen or heard him in interviews his explanations are very vague. If he has memory of abuse why not state it very clearly in this article about who, what and when it was? This is one of those cases where the more I hear him talk about it the more it seems like his grandparents were the true villains here, and not his parents.

Yeah I do believe that is him.

I honestly don't know what to believe on this anymore. I still lean towards the Baskins, but I don't know.

If the Baskins story is true, then this might be the most infuriating case I ever read about. If i lost my children to someone lying about me like this, I honest to God don't know what I'd do.

Of course if it was true, they got less than they deserved.

Here's the issue I have with how that is written. It's talking down to anyone who dares question anything, even though there is zero evidence.

Now.. I give SOME slack here, because.. The internet can be a bad place. I don't believe anyone here has been nasty in stating their beliefs/thoughts, but.. There's certain places.. <cough> Reddit <cough> that are.. FAR more.. Blunt? How about.. Just nasty about it?

And, I do get how.. Upsetting it could be to have everyone questioning you. But.. To your above points.. Explain. And.. Wouldn't you really want to see the parents who supposedly did all this be brought to justice?

The other thing.. "Abuse" is a very broad term. There' people out there that had luxurious upbringings and their parents 'abused' them by refusing to allow them to live at home and not have a job. Or they were 'abused' because the parents didn't show them enough love - in their minds. IIRC.. He never once in that article states what kind of abuse it was. In fact.. It's almost written in such a way as to imply it's sexual abuse without saying it. Which.. You do have to give some leeway.. Sometimes, people just block it out or it's too painful to revisit.. But.. you can write an article calling out the internet just fine?

I don't know who to believe, but i'm pretty sure we can't FULLY believe anyone.


Blindly accepting 'victim' statements.. Three words.. Duke Lacrosse Case.

https://open.substack.com/pub/jswb/p/reclaiming-lived-truth?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=4g1ftg

I know you don't like posting but I'm glad you put this here. I still 100% believe your account of what happened and I hope that you are doing well.

Here's the issue I have with how that is written. It's talking down to anyone who dares question anything, even though there is zero evidence.

Now.. I give SOME slack here, because.. The internet can be a bad place. I don't believe anyone here has been nasty in stating their beliefs/thoughts, but.. There's certain places.. <cough> Reddit <cough> that are.. FAR more.. Blunt? How about.. Just nasty about it?

And, I do get how.. Upsetting it could be to have everyone questioning you. But.. To your above points.. Explain. And.. Wouldn't you really want to see the parents who supposedly did all this be brought to justice?

The other thing.. "Abuse" is a very broad term. There' people out there that had luxurious upbringings and their parents 'abused' them by refusing to allow them to live at home and not have a job. Or they were 'abused' because the parents didn't show them enough love - in their minds. IIRC.. He never once in that article states what kind of abuse it was. In fact.. It's almost written in such a way as to imply it's sexual abuse without saying it. Which.. You do have to give some leeway.. Sometimes, people just block it out or it's too painful to revisit.. But.. you can write an article calling out the internet just fine?

I don't know who to believe, but i'm pretty sure we can't FULLY believe anyone.


Blindly accepting 'victim' statements.. Three words.. Duke Lacrosse Case.

If the parents are guilty then yes they deserve what they ought to get. I am always torn about how they'd have been looked into a lot and the other child wasn't taken away and they still adopted another one. It just makes me wonder how that could be possible. The Baskins are either clever geniuses or they are the victims here. I lean to the latter.

I can remember Jon posting something here once and it was a vague memory about how he walked into his parents room once as a kid and saw his mom lying on the bed looking up at the ceiling, almost in shock or something. And his dad was in the bathroom sort of just cleaning up or something (I am paraphrasing here). He said he was traumatized by it. Well............yeah. Your parents had just had sex! They maybe didn't notice you had walked in at the end and your mom was in "shock" because she probably had orgasmed. Like, as an adult I am surprised he can't figure that out that this is what he saw. Our kids would have seen that many times had we not locked the door. In fact, most kids would have seen it happen. Of course you don't want to see that, it is your parents! But your dad just did what husbands do to their wives. Nothing unusual. But he isn't the first kid to accidentally see something like that with his parents.

If the parents are guilty then yes they deserve what they ought to get. I am always torn about how they'd have been looked into a lot and the other child wasn't taken away and they still adopted another one. It just makes me wonder how that could be possible. The Baskins are either clever geniuses or they are the victims here. I lean to the latter.

I can remember Jon posting something here once and it was a vague memory about how he walked into his parents room once as a kid and saw his mom lying on the bed looking up at the ceiling, almost in shock or something. And his dad was in the bathroom sort of just cleaning up or something (I am paraphrasing here). He said he was traumatized by it. Well............yeah. Your parents had just had sex! They maybe didn't notice you had walked in at the end and your mom was in "shock" because she probably had orgasmed. Like, as an adult I am surprised he can't figure that out that this is what he saw. Our kids would have seen that many times had we not locked the door. In fact, most kids would have seen it happen. Of course you don't want to see that, it is your parents! But your dad just did what husbands do to their wives. Nothing unusual. But he isn't the first kid to accidentally see something like that with his parents.


Just the thought of that probably is enough to 'traumatize' any of us. lol.

We all know how we got here, but we don't want to think about it.

Just the thought of that probably is enough to 'traumatize' any of us. lol.

We all know how we got here, but we don't want to think about it.

There can be those times when you realize as a parent you need to lock the door. Our oldest got up at an unusual time one night (bad dream or something) and walked into our room. He was groggy, probably 5 years old, we immediately through the blanket on us, but it was too late. My wife got him back to bed. In the morning she asked if he remembered waking up in the middle of the night. He did not and from then on we always made sure the door was locked. Let's just say if our son remembers what he saw when he walked in that night, it would be far more traumatizing than if he just saw the "after" effect which is what Jon saw.

Kids who are kidnapped are very traumatized. To the point of not believing they were kidnapped. The kids had their memoris manipulated buy there grandparents at young age and there feeling abandon was plaid upon by their grandparents. The have some delayed issue were they still at timesa are at the age thry wre when taken. They really think their younger brother will kidnap them taken to there parents. that something little kid would think. read about the damage being kidnapped does to these kids. more then likely they have stolkhom sydrome and they bonded with there grandparents and feel safer beleive the manipulation casue the truth it to scarry. they want to stay were they think thy feel safe. it is sad nut there choice. I feel sorry for them. I hope continue to go psyhcologist for help. this just so
it happens with some of these cases.