Here is an interview that aired last night on a tv station in Georgia. One is with Mark and Debbie Baskins and the other is Jon Bunting (formerly Bobby Baskins) speaking out and telling his side of the story for the first time on camera and defending his grandparents and their actions. Very interesting!

http://wsav.com/2017/05/25/exclusive-baskin-son-on-why-he-wont-reunite-with-parents-after-20-years-in-hiding/

Wow...that was a very interesting video. He seems very educated and seems to remember vivid details. It's very interesting hearing the other side of the story. His side seems to make more sense.

It's very interesting hearing the other side of the story. His side seems to make more sense.

I agree!

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.

I think it makes sense to him. I still hold that if what he and his sister went through was true, to leave Michael behind was abhorrent. Also, his parents adopted their other son, and went through all that is required to adopt internationally - without any problems. That speaks volumes to me.

I'm not calling Bobby/Jon a liar. I truly believe he believes his telling the truth. But that doesn't mean it IS the truth.

Even after watching both interviews, I'm not sure whom I believe.

But, one thing I do know for certain is that both Baskin children deserve to live their lives the way they see fit. And if that includes not reuniting with their birth parents, so be it.

But, one thing I do know for certain is that both Baskin children deserve to live their lives the way they see fit. And if that includes not reuniting with their birth parents, so be it.

I agree. Whatever side you believe, they are adults and never have to reunite with them if they choose not to.

I still don't understand how, if they were honestly being abused, they never did anything to try and "save" the youngest sibling. Even as they grew older.

I still don't understand how, if they were honestly being abused, they never did anything to try and "save" the youngest sibling. Even as they grew older.

Mr. Bunting Jr. addressed this here:

Michael's situation was always something that felt tragic to us all. The Baskins left us with Marvin and Sandra frequently due to, as I was told, the fact that they couldn't afford to support and feed us. Originally all three of us were left, but due to things I won't go into out of respect for Michael, it became too much of a challenge to have all three of us. Keep in mind, also, that originally they only thought that Mark's parents were involved in the abuse, because I did not want to tell on my parents. I thought that maybe if I told on ONE person, the abuse would stop. With that in mind, they initially thought Michael was safe with Mark and Debbie. When they learned of the full extent of the abuse (because it continued in visitation), they only had two of us. They went and told the story to the authorities and were granted immediate temporary custody of the two they already had, and while they TRIED to get custody of Michael, it was a lot more difficult with the Baskins now on alert about the situation. When we drove off in our big grey GMC van it was because they had learned that child services was going to come and get us, literally the next day. They only had two of us, and it was either save us and leave Michael, or save none us.

I’m actually terrified to meet Michael. He spent his life with Mark and Debbie… I don’t know what his state of mind is or what his recollection of events are. I keep tabs on him. I know he owns a comic book shop in Georgia. I’ve called the number listed for that business in the past and heard his voice, but he did not know it was me. Perhaps one day, but if he’s on the side of Mark and Debbie I fear that an arranged meeting might lead to me walking in on all of them or otherwise being ambushed. I have no desire to ever see Mark and Debbie. As I said previously, I HAVE PTSD as a result of my experiences, and facing my tormentors would not likely be a good thing for my emotional and mental health at this stage.

Thanks for being kind and for using both, and not just one of my names, LooksLikeCRicci. I think that, partially, my biological sperm and egg donors fought so hard to keep up appearances. It was the smartest thing to do, similarly as it was smart to hide in plain sight as religious leaders. How would it have looked had they NOT come out to California to look for us?

Also… You’re right, dynoguy99… I’m not Bobby. I have not been Bobby since I was 7 years old, and I’m now 34. I do not respond to Bobby, Robert, or any combination or part of that old name. Bobby was a victim. I’m a survivor learning to live in the PRESENT moment. I never understood why everyone kept trying to make pleas to us using those old names, as if that would have any kind of effect. Or that they continually referred to us as the “kids” when we were already fully grown adults.

As for the Baskin parents, I've always found Debbie Baskin to be a little bit of a nutjob myself. There are several women on my mother's side of my family that remind me a lot of her and I choose to have nothing to do with them either. And no, there wasn't any physical abuse in my case. Certainly not on the scale of what the Baskins are accused of doing to their kids anyway.

I don't blame Mr. Bunting or his sister for not reaching out to their biological parents one bit. Once a wingnut, always a wingnut. And those Baskin parents (at least the mother) sure take the cake in that department.

They absolutely have no defense if they knowingly left a special needs child in a sexually abusive home. So if that is true, if they believed those children were sexually abused, there is no defense. The very one who needed the most protection, the most vulnerable of the three was pretty much left to fend for himself.

If you believe them.

However, I'm sure this is simply just another narrative coming from the Maple camp. It appears the judge was correct when he shot down their allegations the first few times. They will simply say and do anything to get their way. It's pretty sad how the narrative had continued to evolve, when there was absolutely zero evidence that supported their claims.

Holy crap! Thanks for sharing this, crystaldawn. What an incredible and emotional interview.

I don't doubt that Jon is sincere and believes his memories as the truth. After all he and Jennifer have been through, I'm impressed they are as "normal" as can be. He seems like a good guy. I appreciate him coming on this board to share his feelings, especially after how judgmental some people on this board were (myself included).

As a parent, I can't imagine being separated from my kids like that. It must be hard on them. But at the same time, if what Jon said is true, I can't imagine a worse crime. This is one of those cases where I really don't know what or who to believe. If the Baskins are being truthful, my heart breaks for them. But if they really were abusers, that is horrible and I feel for what Jon and Jennifer went through.

Or perhaps there is some truth in the middle, where they parented in a style that made them seem abusive and the Maples just did what they thought was best. The kids may believe that what they went through was abuse, whether or not it meets the legal definition. Kids perceptions of things are often very different, due to their age and brain function. I don't put much stock in what Marvin said in the nursing home. People with dementia say all kinds of things and him "admitting" to Debbie that he lied could just be ramblings.

I pray that they can all find peace through this, in whatever way possible.

I pray that they can all find peace through this, in whatever way possible.


My sentiments exactly. This is a hot thread topic and I appreciate how courteous everyone has been to each other's opinions.

But, one thing I do know for certain is that both Baskin children deserve to live their lives the way they see fit. And if that includes not reuniting with their birth parents, so be it.

I agree. Whatever side you believe, they are adults and never have to reunite with them if they choose not to.

I agree with you both. What they choose to do is their own business.

I think the kids were victimized by their grandparents and brainwashed into believing their parents were monsters. Their whole life has been one big lie crafted by vengeful grandparents. It's sad.

Yeah not really buying this narrative the kids have been told. They have no actual real recollection of being abused it seems, just what they were told for decades. Why would the Maples leave another child with the parents to carry on being physically & sexually abused? The son remembers vividly the pain-like having his ankle broken, yet there is it seems no medical records of this. How can this be anything else other than brainwashing?

It's pretty sad how the narrative had continued to evolve, when there was absolutely zero evidence that supported their claims.

Bingo.

I do think there was some abuse that went on, but it was by a different family member. I wonder if it's possible that the kids have some sort of "Mandela effect" going on where they are misremembering who abused them, and are blaming the parents.

Originally, like many others, I was on the Baskins' side. However, my opinions have changed.

1. We have heard Jon's side of the story, so let's talk about the Baskins. The UM story presents an entirely one sided story to the abuse allegations. Debbie's sisters apparently were on the Maples' side. UM never interviewed them. It would have been fair to at least hear out their side. This is not the first time UM has only showed us one side of the story. Based on hearing all this, I was empathetic towards the Baskins and was on their side after seeing the story, as were many others.
2. I have not been able to examine the court records and such in the case, however at this point the only people stating the Baskins were accused of being Satan worshipers are the Baskins themselves. They paint themselves as victims well. Indeed, Mark and Debbie appear to be very religious Christians, though maybe they do worship Satan? In any case, Satan worship in itself, is not illegal.
3. After the accusations came out, I have a suspicion that any abuse at that point would have been severely curtailed as the Baskins were being watched much more closely at that point.
4. The grandparents were essentially considered guilty because the Baskins had been cleared of any wrongdoing (which does not always prove one's complete innocence, it only means that evidence is insufficient), and the grandparents violated a court order and did not appear at the March 29, 1989 hearing. Clearly given what they truly believed, they had no choice but to take the children and violate the order. I am impressed that they told the children that they had a choice in the matter, and informed them truthfully of what would happen if they appeared (meaning they would likely go back to their parents).
5. Many of us were surprised the Baskins played themselves in the reenactment. Did anyone else find the huge sunglasses Debbie wore when being interviewed for the news segment strange?
6. The children clearly were afraid to tell the story of abuse. Without the whole story, the perpetrators often go unpunished.
7. Debbie's story that Marvin told her to take him home sounds true but the question is what state of mind was Marvin truly in on that very day. It didn't sound to me as if Marvin knew what he was going on. My own grandmother was once in the same state as Marvin (including being placed in a wheelchair in full view of the nurses' station as they do for many dementia patients who may cause issues) and she would have told anyone to take her home, including her worst enemies. I believe Jon has mentioned that at that point, Marvin didn't even know who he was, so how could he even know who Debbie was?

Finally, I must give kudos to Jon for deciding to come and tell his side of the story. I certainly understand Jennifer's reluctance, but Jon also did a huge deed and told the world that the Maples did the right thing, despite what it cost them, including some of Marvin's freedom.

Bingo.

I do think there was some abuse that went on, but it was by a different family member. I wonder if it's possible that the kids have some sort of "Mandela effect" going on where they are misremembering who abused them, and are blaming the parents.

I believe some sources stated the Baskin grandparents, specifically the grandfather, were involved.

Good find CD, thanks for sharing.

I don't know what to believe.

The Baskins to me seem like good people and Jon seems like a well rounded intelligent guy.

Originally, like many others, I was on the Baskins' side. However, my opinions have changed.

1. We have heard Jon's side of the story, so let's talk about the Baskins. The UM story presents an entirely one sided story to the abuse allegations. Debbie's sisters apparently were on the Maples' side. UM never interviewed them. It would have been fair to at least hear out their side. This is not the first time UM has only showed us one side of the story. Based on hearing all this, I was empathetic towards the Baskins and was on their side after seeing the story, as were many others.
2. I have not been able to examine the court records and such in the case, however at this point the only people stating the Baskins were accused of being Satan worshipers are the Baskins themselves. They paint themselves as victims well. Indeed, Mark and Debbie appear to be very religious Christians, though maybe they do worship Satan? In any case, Satan worship in itself, is not illegal.
3. I also remember it being said that Michael was a challenging child. After the accusations came out, I have a suspicion that any abuse at that point would have been severely curtailed as the Baskins were being watched much more closely at that point.
4. The grandparents were essentially considered guilty because the Baskins had been cleared of any wrongdoing (which does not always prove one's complete innocence, it only means that evidence is insufficient), and the grandparents violated a court order and did not appear at the March 29, 1989 hearing. Clearly given what they truly believed, they had no choice but to take the children and violate the order. I am impressed that they told the children that they had a choice in the matter, and informed them truthfully of what would happen if they appeared (meaning they would likely go back to their parents).
5. Many of us were surprised the Baskins played themselves in the reenactment. Did anyone else find the huge sunglasses Debbie wore when being interviewed for the news segment strange?
6. The children clearly were afraid to tell the story of abuse. Without the whole story, the perpetrators often go unpunished.
7. Debbie's story that Marvin told her to take him home sounds true but the question is what state of mind was Marvin truly in on that very day. It didn't sound to me as if Marvin knew what he was going on. My own grandmother was once in the same state as Marvin (including being placed in a wheelchair in full view of the nurses' station as they do for many dementia patients who may cause issues) and she would have told anyone to take her home, including her worst enemies. I believe Jon has mentioned that at that point, Marvin didn't even know who he was, so how could he even know who Debbie was?

Finally, I must give kudos to Jon for deciding to come and tell his side of the story. I certainly understand Jennifer's reluctance, but Jon also did a huge deed and told the world that the Maples did the right thing, despite what it cost them, including some of Marvin's freedom.

Well said! I completely agree.

Also people keep bringing up why was Michael left behind and Jon has addressed why repeatedly. He was in another county at the time plus he did have some issues that would have made it hard to be able to keep him in hiding. So it's either save 2 of your 3 grandchildren or allow all three of them to be continually abused. What would YOUR choice have been? Marvin and Sandra felt terrible for not rescuing Michael but it just wasn't possible at the time. I think they also hoped that with the attention that would be now focused even more on Mark and Debbie that the abuse towards Michael would stop.

I am no fan of the Baskins religious bs, however no physical or sexual abuse signs of damage were seen on the children. The lad talks about his memory of a broken ankle-surely there would have been evidence of this via hospital records, others seeing the state he was in etc, it isn't something that you can really hide. Also he alleges that they were abused during their visitation rights-how would that be possible? They would surely have been under strict supervision? Just sounds like implanted memories.

I am no fan of the Baskins religious bs, however no physical or sexual abuse signs of damage were seen on the children. The lad talks about his memory of a broken ankle-surely there would have been evidence of this via hospital records, others seeing the state he was in etc, it isn't something that you can really hide. Also he alleges that they were abused during their visitation rights-how would that be possible? They would surely have been under strict supervision? Just sounds like implanted memories.

From what I heard on the interview, and maybe I'm wrong, but I think people are taking the "broken ankle" out of context. I feel like he was saying he remembers the abuse vividly and painfully, much like he remembers when he had a broken ankle, where that pain was real and vivid. I think he was just comparing the two, but I could be wrong.

From what I heard on the interview, and maybe I'm wrong, but I think people are taking the "broken ankle" out of context. I feel like he was saying he remembers the abuse vividly and painfully, much like he remembers when he had a broken ankle, where that pain was real and vivid. I think he was just comparing the two, but I could be wrong.

I second the comment on the broken ankle. Also, a kid with a broken ankle and a plausible story for the hospital employees to me would not generally raise a presumption of child abuse.

As to the abuse after the children began to reside with the Maples in Tennessee, I believe this is what happened:

1. Baskins place children at Maples' home.
2. Sandra and Debbie fight, and the Baskins are no longer welcome to stay at the Maple home while visiting the children.
3. This is when the abuse was continuing - when the Baskins visited the children, but stayed in a motel. (I believe this is the period of "visitation" that is at issue in the case).
4. The Maples then discover the abuse, go to a judge and are given custody of the children. Supervised visitations begin.
5. I am presuming that supervised visitations make it impossible for the abuse to continue, but maybe I am wrong?
6. The Maples fail to show with the children for the final hearing, and the children and the Maples are now officially missing.

Also people keep bringing up why was Michael left behind and Jon has addressed why repeatedly. He was in another county at the time plus he did have some issues that would have made it hard to be able to keep him in hiding. So it's either save 2 of your 3 grandchildren or allow all three of them to be continually abused. What would YOUR choice have been? Marvin and Sandra felt terrible for not rescuing Michael but it just wasn't possible at the time. I think they also hoped that with the attention that would be now focused even more on Mark and Debbie that the abuse towards Michael would stop.

For me personally I would've done everything in my power to save all 3 and have Mark and Debbie put in jail. I would've been screaming it from the mountaintops to anyone who would listen, called CPS, police, etc. until someone opened another investigation into the allegations and took them seriously. This wasn't just Maples vs. Baskins. Allegedly, other people on Debbie's side supported the Maples. Why didn't they too come forward to support the allegations being made, or try to help Michael at some point? The Maples were gone, but Debbie's sisters were not on the run. I wouldn't have taken 2 and ran for 20 years, just crossing my fingers that the third child would be okay after the publicity of the case gained traction.

For me personally I would've done everything in my power to save all 3 and have Mark and Debbie put in jail. I would've been screaming it from the mountaintops to anyone who would listen, called CPS, police, etc. until someone opened another investigation into the allegations and took them seriously. This wasn't just Maples vs. Baskins. Allegedly, other people on Debbie's side supported the Maples. Why didn't they too come forward to support the allegations being made, or try to help Michael at some point? The Maples were gone, but Debbie's sisters were not on the run. I wouldn't have taken 2 and ran for 20 years, just crossing my fingers that the third child would be okay after the publicity of the case gained traction.

The systems have their limitations. There are people throwing fits about issues such as these all the time, but the authorities have their own set of rules (and often their own agendas). Anyone remember the allegations that Beverly Noe had "embarrasing information" on various officials in Oklahoma? (Just an example).

I believe the Maples did everything they reasonably knew they could to get the children away from the abuse, but they knew the limitations of the system. In fact, I wonder if the children had been given back to the Baskins, that the Baskins might have then moved to another state and cut off contact with the Maples which would open the door to the abuse to continue.

As to Debbie's sisters, I think many of us are still eager to know that whole story. We have heard from Jon, so it would be nice to hear from another person connected to what was going on. However right now we should all take a deep breath for a bit and digest this whole thing (and that includes me).

Quite amazing that the consensus on the story has suddenly gone from sick grandparents kidnapped kids having filled their heads with nonsense & threatening to kill them rather than return them, despite there having been zero evidence of abuse from investigations & a judge ruling in the parents favour, to the parents abused the children mentally, physically & sexually.

Is it the Baskins line in piety that has caused this, or the unsubstantiated word of somebody showing all the signs of implanted false memories? No evidence of physical or sexual abuse was ever found on them, nor it seems the other child & no accusations from him, there are no reports of anything untoward about them from anywhere else which if they were kiddie diddlers you would expect to find.

Bingo.

I do think there was some abuse that went on, but it was by a different family member. I wonder if it's possible that the kids have some sort of "Mandela effect" going on where they are misremembering who abused them, and are blaming the parents.

It's possible. Growing up my mother was a pretty intense person. Never any verbal or physical abuse, however, if she said no phone calls after 10pm and the phone rang three minutes after, we'd be up until 3am hearing about it. The whole house. These days I understand why.

A cousin of mine grew up with me after he turned three years old. Initially placed by DCFS, his mother got him back for about two or three years over about sixteen years when she cleaned her act up but it was short lived. The abuse was pretty wicked, at one point his face was crushed by a phone receiver and required some surgery. Every couple of months she'd end up grabbing him from school or he'd keep running away and we'd catch him with his mom scoring drugs or whatever. Seriously sometimes he'd be gone a day or two and be pretty beat up. It was always allegedly her boyfriend at the time or some neighborhood boys. Then when he was about fifteen and I was sixteen, she stabbed him in the face and chest after he'd been gone a couple weeks and my mom couldn't find him. I was with him that evening. I was only a year older than him and we were pretty close. Typically he'd runaway, I'd know where he was and go hang out with them. The trade off is she'd get us booze and dope and let us use her car(even as young as twelve or thirteen) and I thought at least I could lookout for him. That's my grandma's thinking and influence on me.

She goes to prison and once he's eighteen he runs up prison at least two or three times a month. In fact, when she got out, she moved in with him and ended up violating her parole.

Despite witnesses, his mother admitting abuse or whatever, he to this day will not even hold his mom responsible. It was her boyfriend, ex-husband or again some drug dealer. Never mama. I remember her giving this junky a rock to beat him up for what she felt was disrespect. Then when it was done, they would all be fine. Looking back it was pretty sick.

My sister on the other hand, she's another story. Everything that has happened to that boy, is her story. My sister has accused dozens of men of men of abuse, rape and whatever. Seriously, you tell a story, two weeks later she tells it as her own. When she was about eight or nine years old, she's up in the school claiming some strange man living in our house had beat her up. Of course, the school knew who we were as did DCFS, simply because they were at our house weekly. Now, administrators are reluctant to believe her as her story was my mom has a strange man living in the basement and he beat her and mom up with a claw hammer. Yes, a claw hammer. Not a mark on her. They are a bit suspicious that this is some kind of cry for help. All wild fantasy. She can look you right in the face and lie. Some stories she tells, is something out of a movie currently in theaters. Teachers would find notes with elaborate details of my mom getting beat, I was in prison and my cousin was on the run. She reported being raped at school, gave intimate details when she was eleven years old. Fortunately, the school and DCFS was aware of our situation and so up in our business, they knew what was going on. Yet, it has still caused issues in the family.

Just imagine has she said these things with the school or DCFS and they were not aware? Especially during that era.

Anyway, I move on with my life as it's no longer my concern. Then I remember one session when we were all in therapy.

Therapist says to my mother and father, for an abused child, he/she don't know it. That's normal for them. A child doesn't know abuse. You tell him abuse, he looks at you crazy. Of course you are. It's all he knows. You give him this safe place, but it's foreign. He's looking for his normalcy. He's feels the best way to control his life, is to cater to his mother and appease her in a state of constant abuse.

Now for my sister, she sees my parents always in a state of chaos doing everything in their power helping their nephew. She's crying for help. The abuse isn't normal, she hears these stories and then has dreams and this is all very traumatic for her. She hears the abuse and witnesses the end product. There is this constant state of intensity in my house. Because what happened to the abused one is not normal. She knows very traumatic things cause you to give your full and undivided attention and respond. What is worse, is my sister was extremely anxious and nervous. She was always on the brink. Still is, twenty years later. All this stuff, she will tell you is real. It happened.

I haven't spoke to her in a couple of years due to all the chaos and drama she caused. But now thinking back, that's what my house was. There was always was this heightened state of alertness. Due to the element my aunt associated with and her actions, we were always constantly wondering if she was gonna come kill us or end up killing my cousin. I remember being sixteen, having to walk her to school armed. There were nights police watched our house.

I won't even get into all the counselors and social workers in and out. This all was probably very traumatic. Perhaps perception alters processing and interpreting of events. It may feel very real to her.

Honestly until today I haven't given my situation much thought as it was just too much drama. I always felt my parents did the right thing. Reality is, our entire household, family events, hell day to day activities centered around my cousin and his mother. While bad things happened, often. I think the constant state of just knowing something is about to happen, was just as bad.

I guess that partially is probably what gravitates my attention to stories like these. To be fair, my cousin wasn't the only family member we had to harbor. For a summer we had another aunt and my cousins for a summer. Sort of due to the same type of circumstances, but not quite.

My wife works with abused women and children, I'm not going into specifics on that, but she can tell you majority is horrible and disgusting. There are people abusing the service though. Kids sadly are used as weapons. It's not uncommon.

The first thing that troubles me with this case is the lack of specifics. Abuse is a very broad term. Even to say you were physically abused. Imagination could fill a massive gap. I mean someone could jump up and get in your face or you may feel cornered, this occurs once and you call it abuse.

A child doesn't know abuse. Whether it hurts or not. It only becomes abuse when you convey situations to someone who in turn decides to "define it".

Which I think is why, abuse victims often protect abusers. It's not so much they are in denial or even too scared. It's because they don't know what it is.

Social worker comes in and hands you a doll. Asks if momma touches you?

Of course she does. Pats me on the head. Hugs and kiss me.

But how? Does she pat your head like this or like what? Show me?

That's another thing that troubles me with this case. I know how social workers/therapists and shrinks operate. There is a lack of specifics. I think there is a reason. Specifics would result in evidence. You say you were raped? A child would show physical trauma. You were beat? Pictures. Documentation. Medical professionals. Teachers. Neighbors.

None of it exists.

Listen. If I'm kidnapping a child because I truly believe there is actual abuse, you damn well better believe I'd have pictures and medical records galore. At my mothers house there is a box of my cousins legal and medical records. Hundreds of pictures, letters and documents. Not to mention, friends and family who have witnessed the abuse.

What bothers me the most though- is the contradictions.

On one hand, here is a father going to school far away. He's away from a child for months. Yet, when there is a supervised visitation occurs, he's a sexual deviant and his abusive urges are so uncontrollable he abuses the children during a supervised visitation?

Okay so what occurred?

Well he physically and sexually abused the children?

What happened?

He abused the children.

Doing what?

Things, I won't go into specifics.

Okay, so in front of a social worker during a court ordered supervised visit, the children were sexually and physically abused?

Okay did he punch his son and kick his daughter? Did you take the child to a doctor? Did you photograph bruises? Did you report the social worker for allowing it to occur?

Here's the thing. While I appreciate the narrative and this sad story, it's just not real. Maybe some forgot, some not old enough to remember or simply choose to ignore is that kidnapping fear and "Satanic Ritual Abuse"(SRA) was in full swing during that era. Social services and Child Protective Services were amplified and their budgets skyrocketed. Children were getting ripped out of homes not due to actual abuse, but retaliation. Foster homes were getting packed and states were looking for people to step up. In fact, the FBI was getting briefed about these cults daily. Yet, it simply wasn't true. It didn't exist. Despite no evidence of such activity, states put laws in place that required children to be ripped out of homes for 72 hours if sexual abuse was mentioned, even from anonymous sources.

Children were giving vivid details of abuse.

I suggest people who don't understand this, look into McMartin Preschool Trial. The Bronx Five. Little Rascals. Children were elaborating on abuse, claiming there were dungeons and tunnels under the school. These kids gave vivid details. Psychologists were making careers of this hysteria. Suddenly people were thirty years-old remembering abuse at schools, churches, rest stops, etc.. Talks shows ran segments night and day. Doctors wrote books, cult experts armed with PhDs were charging two-hundred bucks an hour to provide testimony based on junk science. Legislation flew out of state houses. Kids in the 80s were asked if they were molested by everyone. You'd get grilled at school, at home and on TV.

Only problem is... it just simply isn't true. What's worse? Some innocent men and women went to prison. Most, however, went bankrupt attempting to protect their name to no avail. Imagine police storming your child's daycare and digging up the lawn and the police handing out every client a letter stating they are investigating the daycare for sexual abuse of children? Gonna send your kid there even if they are cleared?

What it boils down to is when these children realized abuse was abuse. Again, there are broad accusations and lack of specifics. Lack of corroboration and substantiation.

The narrative and pattern follows like every other story about "Satanic Ritual Abuse".

I know the current narrative is that only the Baskins made the claim, however, Mr. Maple made the accusation. It also seems the moment anyone comes out in support of the Baskins, they are immediately discredited as nutcase or "handicapped" or suffers from dementia.

Anyone who is in support of the Maples, some distant Aunt or whatever, simply offers "We knew something was up?" suddenly that is just more proof?

Seriously? I followed many cases like these. Same damn pattern. Lots of hysterics and broad accusations. Then they throw on the "well if it was your kids and you had no choice but to run, would you do it to save your kids"?

My mother and father stood there time and time again in court, and we had my cousin. As I said before my aunt would get him here and there the few times she committed herself to the programs and stipulations which at times took years. But it was a major fight, but there was substantial proof. I can assure you to this day, the court always believed that my aunt just happened to have a poor choice in men and put my cousin bad situations where he was abused. It was her. You would never hear him say it, even today.

Anyway, it's an intense subject. I've discussed this on other boards over the years. Often it gets pretty heated and I'm glad it's remained civil as it should.

I think its pretty obvious I'm suspicious of the narrative. Child abuse and abuse of women really burns me to the core.

Jon, I thought it was important to put something personal out there. It's gotta be tough to see people discuss you and your situation and only get a brief idea from reading an article or watching an hour program. One thing you said is your a survivor and you're right. That's all that matters. I guess everyone has a story and there is a reason they have certain perspectives.

As much as I like reading discussions and doing my best to just get one more piece of information, I think this is one of the first times a board discussion seriously made me look at my situation. Been angry at my sister for years and haven't spoke in sometime. Thinking back with all the drama, she was kinda on the side and perhaps she wanted to heard and acknowledged, but some drama always was more important than what was going on in her world. She's reached out a few times, I shut her down. Now, I'm gonna call her and for the first time, if she opts to talk about it, I'm gonna listen. If she doesn't, then we can turn the page. Reality is, we both endured some drama and survived.

One thing everyone has learned from you and your sister, is that you can survive no matter how rough the road is. Everyone has a story and hardships, but I can only imagine what you endured. All too often these UMs end tragically, but this is one I think touches the soul.

All these years later I'm still not sure what REALLY went down with this mob.

Quite amazing that the consensus on the story has suddenly gone from sick grandparents kidnapped kids having filled their heads with nonsense & threatening to kill them rather than return them, despite there having been zero evidence of abuse from investigations & a judge ruling in the parents favour, to the parents abused the children mentally, physically & sexually.

I think many of us have evolved our thinking for several reasons:

1) When most of us originally viewed these stories, we were much younger, probably not as mature, and we believed what UM presented was the total and complete truth. Now we know there may be more to the story... (This is not a rip on UM, but more of a mature look at how stories on TV are presented.)

2) This case is infinitely more complicated than it first appeared. Hearing Jon Bunting on TV and on this forum really made me re-think this case from the perspective of him and his sister. I'm not saying I totally switched my thinking, but it has definitely made me question my original beliefs.

3) One person's parenting is another person's abuse. Living in Minnesota, I was appalled (as were many others) when Adrian Peterson beat his son with a switch. Most of us thought he was a monster. He thought he was just being a good parent. Many others jumped to his defense, saying "I was raised that way."

So let's suppose for a second that the Baskins were ultra-religious and strict in their parenting. They may have been raising their kids with methods that others see as abuse. (I would never lay a finger on my kids but others don't think twice about smacking their own kids on the butt for being naughty.) I can especially see Debbie's parents having very different views than Mark, as the father. Mark and Debbie may believe they did nothing wrong, while Jon and Jennifer may really believe they were abused -- and they could both be right! I think this may come down to what people's view is on what is acceptable.

As I stated earlier, I haven't changed from "poor Mark and Debbie" to "hang Mark and Debbie!" but I have realized this is probably way more complex than when I was in high school and first saw it on UM.

I should also add, this is just my thoughts and I could still be WAY OFF on this. I am sensitive to the feelings of all involved. This is a really sad story no matter how you look at it. Again, I just really hope they can all find their own version of peace through this ordeal.

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.


Not only did they not adult-up, but because I questioned his side of the story, he sent me a message basically accusing me of being a ....well, it still disgusts me very much so I won't even say the 'p' word.......because I didn't take their side. Saying that I somehow enjoyed the story? I guess the 'thing' to do is if a family member joins this forum, you are supposed to flip and believe them because they posted here - out of awe of talking to someone who was involved in a case you saw on TV on a show you love. He did apologize and obviously he has some issues, but sheesh. I'm not saying that the Baskin side doesn't have issues too, then again I think that about most religious fundamentalists. Sorry it hasn't worked out for the parents to see the kids, I want a "happily ever after" story on everything I see on UM, but I guess that sums it all up: life isn't fair.

Not only did they not adult-up, but because I questioned his side of the story, he sent me a message basically accusing me of being a ....well, it still disgusts me very much so I won't even say the 'p' word.......because I didn't take their side. Saying that I somehow enjoyed the story? I guess the 'thing' to do is if a family member joins this forum, you are supposed to flip and believe them because they posted here - out of awe of talking to someone who was involved in a case you saw on TV on a show you love. He did apologize and obviously he has some issues, but sheesh. I'm not saying that the Baskin side doesn't have issues too, then again I think that about most religious fundamentalists. Sorry it hasn't worked out for the parents to see the kids, I want a "happily ever after" story on everything I see on UM, but I guess that sums it all up: life isn't fair.

When the Baskin children were found, I think many of us on here were thrilled and yes, hoped for the fairy tale ending where they could all reunite and live happily ever after.

However, we only had one piece of the story. I don't know what the truth is better than anyone else. Only Jon/Jennifer and Mark/Debbie know that, and even then, it may come down to perspective (see my earlier post).

Imagine if someone on a web forum made accusations about your mom and dad when they weren't even their to know what happened. We are all entitled to our own opinion but we do need to remember that we are seeing this from the gallery and this is very real/emotional/painful for those directly involved.

I hope this didn't come off as a lecture -- that's not what I intended. But I just feel it is easy to be judgmental or say this like "adult up" when we have no idea what these people have or are going through.

Not only did they not adult-up, but because I questioned his side of the story, he sent me a message basically accusing me of being a ....well, it still disgusts me very much so I won't even say the 'p' word.......because I didn't take their side. Saying that I somehow enjoyed the story? I guess the 'thing' to do is if a family member joins this forum, you are supposed to flip and believe them because they posted here - out of awe of talking to someone who was involved in a case you saw on TV on a show you love. He did apologize and obviously he has some issues, but sheesh. I'm not saying that the Baskin side doesn't have issues too, then again I think that about most religious fundamentalists. Sorry it hasn't worked out for the parents to see the kids, I want a "happily ever after" story on everything I see on UM, but I guess that sums it all up: life isn't fair.

Yes I remember how rude you were to him on that thread back when Jon posted. It doesn't even matter whether you believe him or not, it's all about RESPECT! If someone directly involved in a UM segment actually uses this board to break his silence after not speaking publicly in over 7 years they should be treated with respect. It is always good to hear both sides and it was as if you were annoyed that the other side came on here and posted his side of the story and that some people actually believed him. As for why some of us chose to believe him as for me there were always a few things about the segment that didn't sit right with me and hearing his side really made things seem clearer in my mind and I believe his side now over the Baskins. It's my right to do so as it's your right to believe the Baskins. I do know about the pm exchange and what he said to you and that he also apologized but I also know that you had posted prior to him joining that after hearing about Marvin Maple's death you wanted him (Marvin) to rot in hell. I can't speak for him but if someone had wished that the man who raised me would "rot in hell" and post it in a public forum shortly after his death I would be angered as well.

Yes I remember how rude you were to him on that thread back when Jon posted. It doesn't even matter whether you believe him or not, it's all about RESPECT! If someone directly involved in a UM segment actually uses this board to break his silence after not speaking publicly in over 7 years they should be treated with respect. It is always good to hear both sides and it was as if you were annoyed that the other side came on here and posted his side of the story and that some people actually believed him. As for why some of us chose to believe him as for me there were always a few things about the segment that didn't sit right with me and hearing his side really made things seem clearer in my mind and I believe his side now over the Baskins. It's my right to do so as it's your right to believe the Baskins. I do know about the pm exchange and what he said to you and that he also apologized but I also know that you had posted prior to him joining that after hearing about Marvin Maple's death you wanted him (Marvin) to rot in hell. I can't speak for him but if someone had wished that the man who raised me would "rot in hell" and post it in a public forum shortly after his death I would be angered as well.

I don't apologize for saying that - I watched the show and saw the side of the Baskins (whether right or not). I am outraged any time there is a kidnapping (it was an illegal kidnapping, and Marvin and Sandra were *wanted* on the run - it wasn't a "lost love" segment). It is my belief (whether you agree or not) that the kids were young and when you are young the elders around you (the grandparents) can instill certain things into you enough (plus all the moving around, changing names) that you can come to believe things to be true 100% - not saying nothing happened. I think there were legal ways to go about things (CPS for example) instead of outright denying the parents the right to see the kids by running away and assuming another name. So yes, since I do believe in innocent until proven guilty or at least some shred of actual evidence, I believe that they didn't do anything and it was more of an internal spat between the Baskins and the Maples, and I think it's abhorrent and very cruel to deny them the right to see the kids. If I had any knowledge of abuse, which I don't, and which you don't, I might feel that the ends justified the means and they did the right thing taking them away from the parents. If they actually did something to them, which I have no proof they did, of course I would be outraged as well. I can understand why he would be upset about the comment, as he obviously believes something happened (whether it did or they are false memories, I don't know), and they were the ones he grew up with, so obviously he loved his grandparents. But in a sense, the grandparents made themselves public figures thanks to the show and their actions, whether you agree with them or not. I would feel the same way if a family member of a politician joined a forum and there were negative comments about the politician - you don't have to love them or even be agreeable to them just because they are famous, because they can't take criticism.

The argument was offered by someone that "well, Debbie can join this forum too and give her side!" (paraphrasing). I didn't know that it was a requirement to have to come and defend yourself when you are accused of something on the Internet, or that you are somehow guilty if you don't, especially when it's something so painful which has obviously hurt her too if you have read her blog posts or seen the interviews. And no, I don't know her or anyone in the family, and have no interest in the case other than having seen it on Unsolved Mysteries, and being interested in several cases I have seen on the program.

That's really all I have to say on the matter - we all form our own opinions based on what we see and hear, and we have a right to them, and we have a right to voice those opinions if we feel strongly about something. I'm not going to be drawn into another flame war or private message attack for happening to believe the Baskins. I'm always open to changing my opinion about something - I wouldn't just believe the earth is flat forever when there's evidence to the contrary. But it's up to the accusers (just like the prosecuting attorney in a court room has to) to provide convincing evidence that something happened and therefore the actions taken were justified. And then it's up to the jury (in this case, the readers of the Internet which certainly will never be unanimous) to evaluate said evidence and place guilt or blame. As a few have said in this thread and others, I still have not seen any real evidence that has changed my mind. Maybe the truth is in the middle somewhere, as someone else said. I don't know.

When the Baskin children were found, I think many of us on here were thrilled and yes, hoped for the fairy tale ending where they could all reunite and live happily ever after.

However, we only had one piece of the story. I don't know what the truth is better than anyone else. Only Jon/Jennifer and Mark/Debbie know that, and even then, it may come down to perspective (see my earlier post).

Imagine if someone on a web forum made accusations about your mom and dad when they weren't even their to know what happened. We are all entitled to our own opinion but we do need to remember that we are seeing this from the gallery and this is very real/emotional/painful for those directly involved.

I hope this didn't come off as a lecture -- that's not what I intended. But I just feel it is easy to be judgmental or say this like "adult up" when we have no idea what these people have or are going through.

Yep, I saw an article online I believe it is from the year they were found where the person is calling them ungrateful brats. Appalling stuff, we have to remember that either way they are victims-if they were on the end of abuse from their birth parents then they are victims of that & having had some of that from my dad as a child it will mess you up, or they are victims of brainwashing against their parents by people they then came to view as their parents. They spent the majority of their lives with those people & will obviously be hugely protective towards them.

I think the kids were victimized by their grandparents and brainwashed into believing their parents were monsters. Their whole life has been one big lie crafted by vengeful grandparents. It's sad.

Same. I'm glad I challenged the kid when he came here. More than deserved, for the slight of hand he tried to pull. I'm sure the new version was deemed necessary because of some of the doubts posted here, and sooner or later we'll have another new explanation.

That's the way these things work. Meanwhile, one side was hiding and the other side was searching. Fairly basic. In a world of Happy Adjusters naturally some suckers will prefer to believe the searchers were at fault. Let's play ping pong depending on who had the most recent word. Tilt thataway. That type also loves to rely on outliers as opposed to the rule. It reminds me of those genius, "You never know..." sports announcers, who always have to feed us the line that maybe one guy will hole out from deep rough 215 yards away under the tree while his opponent might 4 putt from 3 feet.

I'll keep waiting for that.

Apparently other posters here were considerably more harsh than I was in that other thread. Huh. I might have revisit. Sounds entertaining.

You are referring to when Bobby visited the thread yes?

5. Many of us were surprised the Baskins played themselves in the reenactment. Did anyone else find the huge sunglasses Debbie wore when being interviewed for the news segment strange?

I seem to remember a blog post Debbie made a few years ago in which she describes being diagnosed with Sjorgren's syndrome. The light may further irritate her eyes.

Not only did they not adult-up, but because I questioned his side of the story, he sent me a message basically accusing me of being a ....well, it still disgusts me very much so I won't even say the 'p' word.......because I didn't take their side. Saying that I somehow enjoyed the story? I guess the 'thing' to do is if a family member joins this forum, you are supposed to flip and believe them because they posted here - out of awe of talking to someone who was involved in a case you saw on TV on a show you love. He did apologize and obviously he has some issues, but sheesh. I'm not saying that the Baskin side doesn't have issues too, then again I think that about most religious fundamentalists. Sorry it hasn't worked out for the parents to see the kids, I want a "happily ever after" story on everything I see on UM, but I guess that sums it all up: life isn't fair.


Absolutely. I did have the fortunate experience of receiving some messages and talking to a few folks with direct knowledge of the case.

There is some new information that I wasn't aware prior, or at least didn't remember. It appears there were two judges involved in this case. I also learned that there was a guardian ad litem appointed for the children who did an exceptional job. Now for those not familiar, usually the court requires an attorney to act on the minors' behalf who is independent of the state and other parties involved.

The initial petition was when emergency interim custody was granted by Judge Corlew in his chambers. He did so without interviewing the children, without any physical evidence and without the Baskins or their attorney present. The petition simply charged that Mark Baskin and his father, were "rough" with the children in regards to discipline and they felt that Mark could not adequately support all his children. They cited "discipline", "negligence" and "abandonment". The Department of Children Services was brought in granting the Baskins court supervised visitations. Karen Hornsby was appointed as attorney for the children who subsequently investigated the allegations of abuse being investigated by the Rutherford County Sheriff Department and the Tennessee Department of Children Services.

At no point did the Maples suggest sexual, physical or emotional abuse. I was directed to an exchange between the Baskin and Maple camp in an old newspaper story which allowed comments. It was stated that during this time that Sandra Maple was not happy with Mark Baskin regarding his religious beliefs and was disappointed that their daughter had converted. It was the subject of controversy with the family for years.

Now, I do believe that to be true. During this exchange in the article's comments section, members of the Maple camps began attacking Mark and Debbie regarding their religious beliefs, so it appears to still be an issue to this very day. The court investigation found this also to be also true(as I was told by someone close to the case). It was said while there were differences in philosophy regarding child rearing between the Maples and the Baskins, however, abuse did not exist.

It appears Judge Corlew was going to order the children back to the Baskins and they(the children) were required to be at court. Prior to the court date, the Maples charge that Mark Baskin was "sexually abusing" both children during a court ordered supervised visit at the Maple's home. Now, it appears during the hearing that the Maples, who did not produce the children, claimed they were told by the children they were "beat, raped and molested". It gets better. The Maples nor the DCS representative witnessed such abuse nor knew when it occurred during the session.

That is a serious problem.

Now it was either due to that hearing or a subsequent one that Judge Corlew was removed from the case. It is my understanding that he subsequently lost his job due to sanctions imposed on him directly related to this case(some time later). It is my understanding he failed to follow due process, procedure and civil statutes.

Rightfully so.

Then Judge Jeff Henry was assigned the case and it appears he wanted to get to the bottom of this. Now, it is my understanding that the Maples time and time again were ordered to bring the children to the hearings. Of course, time and time again they made excuses not to bring them into court. The Maple's threw a Hail Mary and continued to file motions and grievances basically claiming that the social workers and guardian ad litem were allowing the children to be abused because Mark Baskin was a powerful and influential individual(even though they initially claimed he was basically a deadbeat who abandoned his children?). Yes, it was alleged that there was a secret society and Mark Baskin possibly had influence over the DCS social worker and guardian ad litem.

“Quite honestly, I think this is the most abusive thing I’ve seen someone do in a court of law in my 19 years of practice”, according to Judge Henry when he cleared the Baskins of abuse.

Sorry folks, but the Maple's narrative is fantasy. Nothing more, nothing less.

As someone else also stated, I'm not a fan over the whole religious propaganda the Baskins peddle, but that doesn't warrant false accusations and child abduction. All evidence suggests that Sandra and Marvin were obsessed with the two children and the relationship was unconventional. According to Detective McGowen, Sandra had conversations with friends and neighbors which she expressed disdain for Mark Baskin in regards to his religious background. The Maple's thought they had secured custody of the children since they muddied the waters with accusations of sexual abuse. Sandra and Marvin equated their religion to abuse. It was later uncovered by the Karen Hornsby that the Maples had placed their home for sale, so she issued a warrant for the Maple's arrest.

From day one, the Maples had every intention on keeping the two children. Yes, the children probably expressed their preference to stay with the Maples. Probably due to some discipline and structure, which the Maples didn't require. Typical excuse for third parties who like to overstep their bounds. It is not uncommon.

Any fanboy of UM who is playing "friend" to the Buntings and propagating abuse is absolutely doing them no favors engaging and pretending that this fantasy is real. If you truly gave a damn, not blinded by speaking with someone featured on your favorite show, you would be sympathetic to their abduction, but not playing along with the fantasy and publicly calling the Baskins pedophiles. You're adults and yes there is freedom of speech, but you're accountable for what you say. If you are going to call people child molesters and pedophiles, you will be challenged and pressed for proof. As for Jon and Jennifer, you're adults now. Despite all this fear that Michael will arrange some kind of ambush with Debbie and Mark, pure nonsense. It's an excuse. It's gonna be pretty hard to play along with that narrative with someone who was there too. It's going to be understandably painful to look him in the eye and tell him lies. Actually sitting down seven and eight year-old asking them would they rather go on the lam and run away and be different people, folks this is Peter Pan BS.

I certainly understand if the Buntings have no desire to speak to Mark and Debbie, that's their choice. If it's based on fiction though, that's another issue. Siblings on both sides have expressed a desire to reunite. The only thing keeping the siblings apart is the "fantasy" on behalf of Jon and Jennifer. Michael has expressed regardless of their position, he has no problem meeting them and not touching the past if that is their wish. People on the forums who are playing this "well they are victims and we have to be sympathetic to their feelings"; essentially the fanboys of UM who get to talk with people featured on cases, it's time to be an adult and to do the adult thing. You are doing them no favors by engaging in fiction. The reality is, there is a family ripped apart, solely due to selfish grandparents who overstepped their bounds. A man goes to school to better his life and the life for his children and ask a favor of his in-laws. They in turn get attached and there is a philosophical difference in bringing them up(heard this directly from the Maple camp from two sources), they take it to court, The court finds that religious upbringing and the "discipline" described is not classified as abuse nor was there neglect. The Maples then escalate the case and file motion after motion, doing whatever they can to gain custody of these children. Children were probably much happier without the Baskins structured upbringing. Getting to stay up late and not required to attend school and extra-curricular activities. Baskins probably engaged in some forms of corporal punishment. Maples didn't like it, overstepped their bounds and used the court and children as weapons.

Great post & makes things a lot clearer. Inventing sex abuse was obviously their last desperate attempt to get custody or to buy more time to put their escape plan into action. The case is similar to the Jared Peters one.

I'm going to pop in here and say a few quick things and then pretty much leave again.

James T, I'm just picking you because you mentioned one thing that I never really got into in the other board before, and another that was misunderstood by many from the interview, so I'm going to throw it out there.

The son remembers vividly the pain-like having his ankle broken, yet there is it seems no medical records of this.

I broke my ankle in California. I am comparing the pain associated with that later memory that was not part of the supposed "brainwashing" stuff to pain associated with the other memories that were supposedly implanted.


How can this be anything else other than brainwashing?

To even ask this question, one must first consider what brainwashing is. This is something that has gotten on my nerves from the start. "Brainwashing" is a term for a specific form of mind control that was coined in reference specifically to the type of torture techniques utilized on the American POWs during the Korean War. A known enemy utilized any means of breaking someone's will, from sleep deprivation, starvation, or more brutal methods, to have a direct influence on what the victims would say or do. These often not even impacted the long-term thought process of the victims, as they often went back to their original way of thinking once removed from imprisonment, and often times they may have knowingly went along just to stop the pain. So let's recap: brainwashing is a form of mind control inflicted on a victim from a KNOWN ENEMY using PHYSICAL COERCION.

Unfortunately, brainwashing has been long used by the general public and, yes, media who are not actually aware of the word's origins or actual meaning, to mean any form of undue influence on another person's thoughts or actions, even as the academia strays away from this as it is NOT CORRECT. Even Wikipedia has it wrong (but big surprise there, right?).

So EVEN IF I was influenced by my grandparents into believing something that was not true... this wouldn't be a case of brainwashing because that is not was brainwashing is. Neither were known enemies, and neither utilized any type of physical discomfort or pain in order to make me "come around."

Now, I remember telling my grandparents about what happened. My memory is that the first time it came up I had just visited Mac Baskin's farm. My grandma asked if I enjoyed myself. I was sitting on the floor in front of the TV eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. I said, "No." She asked me, "Why not?" And I slowly started to tell her. She pretty quickly stopped what she was doing in the kitchen, turned off the TV, and started to listen very intently and asking me for more detail, am I making this up, where did I hear about these things, etc., etc. The rest is very graphic.

Now, people on this board would say that somehow THAT memory has also been implanted. OK. I'll play devil's advocate. IF that memory was ALSO implanted, and it's not "brainwashing," then what is it?

"Mind control" is a very broad, non-specific term, and can refer to anything from, yes, brainwashing, to hypnosis. It also has a tendency to indicate, at least via the public perception, that there is absolute control of a person's thoughts and actions, that their will is completely and utterly taken away... But... that's not what this is, and I doubt that's what anyone would say this is. Let's talk about cults and how they influence members. A cult will utilize a very advanced series of intentional methods to redirect someone's core sense of beliefs, sometimes (as is theorized), even memories. These influences will then redirect an individuals perception -- of pretty much EVERYTHING: the world, themselves, people they know. This altered perception will then have an impact on a the individuals actions as they navigate life, as (s)he MAKES THE CHOICE to alter her/his life, personality, and decisions based on this new perception of reality. The term "undue influence," which dates back to a British trial where an individual took advantage of another's mental illness to impact decision making to his own gain, is a term that has become popular with many who work against cults and their activities in describing what has so often been mislabeled as "brainwashing." "Undue influence" also specifically refers to situations where there is a pre-existing, trusting relationship between the influencer and the influenced.

So, if you want to say that my memories have been compromised, and that my thoughts and actions are being impacted by a belief that has been introduced from the outside, then you should call it "undue influence." It's the most accurate term available.

A final note: If I have been impacted in any way, whether it be through brainwashing, mind control, undue influence, or whatever other wording one might choose, I would ask this: if my grandparents had such a hold over me, if they were able to get inside my head and rearrange my thoughts, beliefs, and memories to a degree, then why do I disagree with them at all? Why don't I hold their beliefs? They were both devote Christians. We read a chapter from the Bible EVERY DAY, in order, from Monday - Saturday, and did the same on Sunday but we were on a different pace, so each Sunday picked up from where we left off the previous Sunday. I can quote many parts of the Bible, and if you quote it there's a fair to midland chance I'll have a good idea the general part of the bible you're quoting. I've read the Bible cover to cover (except the genealogy stuff) at least 10 times in my life, and the New Testament even more (because that's all we read on Sunday). So... why am I not a Christian anymore? I find it odd that I would possess the gumption to have enough free will to think, "If a God who is so powerful that he can harden or soften the heart of a Pharaoh to do his will, and he allowed such horrors to be visited upon myself, my brother, and my sister at such an innocent age, then I cannot say this is a God for me, no matter what higher power it serves."

That's it for now. Probably won't post again until I finish my autobiography.

Now, I remember telling my grandparents about what happened. My memory is that the first time it came up I had just visited Mac Baskin's farm. My grandma asked if I enjoyed myself. I was sitting on the floor in front of the TV eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. I said, "No." She asked me, "Why not?" And I slowly started to tell her. She pretty quickly stopped what she was doing in the kitchen, turned off the TV, and started to listen very intently and asking me for more detail, am I making this up, where did I hear about these things, etc., etc. The rest is very graphic.



Thanks for posting again Jon! This memory you recounted is a perfect example. The memories you have are of the actual abuse and you revealing it TO your grandparents not your grandparents telling YOU what occurred which is what would have had to happen for them to orchestrate this manipulation and false memory implanting they are so often accused of. It's easy to accuse people of very serious accusations when they are no longer around to defend themselves which is why it's great you can now be a voice for them.

Please don't leave John! I like you. You looked very distinguished in your interview. You have been through so much. We are here for you if you ever need to talk

Thanks for the post TakeAWildGuess. Really it is just a term, we can call it what we like, the popular one during the Satanic Panics/Child Abuse panics/Alien Abductions stories of the 1980's & early 1990's is False Memory Syndrome.

How could you stop believing in God? Well you imply that you did-so likely this was as a result of you parents & your grandparents influence all through your formative years, when you are away from that influence-either via leaving home or through people passing away. I was a firm believer in the supernatural from childhood through to probably early 20's because there were uncritical books in the house on ghosts, UFO's etc, mostly uncritical television shows on them & tabloid media articles/magazines that were uncritical. As soon as I stopped reading them/started reading critical thinking books I stopped believing & I have never 'seen' any ghosts or UFO'S since, which I 'saw' several of previously.

I would like to see you reply to the post by SertumAEnigmA on this page & address his/her points-especially as to why there was no allegation of abuse until you were set to be returned to your parents & the discrepancy that your grandparents original issue before the abuse allegations were unhappy with your birth parents religious beliefs, yet you say your grandparents were deeply religious-making you read a chapter from the bible everyday. I do believe you & your sister were both victims of abuse-but religious abuse from both your parents & your grandparents & as we have seen religion can cause a lot of problems for people.

I certainly understand if the Buntings have no desire to speak to Mark and Debbie, that's their choice. If it's based on fiction though, that's another issue. Siblings on both sides have expressed a desire to reunite. The only thing keeping the siblings apart is the "fantasy" on behalf of Jon and Jennifer. Michael has expressed regardless of their position, he has no problem meeting them and not touching the past if that is their wish. People on the forums who are playing this "well they are victims and we have to be sympathetic to their feelings"; essentially the fanboys of UM who get to talk with people featured on cases, it's time to be an adult and to do the adult thing. You are doing them no favors by engaging in fiction. The reality is, there is a family ripped apart, solely due to selfish grandparents who overstepped their bounds. A man goes to school to better his life and the life for his children and ask a favor of his in-laws. They in turn get attached and there is a philosophical difference in bringing them up(heard this directly from the Maple camp from two sources), they take it to court, The court finds that religious upbringing and the "discipline" described is not classified as abuse nor was there neglect. The Maples then escalate the case and file motion after motion, doing whatever they can to gain custody of these children. Children were probably much happier without the Baskins structured upbringing. Getting to stay up late and not required to attend school and extra-curricular activities. Baskins probably engaged in some forms of corporal punishment. Maples didn't like it, overstepped their bounds and used the court and children as weapons.

Thank you for that informative post. I've always believed that the devil worship/sexual abuse was a "hail mary" as you have said. IIRC, the investigation into the allegations was a year long, and was extremely thorough. I don't deny that the abuse was nonexistent. I just don't believe that the Baskins were the ones doing it.

Thank you for that informative post. I've always believed that the devil worship/sexual abuse was a "hail mary" as you have said. IIRC, the investigation into the allegations was a year long, and was extremely thorough. I don't deny that the abuse was nonexistent. I just don't believe that the Baskins were the ones doing it.

But if the abuse happened and the Baskins failed to acknowledge it and/or protect their children from it, is what the Maples did wrong?

But if the abuse happened and the Baskins failed to acknowledge it and/or protect their children from it, is what the Maples did wrong?

From my understanding, Mark was the one who filed abuse allegations against his father. The charges were dropped. Shortly after this is when Mark and Debbie moved and the Maples took in the two oldest children. And this is when the allegations of abuse/satanic cults/sacrificing animals came into play. Of which no evidence was found. So yes, what the Maples did was wrong. It was kidnapping.

But if the abuse happened and the Baskins failed to acknowledge it and/or protect their children from it, is what the Maples did wrong?

If you believe them, what the Maples did was no better. We're talking about a man who ran around for months telling close friends he'd kill the children before he'd turn them over to the Baskins.

Obvious this was more about him, not the safety of the children. Typical signs of a controlling, manipulative obsessive abuser.

From my understanding, Mark was the one who filed abuse allegations against his father. The charges were dropped. Shortly after this is when Mark and Debbie moved and the Maples took in the two oldest children. And this is when the allegations of abuse/satanic cults/sacrificing animals came into play. Of which no evidence was found. So yes, what the Maples did was wrong. It was kidnapping.

Actually the "satanic ritual abuse" allegations came much later. In fact, according to Lt. Bill Sharp(who has been very upfront and open regarding his investigation), Sandra sought the advice of people on how to obtain "custody" of the children when it appeared their baseless and unsubstantiated accusations lost traction with Judge Henry.

"The grandparents’ allegations became more bizarre and included talk of satanic worship and cults, and their list of alleged perpetrators grew to include social workers, attorneys and mental health officials", said Sharp to the press.

I think folks are under the impression that Sandra Maple was told one afternoon by Bobby that he was being sexually abused by his father and mother, and for 20 years their story was unwavering.

Both children 'outed' their grandparents to not only police investigators, but to DCS case workers and mental health professionals. Sandra and Marvin alleged to family members that they had "medical records" that proved the rape of both children, they even told the court this to obtain a continuance to buy more time with custody of the two.

Truth is, it was never provided to the court, simply because it didn't exist. When time began to run out as they failed time and time again to provide the evidence they claimed to have, they began to claim that Mark and Debbie were "sexual abusing" the children during court ordered supervised visits. When the court pressed as to why both the Maples failed to protect the children from Mark and Debbie from being sexually abused in their own home with the DCS case worker present, they simply said they did not know when it occurred during the visit. It's just what the children had told them.

It was alleged that Marvin had rescued one or both children from a "coven", where children were sacrificed. When pressed for dates and times, he was evasive.

As the clock ticked and the Maples knew that they absolutely had no basis or case to keep the children, he made it clear that he would "kill the children" before handing them over to authorities. Typical signs of the obsessive, manipulative types.

The Maples and/or Buntings have had ample time to hand over all the medical records they claimed to have that would fully exonerate their grandmother and grandfather's "good names" to the courts. They had 20 years.

It just simply wasn't true.

Sadly I would even settle for part of the story had Jon been honest and said "yes my grandparents did lie, because they honestly believed I was abused". Instead he played along with the narrative and insisted that the sexual abuse continued during the court ordered supervised visits, which both Maples and a social worker was present for. Once the "satanic ritual" angle looked just plain nonsensical, he lied and charged that this was invented by the Baskins, despite the fact that records exist and numerous investigators have publicly stated that the Maples were the ones who told this narrative to investigators and the court for months.

Which is it?

Month after month, the case evolved and became more bizarre. Sharp and Goodwin extensively investigated this case even taking the side of the Buntings, and made it clear he would take a look at evidence they would provide. But they didn't even cooperate and provide all this exculpatory evidence they claimed to exist following Marvin's arrest.

His defense attorney certainly hasn't provided it.

So while there are those who will take Jon's word as divine unwavering truth, there are numerous occasions where his narrative has also changed. When pressed for specifics, he is then evasive and uses broad generic descriptions.

Again, I would have been inclined to believe that "elements" of abuse existed while in the Baskin home, if only he had been honest and admitted that "yes, Marvin and Sandra lied their asses off".

I feel a little on the fence now that I've read all this. Things don't seem quite as cut-and-dry as they appeared on UM or in the articles I've read over the years.

I always wanted to know more about Debbie's sisters and why they apparently sided with their parents. I wish UM had interviewed them as it may have cleared up a few of the questions we've all been asking. Perhaps the show reached out to them and they declined. I didn't even know that Debbie had any siblings at all because the segment basically gave the impression that she was an only child. I kind of wonder if they never liked or approved of Mark for some reason and felt that when Debbie married him, she changed or that Mark changed her. Some families get like that.

I do agree in retrospect that the segment was pretty one-sided. IIRC, the segment portrays the allegations as sort of happening out of the blue. We never hear if there were any family issues between Debbie and her parents or sisters that could have hinted at what was to come. Compare that to the case of Camela Harman whose mother Tracy kidnapped her son John. The segment goes into great detail about Tracy was a very controlling parent who constantly told Camela that she was a rotten mother because she worked instead of staying home with her son and collecting welfare as a single mother. In other words, there's some context to it.

Whether there was even the tiniest sliver of truth in the Maples' allegations against the Baskins, I think there was a lot that the segment left out that would have created a more balanced picture.

Actually the "satanic ritual abuse" allegations came much later. In fact, according to Lt. Bill Sharp(who has been very upfront and open regarding his investigation), Sandra sought the advice of people on how to obtain "custody" of the children when it appeared their baseless and unsubstantiated accusations lost traction with Judge Henry.

"The grandparents’ allegations became more bizarre and included talk of satanic worship and cults, and their list of alleged perpetrators grew to include social workers, attorneys and mental health officials", said Sharp to the press.

I think folks are under the impression that Sandra Maple was told one afternoon by Bobby that he was being sexually abused by his father and mother, and for 20 years their story was unwavering.

Both children 'outed' their grandparents to not only police investigators, but to DCS case workers and mental health professionals. Sandra and Marvin alleged to family members that they had "medical records" that proved the rape of both children, they even told the court this to obtain a continuance to buy more time with custody of the two.

Truth is, it was never provided to the court, simply because it didn't exist. When time began to run out as they failed time and time again to provide the evidence they claimed to have, they began to claim that Mark and Debbie were "sexual abusing" the children during court ordered supervised visits. When the court pressed as to why both the Maples failed to protect the children from Mark and Debbie from being sexually abused in their own home with the DCS case worker present, they simply said they did not know when it occurred during the visit. It's just what the children had told them.

It was alleged that Marvin had rescued one or both children from a "coven", where children were sacrificed. When pressed for dates and times, he was evasive.

In 1989 SRA was in full swing-the ludicrous McMartin preschool case had been rumbling on for 6 years at that point & the trial lasted from 1987-1990, Kern County, the heavy metal satanic lyrics/Tipper Gore furore & in the fall of 1988 we saw the total nadir with the insanity of the Geraldo Satan show.

Sadly I think the grandparents did such a number on them both before & after the abduction that they both honestly believe they were abused by their parents & will for the rest of their lives. To even contemplate that the people they view as their saviours & real parents lied to them & that their entire lives from 1988/1989 to the present day have been based on fiction is too much for them to bear.

In 1989 SRA was in full swing-the ludicrous McMartin preschool case had been rumbling on for 6 years at that point & the trial lasted from 1987-1990, Kern County, the heavy metal satanic lyrics/Tipper Gore furore & in the fall of 1988 we saw the total nadir with the insanity of the Geraldo Satan show.

Sadly I think the grandparents did such a number on them both before & after the abduction that they both honestly believe they were abused by their parents & will for the rest of their lives. To even contemplate that the people they view as their saviours & real parents lied to them & that their entire lives from 1988/1989 to the present day have been based on fiction is too much for them to bear.

Yep. Some have also speculated on Jon's motives with his recent public presence, which looks like a marketing campaign. Very generic answers lacking specifics, but if you buy my book...

I think we know where this is going with mention of this "autobiography".

I did have the fortunate experience of receiving some messages and talking to a few folks with direct knowledge of the case.



This sentence alone tells me everything I need to know and to weigh any of your statements with a grain of salt at best. :rolleyes:

I have seen this countless times on this board. Someone just happens to register right before some major news happens or had just happened in a particular case to the board. They try to pass themselves off as a casual UM fan and then post all this extremely detailed rhetoric that they try to pass off, and hope others believe, is the truth. All their intent is is to just muddy the waters and take away from the one side that has remained silent for years but is now choosing to speak. I have to wonder why you take this case so personally if you are just a casual observer? The vast majority of posters here have heard only the Baskin's side on here for years and are grateful to Jon for posting on here a bit over the past few months and telling us some more facts. Whether you believe him or not is your choice. I really doubt he cares but it is extremely telling that you, with your false statements and rumors you've picked up along the way, would try to discourage him from speaking. Whichever side you believe he is one of the victims in all of this and to criticize him for stating what happened to him (and he knows since he lived it) really says a lot about your motive for posting in the first place.

This sentence alone tells me everything I need to know and to weigh any of your statements with a grain of salt at best. :rolleyes:

I have seen this countless times on this board. Someone just happens to register right before some major news happens or had just happened in a particular case to the board. They try to pass themselves off as a casual UM fan and then post all this extremely detailed rhetoric that they try to pass off, and hope others believe, is the truth. All their intent is is to just muddy the waters and take away from the one side that has remained silent for years but is now choosing to speak. I have to wonder why you take this case so personally if you are just a casual observer? The vast majority of posters here have heard only the Baskin's side on here for years and are grateful to Jon for posting on here a bit over the past few months and telling us some more facts. Whether you believe him or not is your choice. I really doubt he cares but it is extremely telling that you, with your false statements and rumors you've picked up along the way, would try to discourage him from speaking. Whichever side you believe he is one of the victims in all of this and to criticize him for stating what happened to him (and he knows since he lived it) really says a lot about your motive for posting in the first place.

Yawn. I've been on many boards. Thanks for showing your motives. Someone posts who is related to the show and can promote his upcoming autobiography. And you can run around and say hey, I got to talk to someone who use to be on my favorite show. Look at me.

Don't be so cheap. It looks sleazy.

So now Crystal since we just heard the Baskins side, has Jon been 100% truthful?

Be honest. Or are you afraid to upset your friend?

And you can run around and say hey, I got to talk to someone who use to be on my favorite show. Look at me.

So now Crystal since we just heard the Baskins side, has Jon been 100% truthful?

Be honest. Or are you afraid to upset your friend?

Seriously? You joined the board about a minute ago and I've been a member (and longtime moderator) for over 14 years. We have had many people involved in the cases post so I assure you no one was starstruck when Jon posted. Just thankful to get to hear the other side of the story at long last. I am a great example of how opinions can change once given BOTH sides. I was a Baskin supporter for years but the majority of us that were were only going by the UM segment and we didn't realize at the time how slanted they were in filming this segment even refusing to let Marvin's family speak when they requested to because it would hurt the 'poor Baskin's' angle they were going for. As far as your question I do believe Jon is being 100% truthful and I know of others on the board who do as well. If you want to the believe the Baskin's slant, that is your right as well.

Come on, you don't need to get personal. That's not cool. Agree to disagree and move on.
I agree. This seems to be the new trend on the boards of late and it makes posting not as fun as it should be. This thread is a hot topic. I will admit I viewed this as a kidnapping only but now see there was more to the story. lesson learned for me here is that we can't always wholeheartedly believe a 15 min segment especially when it is one sided. In many cases UM did well to give both sides of the story when possible but we all know there were times that we did not get the full story. and agenda is always geared for ratings. As a massive fan of the show I like to believe UM did well toeing the line.

I agree with CD that we should treat family members of the show with courtesy(even if we don't agree with them). We want this to be a safe haven for more victims to come forward to help their cases get solved. I know for many of us we look for that fairy tale ending when a case gets solved. Unfortunately for many victims there is no Such thing.

In this case I commend said individual for writing and promoting a book if that is indeed true. Someone who has a post traumatic experience needs to be able to talk about their experiences rather than holding them inside. It also helps others who suffered from similar experiences to know that they are not alone in the world.

I appreciate the comments made by both Cars and DallasTexan while I was at my day job...

Yes. This is a hot topic thread. Always has been and I've been guilty myself of getting too personal, which is why I'm trying my best to stay out of things this time around, unless things start to get out of hand. We can all agree to disagree without going down the road of making personal attacks on people.

Things are starting to get out of hand. Let's just stick to the facts, please.

I will say that I slightly disagree with the sentiment that the UM segment was slanted in favor of the Baskins. It was a 15 minute segment portrayed as a kidnapping. Legally speaking, the Baskins had custody of the kids and the grandparents kidnapped them. I know that's oversimplifying things, depending on who or what you believe, but I don't think this was some deliberate hatchet job like UM had done for other segments. But in fairness to the Baskins, they aren't (to my knowledge) doing media interviews making the same claims against the Maples that have been made in this thread and elsewhere. They've simply denied what was being alleged and were looking for their children. They could have gone that route, but they chose not to. Which is another reason why I lean in favor of believing their side of the story.

This sentence alone tells me everything I need to know and to weigh any of your statements with a grain of salt at best. :rolleyes:

I have seen this countless times on this board. Someone just happens to register right before some major news happens or had just happened in a particular case to the board. They try to pass themselves off as a casual UM fan and then post all this extremely detailed rhetoric that they try to pass off, and hope others believe, is the truth. All their intent is is to just muddy the waters and take away from the one side that has remained silent for years but is now choosing to speak. I have to wonder why you take this case so personally if you are just a casual observer? The vast majority of posters here have heard only the Baskin's side on here for years and are grateful to Jon for posting on here a bit over the past few months and telling us some more facts. Whether you believe him or not is your choice. I really doubt he cares but it is extremely telling that you, with your false statements and rumors you've picked up along the way, would try to discourage him from speaking. Whichever side you believe he is one of the victims in all of this and to criticize him for stating what happened to him (and he knows since he lived it) really says a lot about your motive for posting in the first place.

I think it is a good thing-he/she has bought up many pertinent points & it would be a great thing for Jon to address those issues. I am surprised you are saying this poster is posting false statements & rumours when they might well be true & that he is discouraging Jon from speaking which is not the case at all. If Jon cannot handle legitimate questioning of his version of events & claims persecution then that is pretty ludicrous, as is the need to 'protect' him, I don't think anybody feels anything but sympathy for him & his sister who are undoubtedly victims either of their parents or grandparents & I believe religious abuse from both.

Yep. Some have also speculated on Jon's motives with his recent public presence, which looks like a marketing campaign. Very generic answers lacking specifics, but if you buy my book...

I think we know where this is going with mention of this "autobiography".

I think the book would be quite enlightening, no doubt he has a lot of stuff to work through regardless of the truth of what went down, whatever we think those kids went through a hell of a lot through no fault of their own-cannot imagine having to adopt new identities & spend every day lying to people about basic stuff for 20 years. I don't think it would be at the level of Trance Formation Of America or Michelle Remembers.

I really doubt he cares but it is extremely telling that you, with your false statements and rumors you've picked up along the way, would try to discourage him from speaking. Whichever side you believe he is one of the victims in all of this and to criticize him for stating what happened to him (and he knows since he lived it) really says a lot about your motive for posting in the first place.

Actually the person posted a lot of factual information that hasn't been disputed yet.

I'm going to quote someone who had a very wise and prescient comment on another thread about Arthur Paul Beal, several years ago (December 13, 2009 to be exact):

I think its great that someone who knows him is posting on here, but we have nothing to apologize for. This is a message board about the tv show "Unsolved Mysteries". We theorize and speculate and offer our opinions on the facts that UM has given. That is why this board is here. If you have something more to add, some fact that you think UM left out, by all means post them here to enlighten us but don't expect us to apologize for our opinions. It is a free country, after all.

That very same "someone who knows him" could be Bunting in this case (knowing the Maples).

You will hate me for re-posting that, but it was wise then and it's wise now. And unlike with the new poster, you can't accuse me of only posting about them, or just joining.

Actually the person posted a lot of factual information that hasn't been disputed yet.

I'm going to quote someone who had a very wise and prescient comment on another thread about Arthur Paul Beal, several years ago (December 13, 2009 to be exact):



That very same "someone who knows him" could be Bunting in this case (knowing the Maples).

You will hate me for re-posting that, but it was wise then and it's wise now. And unlike with the new poster, you can't accuse me of only posting about them, or just joining.

Thanks so much for posting this everybodylovesrs and for calling me wise. I don't understand why you think I wouldn't like you quoting this. It's always great to get both sides of the story and no one should have to apologize for their opinions. However hearing both sides of a story and choosing whom you believe doesn't give you the right to attack the other side. There should be respect. Your completely disrespectful post wishing Marvin would rot in hell (which you recently said you were not sorry for) was what prompted Jon to post on here in the first place so you are the last person that should be lecturing people on behavior.

Thanks so much for posting this everybodylovesrs and for calling me wise. I don't understand why you think I wouldn't like you quoting this. It's always great to get both sides of the story and no one should have to apologize for their opinions. However hearing both sides of a story and choosing whom you believe doesn't give you the right to attack the other side. There should be respect. Your completely disrespectful post wishing Marvin would rot in hell (which you recently said you were not sorry for) was what prompted Jon to post on here in the first place so you are the last person that should be lecturing people on behavior.

Funny, because if you read the Arthur Paul Beal thread -a lot of people were giving their opinions (and not so flattering I might add) about him being a liar and a criminal, and then "someone new" came along and said how dare you do that, and that was your response to them. No one apologized for what they said about Arthur Paul Beal because a friend or family member joined the forum. So they shouldn't now that a family member of the Maples is here.

OK. Here we go. I'm just going to go through the numbers here, and seriously be done for a while... The "Why?" I won't be posting will be addressed later.

Really it is just a term, we can call it what we like, the popular one during the Satanic Panics/Child Abuse panics/Alien Abductions stories of the 1980's & early 1990's is False Memory Syndrome.

I find semantics to be important, because how can you intelligently discuss something if you don't really know what you're discussing? Plus, there are some connotations of certain words that can be misinterpreted.

How could you stop believing in God? Well you imply that you did-so likely this was as a result of you parents & your grandparents influence all through your formative years, when you are away from that influence-either via leaving home or through people passing away.

Again, that's my point. I stopped believing when my grandparents were still alive... If they had such a hold over me, and if I was able to break through one of the things they did their best to get me to believe, wouldn't I be able to break through another?


So yes, what the Maples did was wrong. It was kidnapping.

Legally, no it wasn't. You cannot legally kidnap someone you have legal custody of. Which my grandparents had, of Jennifer and myself, at the time we left. Now, if they'd gone in the night and taken Michael, too, as some people seem to think they should have, then they would be guilty of kidnapping. They were guilty of violating a court order for not appearing at trial. They violated custodial interference, which is very different from kidnapping, basically just that they realized custody had legally transferred to someone else and that they did nothing to correct it. And there's a specific thing they're guilty of with regards to identity, and I know exactly what this thing is, but I won't get into all of that as I'm also guilty of some identity stuff starting at the age of 16 that I'd rather not divulge. So, no "kidnapping" ever happened. Again, semantics are important.

I did have the fortunate experience of receiving some messages and talking to a few folks with direct knowledge of the case.

You obviously have a lot of detailed knowledge about the case. I'd wonder who shared this with you, and why they are not fighting their own battles on the board? I was a child at the time and you have access to a lot of information that I won't have access to until I receive some court transcripts (which will be ordered, at some point). But it's obvious a lot of this is true as a lot of it coincides with what I remember.

The initial petition... granted by Judge Corlew... simply charged that Mark Baskin and his father, were "rough" with the children in regards to discipline and they felt that Mark could not adequately support all his children. They cited "discipline", "negligence" and "abandonment".

Not aware of this so I cannot comment. I know that custody of my sister and I was not granted until after what happened to me in the bathroom in the motel and that was not some sort of supervised visitation.

At no point did the Maples suggest sexual, physical or emotional abuse.

I'd want to ask for your source on this.

I was directed to an exchange between the Baskin and Maple camp in an old newspaper story which allowed comments. It was stated that during this time that Sandra Maple was not happy with Mark Baskin regarding his religious beliefs and was disappointed that their daughter had converted. It was the subject of controversy with the family for years.

Again, where is this exchange recorded? Is it some sort of official document or hearsay? I will say that my grandparents never made a point of bad-mouthing the Baptist Church specifically -- there are actually a lot of parallels between Church of Christ and the Baptist Church.

The court investigation found this also to be also true(as I was told by someone close to the case).

Who? Plus, I don't put a lot of weight, personally, on the court findings as I believe the court findings were flawed.

It appears Judge Corlew was going to order the children back to the Baskins and they(the children) were required to be at court. Prior to the court date, the Maples charge that Mark Baskin was "sexually abusing" both children during a court ordered supervised visit at the Maple's home.

We were going to be ordered back, but the rest is all wrong. The sexual abuse happened in a non-supervised visit from Mark and Debbie where they took us all to some cheap motel. This incident has been referred to as the "Vaseline incident" in the circles who have followed this case.

The Maples nor the DCS representative witnessed such abuse nor knew when it occurred during the session.

Because they weren't there. Your timeline is all out of whack.

We're talking about a man who ran around for months telling close friends he'd kill the children before he'd turn them over to the Baskins.

This is hearsay that was never substantiated.

"The grandparents’ allegations became more bizarre and included talk of satanic worship and cults, and their list of alleged perpetrators grew to include social workers, attorneys and mental health officials", said Sharp to the press.

I don't know about this. I have to claim ignorance. I never said the words "Satanism," "Satanic Cult," etc. Could my grandparents have claimed something like this? Perhaps. It could be that, in a state of shock from what they had learned, they read in between the lines and thought since there was a ritualistic element to some of the abuse, and due to the fact that it ran in the family (Mac and Charlotte, Mark and Debbie) that they, also under the influence of the Satanic Cult scare everyone loves to talk about so much, jumped to some conclusions. Then the possible paranoia that the horror of the situation created may have caused them to read the incompetence of the "social workers, attorneys and mental health officials" as full compliance and involvement in a perceived cult.

I think folks are under the impression that Sandra Maple was told one afternoon by Bobby that he was being sexually abused by his father and mother, and for 20 years their story was unwavering.

Yes, that's what happened.

Both children 'outed' their grandparents to not only police investigators, but to DCS case workers and mental health professionals.

According to whom? This never happened. If someone is saying so it's a lie. I never "outed" them because there was nothing to "out" them over.

When time began to run out as they failed time and time again to provide the evidence they claimed to have, they began to claim that Mark and Debbie were "sexual abusing" the children during court ordered supervised visits.

I have no memories of being abused during the supervised visits, just terrified. Again, I'd like to know your source. If my grandparents said this, then yes, in this instance they were not being truthful, but I do not concede it happened that way without a little more information. In fact, I think it's another lie.

It was alleged that Marvin had rescued one or both children from a "coven", where children were sacrificed. When pressed for dates and times, he was evasive.

Uhm... what?!? Someone is smoking some really strong ganja, here, and I know it's not me.

Sadly I would even settle for part of the story had Jon been honest and said "yes my grandparents did lie, because they honestly believed I was abused".

Sorry you don't like me telling you what I believe and remember.

Instead he played along with the narrative and insisted that the sexual abuse continued during the court ordered supervised visits, which both Maples and a social worker was present for.

Again, I have no recollection of this so I never played along with that narrative, nor did I ever claim to.

Once the "satanic ritual" angle looked just plain nonsensical, he lied and charged that this was invented by the Baskins, despite the fact that records exist and numerous investigators have publicly stated that the Maples were the ones who told this narrative to investigators and the court for months.

Yeah, I never said that. I said I doubted it was Satanism. I may have indicated (can't remember) a belief that it was a side-story invented by the Baskins, or you may have inferred that is what I was suggesting, but I really don't know where it came from and who said what about that, nor did I claim to know, as I don't have the court transcripts at this time. My story has never changed. I cannot help it if you assumed I said things I never did.

Sharp and Goodwin extensively investigated this case even taking the side of the Buntings, and made it clear he would take a look at evidence they would provide. But they didn't even cooperate and provide all this exculpatory evidence they claimed to exist following Marvin's arrest.

That's just not true. We never claimed to have evidence beyond our memory. There was no promised evidence. I was very alert when all of this happened, and my stroke-victim grandfather and deceased grandmother were in no condition to create new memories for me. So someone's lying, there.

When pressed for specifics, (Jon) is then evasive and uses broad generic descriptions.

I'm not going to tell people on this message board everything that happened to me. The Statute of Limitations is passed on this case so there's no point. I told specifics over the phone to the prosecution. Greg Reed (dad's attorney) flew out to be present for this as well. Those specifics got dad off with time served and a record that was expunged after five years of not having any legal issues. When he died, he didn't have a record of being guilty of anything.

I always wanted to know more about Debbie's sisters and why they apparently sided with their parents. I wish UM had interviewed them as it may have cleared up a few of the questions we've all been asking. Perhaps the show reached out to them and they declined.

According to Sherry and Patti, it was quite the opposite, actually. They reached out to UM and UM declined their participation, stating that they had the story they were looking for.

I didn't even know that Debbie had any siblings at all because the segment basically gave the impression that she was an only child. I kind of wonder if they never liked or approved of Mark for some reason and felt that when Debbie married him, she changed or that Mark changed her. Some families get like that.

Again, according to them, there was no tension before the accusations came to light. And they believed me, because I told them what happened through the eyes of a child who didn't even know what to call some of the things that happened, and thus used child equivalents of certain body parts. I didn't fully understand what was happening, but I knew I felt safer with my Nanny and Stomp (my old nicknames for my grandparents) because they didn't do those things.

Yep. Some have also speculated on Jon's motives with his recent public presence, which looks like a marketing campaign. Very generic answers lacking specifics, but if you buy my book...

I think we know where this is going with mention of this "autobiography".

The original interview I did with Holly Bounds has about one hour of footage. She had to edit that down to fit into a segment that was seven minutes and change, just to have the gist, so, yes, it's going to look more like something nice and glossy. She did a great job, IMHO, with what she had to work with, and I'm very grateful to her for letting me be heard at all.

I am looking into potentially giving a more detailed interview down the road that would likely only be online, just so there would be no time constraints.

The autobiography is therapeutic for me, is far from finished, and may never be published. It's something, along with doing the interview with Holly Bounds, that my therapist supports as a means of learning to integrate my trauma, to live in the present moment, and to accept who and what I am, without guilt of being a poor enough child to potentially deserve what they did to me; or the guilt of escaping when my brother was left behind; or the guilt that my grandparents were so afraid of getting caught that they did not seek medical attention when needed, and it likely cost my grandmother her life, and greatly shortened my grandfather's all because I had to tell them what was going on. A lot more therapeutic than posting on this board has become. But it's slow going because it's painful to write, time-consuming, and I simply work too much. I'm going to need court transcripts, old newspaper articles, and to interview individuals willing to talk that were around when the whole thing happened. No, I will not be relying solely on my own memory for this piece, I was seven years old for half the story I want to tell. But that book isn't going to go into a lot of graphic detail about exactly what the abuse was. Maybe more than here, but I'm not about to take the verbal idiocy that some of the trolls on here will respond to that with. It's difficult to talk about as it is, and I honestly think anyone who literally wants the abuse details in all their gore is somewhat ill in the head. Not to say I'm the perfect example of mental wellness, but my therapist says I'm getting much better.

And that's one of the main reasons I need to step away from this board. It takes up more time than I technically have to give, but I'm grateful for the time spent here as it's given me the courage to move forward.

Believe me, don't believe me. It's your choice. Also, I appreciate all the support I've gotten from so many people on this board. Truly. Hopefully everyone can play nice for a while.

Good night, John Boy.

Legally, no it wasn't. You cannot legally kidnap someone you have legal custody of. Which my grandparents had, of Jennifer and myself, at the time we left. Now, if they'd gone in the night and taken Michael, too, as some people seem to think they should have, then they would be guilty of kidnapping. They were guilty of violating a court order for not appearing at trial. They violated custodial interference, which is very different from kidnapping, basically just that they realized custody had legally transferred to someone else and that they did nothing to correct it. And there's a specific thing they're guilty of with regards to identity, and I know exactly what this thing is, but I won't get into all of that as I'm also guilty of some identity stuff starting at the age of 16 that I'd rather not divulge. So, no "kidnapping" ever happened. Again, semantics are important.

Semantics are as important as facts. Your grandparents had a kidnapping warrant out for their arrest. When your grandfather was caught, he plead to the lesser charge of custodial interference. The kidnapping charges were dismissed for:

Reed asked for the dismissal because the warrant did not state probable cause, the court does not have jurisdiction and the allegations are duplicates because more than one offense is alleged to have been committed against more than one victim. Reed also asked the warrant be dismissed and Maple’s record erased.

Yes, kidnapping DID happen considering the Baskins had legal custody transferred back to them and your grandparents took off for 20 years. I am sympathetic to you and your sister's situation, and am open to have my mind change. But I don't understand the hang up over semantics other than it paints your grandparents in a more negative light. If you want to make the argument that morally it wasn't kidnapping, fine. I can see that if the allegations were true.

Semantics are as important as facts. Your grandparents had a kidnapping warrant out for their arrest. When your grandfather was caught, he plead to the lesser charge of custodial interference. The kidnapping charges were dismissed for:



Yes, kidnapping DID happen considering the Baskins had legal custody transferred back to them and your grandparents took off for 20 years. I am sympathetic to you and your sister's situation, and am open to have my mind change. But I don't understand the hang up over semantics other than it paints your grandparents in a more negative light. If you want to make the argument that morally it wasn't kidnapping, fine. I can see that if the allegations were true.

Jon has addressed a ton of Issues brought up here today and I don't believe wants to continue posting but here are a few things about the kidnapping aspect he mentioned to me that I'll share.

a) they had full physical custody of us and with that in mind kidnapping cannot legally happen at the time that we left,

b) we were already gone when the custody changed so no one could be kidnapped because it already happened in the past and there are laws about how you can't be found guilty of something you already did after the fact that a new law or legal finding says it shouldn't be done,

c) just like all the other things that they did wrong in filing the kidnapping warrants, it's not hard to believe that they also filed a warrant for the wrong crime, and

d) we have a system in the United States called innocence until proven guilt, and the law has never found Marvin Maple guilty of kidnapping. So legally he's not guilty of kidnapping, just like legally the Baskins aren't guilty of doing what I remember they did. It doesn't mean it's right, but if you weren't there you can't say it happened

I think it is a good thing-he/she has bought up many pertinent points & it would be a great thing for Jon to address those issues. I am surprised you are saying this poster is posting false statements & rumours when they might well be true & that he is discouraging Jon from speaking which is not the case at all. If Jon cannot handle legitimate questioning of his version of events & claims persecution then that is pretty ludicrous, as is the need to 'protect' him, I don't think anybody feels anything but sympathy for him & his sister who are undoubtedly victims either of their parents or grandparents & I believe religious abuse from both.

Exactly and thank you!. I understand that many are excited that an individual who was featured on their favorite show is posting here. I never once called Jon names or slandered him with false allegations. Those who are jumping to his rescue, he's a big boy. Certainly if what some nobody on a message board is asking him is just way too hard, then imagine the scrutiny he will endure in the media should he publish a book.

He's an adult accusing two people of sex abuse. He chose to come here. As I said before, fawning over him and hanging on his every word, attacking poster's character(whom you do not know) over the facts is just like the Maples. If you actually cared about Jon, then you wouldn't turn a blind eye to pure fiction that he states as fact.

Sadly, we are talking child sexual abuse. It's a serious charge in both the court of law and public opinion. If you were being accused of such things, would you expect at least some proof to back it up? Sex abuse is by far the most heinous crime in my book. I'd prefer a murderer next door than this.

Now for those that feel they have the honor of having Jon decide to join them on the 'Sitcoms' board first, I can assure you that it is not his first outing. It was Jon and/or members of the Maple camp(venture out sometime and check other boards, topix and comments in newspaper articles), who explicitly claimed that the "satanic angle" was an invention of the Baskins in order to make the Maple's claim look ridiculous, since it has been proven that not one single case of SRA exists. The Maple camp also tried to persuade the viral community that "soon cold case investigators would substantiate Marvin and Sandra's allegations of sex abuse".

The only problem is.... it just simply wasn't true.

Here is the issue. After Marvin's arrest, just as in any pending criminal proceedings, the defense and their allies are allowed to peddle whatever BS they want. The police and prosecution, not so much. Once all was said and done, individuals close to the Cold Case investigations came forth and refuted both allegations. Sharp, Goodwin and RCSD have been nothing but transparent following the plea deal. They, with assistance from the FBI looked into the case extensively. I do believe Behavioral Sciences was involved in an attempt to draw Marvin out. But that's my opinion.

'Satanic Ritual Abuse' was a claim and invention of Marvin and Sandra Maple during the original custody hearings and subsequent criminal investigations.

Not a single investigator has come forward in defense of the Maples or at the very least supported the "possibility" of child sexual abuse.

For those who are honest and who did have an active interest in this case, would know that Marvin Maple's own attorney had to put the word out and plea with supporters to suppress all the vile accusations against the RCSD, the Baskins and the disinformation that was getting peddled by Bunting supporters online. They certainly were doing him any favors. I'll even up the ante. I'm certain that the "few" supporters of Marvin that trolled board to board, supposedly clarifying things, were pretty close to Marvin. Get my drift? And an individual who was pretty vocal in both blog and forums wrote an open letter to the DA asking that if anyone who aided or knew Marvin or the kids whereabouts prior to his arrest should also be prosecuted. There were a few names peddling the two sides to every story deal.

Sorry folks. This case has survived the scrutiny of two criminal probes by the RCSD. Two criminal probes by the FBI. A 10 month investigation by the Tennessee Department of Children Services. Two judges and 10 months of court proceedings. Let's not forget the Maples had the opportunity after the kids turned 18, like any responsible individual would have done and turned themselves in and set the record straight. At least to get Michael now. Right?

And most importantly, it survived the media.

What I find almost obscene, is that despite no evidence of abuse, not one person involved in the investigation(s) ever came forward and remotely questioned the agencies' involved or investigators directly. None of the investigators were ever accused of sex abuse, except by Sandra and Marvin. The obscene thing is, folks would buy into proof of guilt by the slander of individuals who do not support the Buntings. Oh Debbie and Mark are religious. Guilty. They are scum. Oh Debbie's glasses are too big. Guilty. Pedophile.

As I said before. Never been a fan of the Baskins personally. But their story has stood the test of time. Probably more scrunity than most investigations featured on the show.

As you witnessed again, if you question the Maple's version of events, their camp continues the attack the individual's character than the facts.

For once, refute the facts.

Interesting responses from Jon, he does seem willing to admit to some extent that his grand parents made some poor decisions & surprisingly it seems neither he nor his sister have been given full access to the court details of what happened in the late 1980's, which is appalling & is an indictment of the legal system if they have asked for all relevant information & been denied it.

This is all very confusing to keep track of and it seems like a never ending storm. Its so difficult to figure this all out. I suggest locking the thread for now due to the chaos.

The grandparents lied to get custody. It happened to me. My mother was a drug addict, and I had to live with my grandmother when I was 7. I couldn't be enrolled in school without some sort of custody, so my grandmother took my mother to court to get custody, and to receive the VA benefits I received from my father.

My grandmother had told the court that my mother had molested me. This had never happened. Never. She was a drug addict, but never harmed me one bit. My grandmother won the case, and got temporary custody. She talked bad about my mother day and night, and really tried to turn me against her.

I think this is what happened here. Jon sounds scorned in his interview, but I don't think it's because his parents had abused him, it's because "they left him behind". I felt the same pain when my mother abandoned me for drugs. A resentment. They couldn't afford to take the other two children, so I'm sure they're resentful. Then you add years of their grandparents lying, and poisoning them about their parents, then you have scorned children. I feel like they have a "how could you let them take us?" spite going on.

If their parents are so abusive, then why didn't the other son speak out against them? Why is he apparently owning a comic book shop, and not strung out somewhere or in prison?

I really don't know what his parents did, no one here can honestly answer that, but his grandparents did lie, and spent years bad-mouthing and lying about their parents. I'm sure alot of "if they loved you, then why didn't they take you?" type of talk was going on. You spend years hearing your grandparents bad mouth, and talk dirty on your parents, then you have someone who's upset that the parents left them behind and this is what you get.

******EPIC POST!******

https://media.giphy.com/media/i6TQUuiT5hjSU/giphy.gif

Believe me, don't believe me. It's your choice. Also, I appreciate all the support I've gotten from so many people on this board. Truly. Hopefully everyone can play nice for a while.

Good night, John Boy.

Best wishes to you and thanks for taking the time to reply.

This is all very confusing to keep track of and it seems like a never ending storm. Its so difficult to figure this all out. I suggest locking the thread for now due to the chaos.

Respectfully, I think that's a terrible idea.

I realize that we, as posters, are given the privilege of posting our thoughts on the board, which is someone else's property, not our own.

That being said, I think locking a thread, editing, or deleting someone's post should almost never be done. Obviously, in cases of abuse I'd be in favor of it, but I don't think there has been much of that in these recent postings. Differing viewpoints? Absolutely! Strongly-held opinions, sure. A lot of the opinions under-informed and sometimes it has gotten personal between posters.

But to simply curtail discussion of a case because it's a hot topic or censor a certain viewpoint (through locking, editing, or deleting), in my opinion, goes against what this board was and is meant to do- promote such discussions and respectful expression of our opinions.

We are all permitted to express our opinions. As long as said opinions remain civil and are expressed without resorting to personal attacks on other members, the thread will remain open.

Hello.

I am mozartpc27, an anonymous poster on an internet message board. I do not know personally anyone involved in this case, nor am I directly involved in it in an investigatory capacity as a judge, attorney, police officer, or social worker. Nor am I any of those professions in my day-to-day life apart from my internet reading on this case, and I am not a qualified therapist capable of rendering a qualified opinion - of course this is good, because if I were, I might feel obligated to refrain from doing so as part of my professional ethics, since I have not had an opportunity to sit down and talk directly to any of the involved parties. Since I have no professional code of conduct to live by, I am free to post whatever unqualified, unresearched opinion I happen to have! Thank goodness.

I do, however, have access to the internet, and I have watched a tabloid television program on this case, so I have AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT to gainsay every memory that so-called "victim" Jon Bunting shares with us, even though he was there and I wasn't, even though he has no earthly reason to lie about any of this horror to himself let alone the rest of us, and I DEMAND that my under-researched, unqualified, uninvolved, anonymous opinion be treated with ABSOLUTELY equal weight by all posters on this message board, and if my demands are not met you can be sure I will quickly and loudly accuse everyone of you of shutting down fair, open, and honest debate.

I do, however, have access to the internet, and I have watched a tabloid television program on this case, so I have AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT to gainsay every memory that so-called "victim" Jon Bunting shares with us, even though he was there and I wasn't, even though he has no earthly reason to lie about any of this horror to himself let alone the rest of us, and I DEMAND that my under-researched, unqualified, uninvolved, anonymous opinion be treated with ABSOLUTELY equal weight by all posters on this message board, and if my demands are not met you can be sure I will quickly and loudly accuse everyone of you of shutting down fair, open, and honest debate.

:yeahthat :clap

Jon,

You obviously have a lot of detailed knowledge about the case. I'd wonder who shared this with you, and why they are not fighting their own battles on the board? I was a child at the time and you have access to a lot of information that I won't have access to until I receive some court transcripts (which will be ordered, at some point). But it's obvious a lot of this is true as a lot of it coincides with what I remember.

Bill Sharp offered to provide your grandparent's original statements to you on numerous occasions, both in public and in private. Nothing to order. I believe Carol Moore also contacted you initially after you told the media "you couldn't remember your parents". When further pressed you simply said "not interested".

"Jon and Jennifer have access to the investigation; it's open records now, they can see what was done. I can't believe intelligent young adults don't want to know"- Bill Sharp

People can keep telling you the truth or you can see for yourself. But denial is a powerful thing and if it goes against the narrative, as I suspect, you're simply not interested.

I fight no one's battles. The records are open and available. Sadly, if you haven't "ordered" them in eight years, I doubt you have any interest in them period.

Obviously the truth is less important than the narrative in this case.


Not aware of this so I cannot comment. I know that custody of my sister and I was not granted until after what happened to me in the bathroom in the motel and that was not some sort of supervised visitation.

Actually, I believe you're being a bit deceptive with that. I would have been more inclined to bring it up to you in private, but since you brought it up further down the post, "The Motel Incident" AKA "The Vaseline Incident" made it's rounds before on Websleuths shortly before you were discovered and Marvin's arrest.

Was this not the original criminal case made by your father Mark against Mac Baskins in 86 or 87?

That kind of goes against Sandra and Marvin's narrative that evolved over ten months. I'll address that next.


We were going to be ordered back, but the rest is all wrong. The sexual abuse happened in a non-supervised visit from Mark and Debbie where they took us all to some cheap motel. This incident has been referred to as the "Vaseline incident" in the circles who have followed this case.

Jon, I suggest you get to ordering those court documents. I believe Carole Moore already put this to rest when she had spoke with McGowen and Hornsby. Shortly before you being located and Marvin's arrest, I remember several supporters attempting to invent some impressive propaganda in order to "tell the other side". Now either you were one of the few "sources" inventing it or you're running with it now, as it virtually states the same exact thing roughly a month before Marvin's arrest.

And again, wasn't this the original criminal case against Mac Baskins in 86 or 87? Jon you have to admit you're being a little misleading with this, but okay I'll play.

First, this allegation was made by your father against Mac years prior, not your grandparents against Mark and Debbie. Even if I am wrong and this was entirely a separate incident, then this was a failure of Marvin and Sandra to protect you. So either they didn't believe in the sex abuse allegations initially or they were entirely fabricated to appear as this one incident back in 86 or 87.

They thought Mark and Debbie was such a threat to both you and your sister, that they allowed Mark and Debbie to take you to some cheap ass hotel when court supervised visit were imposed from Judge Corlew's chambers? I think it's pretty safe to say that with what you just admitted, that Marvin and Sandra knew that you weren't being sexually abused by Mark and Debbie. It was more important to confuse you and give Mark and Debbie "time" to abuse you, rather than protect you from something they knew wasn't going to happen. By letting you go with Mark and Debbie out from under the court supervised visit, is an opportunity for them to claim you were abused. This would also be an extremely bold move by Mark and Debbie to sexually abuse you knowing that your grandparents were accusing them of such, yet allowed you to go with them outside of the court's order.

Second, it was kind of cheap by Marvin and Sandra to rehash a sex abuse claim that your father had already reported against Mac, only now claiming it was Mark and it happened in present time(between custody hearings).

Finally, I'll say that this narrative doesn't stack up against their narrative then. At least they *didn't* report it that way. I believe they used the Mac Baskins incident as a "foundation" and then altered the events. Which is why police believed you were coached. hence, my outed comment. I believe McGowen said it best when she stated your statements were "third person. Described as if he witnessed the events than experienced it".

Again, if "The Vaseline Incident" was separate from the Mac Baskins incident, then they were nearly identical incidents and the events surrounding them were identical. Which suggests either malingering or confusion.

It's been asserted by law enforcement that you were unaware(and very well still may be) that Mark filed charges against Mac and that you were told that your mother and father didn't care. It was only over time(according to Sandra) that you stated that Mark and then eventually Debbie was there.

By Sandra's own admission, you told her it was Mac Baskins your "Paw". It was only after weeks you told her Mark, then eventually Debbie.

I suspect this was due to law enforcement questioning what it had to do with Mark and Debbie in the first place.


Because [B]they weren't there. Your timeline is all out of whack.


If you by your own admission haven't reviewed the court documents, why are you even attempting to refute or clarify them?

You are aware that your grandparents made both verbal and written statements to police?

Then you are also aware that the initial case made against Debbie and Mark had nothing to do with the "single incident" you described. Which is why it's a big contradiction.

Sandra and Marvin's initial allegations were basically a claim "they(Mark and Debbie)" abandoned you. They also cited discipline issues. When that didn't work, only then did they raise the issue of sexual abuse and the incident described either completely borrowed from the Mac Baskins' incident years prior or attempted to swap details. Either way, it's deceptive and I believe they did so in order to confuse you and to create a window of alleged abuse.

This is hearsay that was never substantiated.

Nonsense. It's just a tough pill to swallow. I suggest you order the police reports and court documents or simply contact the FBI and/or The Murfreesboro Post.


I don't know about this. I have to claim ignorance. I never said the words "Satanism," "Satanic Cult," etc. Could my grandparents have claimed something like this? Perhaps. It could be that, in a state of shock from what they had learned, they read in between the lines and thought since there was a ritualistic element to some of the abuse, and due to the fact that it ran in the family (Mac and Charlotte, Mark and Debbie) that they, also under the influence of the Satanic Cult scare everyone loves to talk about so much, jumped to some conclusions. Then the possible paranoia that the horror of the situation created may have caused them to read the incompetence of the "social workers, attorneys and mental health officials" as full compliance and involvement in a perceived cult.

That's not what I asked. Either way, nonsense.

But I'll shed some light on this for you since either you were lied to by Marvin and Sandra or you're covering for them.

"The Satanic Angle" was never in play until well after it was established that you were "coerced". Even then, the only sexual abuse allegations ever made initially dated back to 86 or 87. Your grandfather went to Atlanta to consult Faye Yager who at the time was notorious for peddling "Satanic Ritual Abuse" from talk to talk show. After the consultation, the rest is history. The police also confirmed to the media that several phone calls between Marvin and Faye occurred in early 89.

Faye's version of SRA pretty much was the same version she ever peddled and that same version can be traced to almost every case she consulted.


Yes, that's what happened.

That is not what Sandra told the police.

I'll also shed some light on this(as I did previously).

The allegations you made to Sandra, according to Sandra(and only after abandonment claims were exhausted and obvious fabrication during custody proceedings), she explicitly stated you told her your "Paw" was doing it to you. That was her story to investigators. It was only after weeks that you said Mark and finally Debbie. But it didn't stop there, she would further elaborate that you detailed to her satanic rituals and then placed social workers and police officers there, etc.

I don't believe you told her that.


According to whom? This never happened. If someone is saying so it's a lie. I never "outed" them because there was nothing to "out" them over.

Again, it's all in the documents that you by your own admission have yet to "order", even though an abundance of them were available to you and you refused to read them.

"It reminds me of a child who puts their fingers in their ears and starts screaming, I can't hear you"


I have no memories of being abused during the supervised visits, just terrified. Again, I'd like to know your source. If my grandparents said this, then yes, in this instance they were not being truthful, but I do not concede it happened that way without a little more information. In fact, I think it's another lie.

It's a lie? Coming from someone who admits they never read the court transcripts?

"The grandparents' allegations became more bizarre and included talk of satanic worship and cults, and their list of alleged perpetrators grew to include social workers, attorneys and mental health officials", Sharp said.

Jon, I'll make this easy for you.

Let's take away all the innuendo, assumptions and interpretation from investigators, attorneys and even Debbie and Mark.

You are free to read Sandra and Marvin's numerous written statements to police.

I'll even tell you one of the last thing Marvin told Sharp when he was interviewed right after his arrest:

"I raised the kids the way I wanted to. I won"

No sign of remorse. No mention of abuse. No mention of protecting the kids. Marvin didn't even run with the narrative. The ruse was up.

Martin and Sandra simply wanted to "win". When the courts didn't crown them victorious, they made it happen. They did and said anything to make it happen.

Not a shred of remorse or concern.


Uhm... what?!? Someone is smoking some really strong ganja, here, and I know it's not me.

We finally agree on something. Make no mistake, the longer the case went on, the more bizarre it became. In ten months your grandparents went from alleging child abandonment to claiming that there was a satanic conspiracy between the courts, DCS, mental health officials and the investigators.


Sorry you don't like me telling you what I believe and remember.

Seems you are having a hard time with the truth. I do believe you are entitled to it. You deserve it and while everything you may have grown up to believe is a lie, the truth will set you free.

Satanic Ritual Abuse almost always goes hand in hand with sexual abuse. I also find it sad that when Marvin was getting interviewed by police, he mentioned nothing of abuse or concern for you or Jennifer.

With no remorse, he simply said "I raised the kids the way I wanted to. I won"

Not "I needed to protect the kids". He wanted to win. It's his words, not mine. It's what most custody battles are about. Punishing the opposing party and winning. If abuse was truly a concern of his, not once in twenty years did he even attempt to abduct Michael or get custody of him.

In the end, I don't find you at fault Jon. I really don't. What I find disturbing is that you defend the established fiction of the case. You're smarter than that. Even if what you said is 100% real, I still find it disturbing that Marvin and Sandra found it necessary to lie to both you and the courts. Which damages virtually all credibility on their end. We are supposed to believe that Sandra and Marvin's motive was protection of the kids, when Marvin said it was about "winning" based on a mountain of lies?

Hello.

I am mozartpc27, an anonymous poster on an internet message board. I do not know personally anyone involved in this case, nor am I directly involved in it in an investigatory capacity as a judge, attorney, police officer, or social worker. Nor am I any of those professions in my day-to-day life apart from my internet reading on this case, and I am not a qualified therapist capable of rendering a qualified opinion - of course this is good, because if I were, I might feel obligated to refrain from doing so as part of my professional ethics, since I have not had an opportunity to sit down and talk directly to any of the involved parties. Since I have no professional code of conduct to live by, I am free to post whatever unqualified, unresearched opinion I happen to have! Thank goodness.

I do, however, have access to the internet, and I have watched a tabloid television program on this case, so I have AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT to gainsay every memory that so-called "victim" Jon Bunting shares with us, even though he was there and I wasn't, even though he has no earthly reason to lie about any of this horror to himself let alone the rest of us, and I DEMAND that my under-researched, unqualified, uninvolved, anonymous opinion be treated with ABSOLUTELY equal weight by all posters on this message board, and if my demands are not met you can be sure I will quickly and loudly accuse everyone of you of shutting down fair, open, and honest debate.

Pretty obvious-especially from the last post that this person knows a hell of a lot about the case & it is very sad that he/she is being ridiculed by senior posters/moderators when they are not trolling, but making lengthy serious posts-purely because they put an alternate view up.

Until Jon did the interview & started posting here nobody believed the Maples one bit, the consensus was the Baskins & the children were victims & the Maples were the scum of the earth. Now overnight that has changed without any shred of evidence against them that the Baskins were evil child molesters & the Maples were the salt of the earth. The only evidence in this case is all against the Maples. The fact that they were in touch with an SRA fruit loop should make it patently obvious what was happening. Incredibly this parasite is still involved in this stuff.

http://www.newsweek.com/sage-isaac-cook-faye-ku-parental-abduction-426110

Pretty obvious-especially from the last post that this person knows a hell of a lot about the case & it is very sad that he/she is being ridiculed by senior posters/moderators when they are not trolling, but making lengthy serious posts-purely because they put an alternate view up.
]

What is very sad is that this new poster, who would want us to believe he has no agenda in this case, just happens to know all this "information" about the case that he carefully slants in the Baskins favor yet he wants us to believe he's just a casual observer who did an internet search. Not buying it. What I find disgusting is how cavalier he mentions the abuse that Jon endured having absolute no respect for what him and his sister went through and like so many want you to feel sorry for Mark and Debbie Baskin and not Jon and Jennifer which no matter which side you believe are the true victims in this case. The people who support Mark and Debbie seem angered that we have someone who LIVED this story (not just read up on it) to post and now after years finally give an account and are told the other side of the story. The fact that they don't want the other side to have a voice is very telling to me and it should be to you too.

What is very sad is that this new poster, who would want us to believe he has no agenda in this case, just happens to know all this "information" about the case that he carefully slants in the Baskins favor yet he wants us to believe he's just a casual observer who did an internet search. Not buying it. What I find disgusting is how cavalier he mentions the abuse that Jon endured having absolute no respect for what him and his sister went through and like so many want you to feel sorry for Mark and Debbie Baskin and not Jon and Jennifer which no matter which side you believe are the true victims in this case. The people who support Mark and Debbie seem angered that we have someone who LIVED this story (not just read up on it) to post and now after years finally give an account and are told the other side of the story. The fact that they don't want the other side to have a voice is very telling to me and it should be to you too.

Fact is, this is just a bizarre case to talk about. Since they were discovered this is more of a family issue, than it is an unsolved mystery. I know I posted something up above, but I felt weird saying what happened/didn't happen as I don't know these people. It's strange telling someone that they weren't sexually abused. This isn't a football game, there isn't any "picking sides" they're all grown, and they know what happened.

However, for the people who believe that the Baskins are innocent I understand. You have to understand that not only we're they kids when they we're abducted, but the grandparents had an obvious agenda. I also think people are saying that the Baskins kids we're "brainwashed", which to be perfectly honest, is believable. They lied about the parents on multiple occasions (to get custody), and likely lied to the kids about their parents. It's not hard to say "daddy wiped vaseline on your behind in the motel?" and the grandfather exaggerated this claim to the law offices, and to the children. When in fact, the father could've just wiped vaseline without it being sexual assault. But you tell a child this over and over for years, then they might just "believe" what you said. So in closing, I think people believe that they we're brainwashed, and fed lies about what happened to them, and their parents, so the grandparents wouldn't lose custody. You can't keep custody if the kids aren't cooperating, so you brainwash them.

My stance, I don't know. It's not for anyone to say. No one in this case was murdered, and they're all adults, so this is a family issue. I'm not going to sit here and say if he was molested or not, because I don't know, and that's not my place. But even Stevie Wonder can see that the grandparents had an agenda, and lied to get and to keep custody.

What is very sad is that this new poster, who would want us to believe he has no agenda in this case, just happens to know all this "information" about the case that he carefully slants in the Baskins favor yet he wants us to believe he's just a casual observer who did an internet search. Not buying it. What I find disgusting is how cavalier he mentions the abuse that Jon endured having absolute no respect for what him and his sister went through and like so many want you to feel sorry for Mark and Debbie Baskin and not Jon and Jennifer which no matter which side you believe are the true victims in this case. The people who support Mark and Debbie seem angered that we have someone who LIVED this story (not just read up on it) to post and now after years finally give an account and are told the other side of the story. The fact that they don't want the other side to have a voice is very telling to me and it should be to you too.

Pretty sure he says he has spoken to people involved with the case, has gone to the trouble of obtaining court documents & has put those points here. I haven't seen any disrespect for Jon or his sister, more disappointment that Jon has had eight years to look at all the evidence but hasn't & he is perfectly right to question exactly why that is & yes it does appear to be ignorance is bliss, cannot blame him as having to believe virtually your entire life has been built around lies from the people you view as your parents must be horrendous.

People here have made the mistake of automatically believing there was abuse when there is zero evidence to support that & all the evidence points to the Maples lying & manipulating. Now we have them consulting a woman who has spent decades peddling satanic ritual abuse nonsense, helping people vanish in spite of court decisions etc & ruining lives. The only allegation of abuse until the Maples were going to have to hand the children back appears to have been a family member called Mac. We do have to ask why if the Maples were alleging sexual charges against the Baskins they would be happy letting them take the kids to a motel-just doesn't add up.

I don't think anybody is in any disagreement that the children are the ultimate victims, however as said there is no evidence other than Jon's version who was exposed to an SRA quack & had 20 years of his grandparents brainwashing him. Now I have zero doubt that Jon truly believes this is what happened, just like every UFO abductee who went to John Mack or David Jacobs really believe they were taken on board alien spacecraft etc.

The problem is that based solely on this testimony & not on the court documents/sources that this other poster has examined that now the Baskins have also gone from victims who despite a court ordering the children back to their care, despite not one iota of evidence of abuse on the children, the other child or any other child they have now been declared as paedophiles, so yes I see them as victims as well-of having their children stolen form them & hidden for 20 years & now thanks to the number done on them no relationship with those children now that they are adults. Let us not forget that the Maples also according to this poster accused the police & social services of being involved in the abuse/satanic rituals.

What is very sad is that this new poster, who would want us to believe he has no agenda in this case, just happens to know all this "information" about the case that he carefully slants in the Baskins favor yet he wants us to believe he's just a casual observer who did an internet search. Not buying it. What I find disgusting is how cavalier he mentions the abuse that Jon endured having absolute no respect for what him and his sister went through and like so many want you to feel sorry for Mark and Debbie Baskin and not Jon and Jennifer which no matter which side you believe are the true victims in this case. The people who support Mark and Debbie seem angered that we have someone who LIVED this story (not just read up on it) to post and now after years finally give an account and are told the other side of the story. The fact that they don't want the other side to have a voice is very telling to me and it should be to you too.

Wow. Just wow. You really have no clue.

So if Jon lived all this abuse, he's only made one accusation. Anyway since Jon is so truthful, why is he referring to the Vaseline incident?

You do realize that the incident he is referring to was stated on Websleuths before he was ever found and Marvin's arrest? Just weeks before he was found? Pretty strange. Jon in all honesty could be repeating a story told by someone else. A few things suggest this, but that's not important. To the people that matter, it was bogus then and little has changed since. As compelling as you make this revelation, this really is the same story told in 2009.

Do you know who uncovered the incident? I do.

I can also tell you that when I was researching another case that also involved Satanic Panic back in 1998 not far from this one, while I can honestly say I forgot about the Baskin case at that point, someone decided to bring it up one day on a message board in reference to the hysteria involved. Except there was none really in this case, except maybe by Judge Corlew. Which may explain why he was sanctioned.

So when I was in West Memphis, Arkansas I made a point to poke around this case too since my only interest was finding a true case of satanic ritual abuse. You see, there were "two siders" going back to the 90s. Almost certain it came from four people.

As far as any implication that I'm acting on behalf of Debbie and Mark, you'd probably like to know I publicly called them liars at one point. You see, Mark had told someone investigating this case that DCS confirmed that Michael had cleared him of abuse.

I didn't believe that. I felt Mark was only attempting to bolster his argument by lying.

But I was wrong. I personally contacted the newspaper who had FOIA'd the claim and confirmed. Needless to say, I looked pretty foolish, kinda like you now. I also called Mark a coward for not "blowing off Mac Baskin's head".

I stand by it today.

Now I didn't even bring in the flawed logic which really goes against the norms of child molesters and abusers in general, which you believe is true against Mark based on nothing really. See to believe Jon, you'd have to believe that Mark only decided to abuse his son only after he was accused of such and when he had limited access to his son. All this after he filed criminal charges against his own father.

See most criminals in general are opportunists. But Mark only decided to sexually abuse Jon after custody was in dispute. As far as you speaking on behalf of Jennifer, she's never went on record.

Never. But You, Jon and some random coworker of hers can recount all this abuse. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the coworker was exposed as a nobody.

As far as any other claim of me being a covert Baskin operative under the disguise of a casual poster, you'd simply have to check when I popped up and when you were propagating Jon's interview. Pretty simple.

But machine gun posting hasn't stopped you before, why should it now? It's like a drive by shooting. You really don't care as long as someone or something gets hit right?

So anyway, I use to hang around various boards. Yes, I researched this case at various times. At one point I had decided not to expose the fraud, but I couldn't resist.

Accusing people of sexually abusing children is a pretty big and bold accusation. I just require more proof than a questionable statement from a child elicited by a grandmother who was a reputed bully. The same statement that suggested some priests and angels were there.

Just a quick question.

What parts do you decide are true? See quasi-famous people don't excite me.

I never once rooted the Baskins on. I'm not that cheap. This wouldn't be the first time you "injected" yourself in a case, I'm not gonna stop you now.

Besides it's not like I'm offering anything compelling or new. The officers involved haven't hid or even remotely have a record of being deceptive of this case with the media. Sadly, all it takes is a ten minute segment and a questionable interview for you to convict these people of sex abuse. Just be honest. If you weren't in awe of being in the presence of someone who was featured on your favorite TV show, you wouldn't buy it either. I can tell you for a fact though, had RCSD acted even remotely likedome other agencies during the time this hysteria was taken place, I wouldn't be surprised if the Baskins were in prison.

If you were remotely interested in any facts outside of what was reported to you, you would have researched it yourself. It what those in the industry call Wikipedia commandos.

I also would be inclined to take Jon more seriously had he not tried to intimidate everyone who challenged some of his accusations via PM. He'll go so far as to define what brainwashing is when it comes to him, then accuse Michael of the same.

I also would be inclined to take Jon more seriously had he not tried to intimidate everyone who challenged some of his accusations via PM. He'll go so far as to define what brainwashing is when it comes to him, then accuse Michael of the same.

This is absolutely not true. I've told Jon (aka Nighthawk) directly that, while I believe he's sincere, I also believe that the Baskins are telling the truth. He has NEVER contacted me via PM and tried to intimidate me. He's been respectful the entire time and has never made anything personal.

This is absolutely not true. I've told Jon (aka Nighthawk) directly that, while I believe he's sincere, I also believe that the Baskins are telling the truth. He has NEVER contacted me via PM and tried to intimidate me. He's been respectful the entire time and has never made anything personal.

Here we go again.

Okay, what? I absolutely have no clue what you are saying is not true. Are we having an "I am your father" moment here?

Please tell me you are not shaking your fist at the monitor.

What's the Vaseline incident?

... OK, then.

Bill Sharp offered to provide your grandparent's original statements to you on numerous occasions, both in public and in private. Nothing to order.

I never spoke to Bill Sharp. So that's simply not true.

I believe Carol Moore also contacted you initially after you told the media "you couldn't remember your parents". When further pressed you simply said "not interested".

I was never contacted by Carol Moore, I never told anyone I "couldn't remember" my sperm and egg donors, and never told anyone I was "not interested," because I never spoke to anyone. At the time all this went down I was more concerned with stopping my personal and professional life from falling apart when everyone started talking about our discovery being the #1 news story in the country with my name and face plastered everywhere without a care to how I would be effected.

The records are open and available. Sadly, if you haven't "ordered" them in eight years, I doubt you have any interest in them period.

Obviously the truth is less important than the narrative in this case.

The most important thing has had to be my emotional and mental well-being and the ability to support myself, simply so that I can survive. After the PTSD resurgence I experienced after having to revisit my memories in detail to get my grandfather out of prison, it took me all of these eight years of working through my issues, with three of those years going through extensive therapy, to get to a point where I can even discuss this without having a nervous breakdown, let alone do an interview, consider writing a book, or order the court transcripts. I've made a few attempts to end my own life, which worked towards leading me to seek psychological help, and I currently work 70 to 80 hours a week. The time will come when I order the transcripts, because it's needed to write the book I'm working on in order to deal with my trauma and further integrate it rather than attempt to ignore it. I have no doubt that my memories are 100% real, and hence the only reason I see fit to order the transcripts is to see the situation from more angles. Am I prepared to find things out that may indicate my grandparents did some questionable things in their terror to save us? Perhaps yes, perhaps no, but I do not feel there is any chance of me finding something to convince me that my memories are suspect.

Actually, I believe you're being a bit deceptive with that.

Every time I say something you really dislike you accuse me of deception. It's really easy to just say, "He's lying."

"The Motel Incident" AKA "The Vaseline Incident" made it's rounds before on Websleuths shortly before you were discovered and Marvin's arrest.

Sometimes even the truth gets out there. You cannot just cherry pick all of your unnamed sources that you refuse to provide and then talk about some other unnamed sources out there as false to suit your narrative.

Was this not the original criminal case made by your father Mark against Mac Baskins in 86 or 87?

Like father like son. I have always maintained that I first revealed the abuse from Mac and Charlotte, because I didn't want to tell on the people I viewed as "mommy and daddy" because I thought that, just as a child sees another being scorned for something and realizing it was wrong, that maybe they'd stop. It was easier to tell on Mac and Charlotte first, but still difficult.

Shortly before you being located and Marvin's arrest, I remember several supporters attempting to invent some impressive propaganda in order to "tell the other side". Now either you were one of the few "sources" inventing it or you're running with it now, as it virtually states the same exact thing roughly a month before Marvin's arrest.

Again, sometimes the truth gets out. However, you still haven't provided any sources. Also, I never spoke to anyone, or wrote anywhere or even for my own private dealings, about these incidents prior to my grandfather being arrested. However, family members on Debbie's side knew about the "Vaseline Incident," so any of them could have taken to the internet about these things.

And again, wasn't this the original criminal case against Mac Baskins in 86 or 87? Jon you have to admit you're being a little misleading with this, but okay I'll play.

There you go again, if it's not something within your narrative and / or comprehension, I'm not an honest person. Also, I addressed this above, I have memories of being abused by both Mac and Mark, and they were very linked in their abuse styles.

First, this allegation was made by your father against Mac years prior, not your grandparents against Mark and Debbie. Even if I am wrong and this was entirely a separate incident, then this was a failure of Marvin and Sandra to protect you. So either they didn't believe in the sex abuse allegations initially or they were entirely fabricated to appear as this one incident back in 86 or 87.

How is this logical? What are you talking about? I told on Mac and Charlotte first. They related this to Mark and Debbie, and told them they had to press charges, however I remember Mac coming by the house on one of the days where I was with Mark and Debbie dropping off produce from the farm days after my testimony against him, and the whole thing was just death stares at me from him. I'm sorry that I don't remember the exact dates that all this happened. So my grandparents thought I was only abused by Mac and Charlotte at this point... NOT Mark and Debbie.

They thought Mark and Debbie was such a threat to both you and your sister, that they allowed Mark and Debbie to take you to some cheap ass hotel when court supervised visit were imposed from Judge Corlew's chambers? I think it's pretty safe to say that with what you just admitted, that Marvin and Sandra knew that you weren't being sexually abused by Mark and Debbie.

I have said many times, the "Vaseline Incident" happened before there were any custody issues or supervised visits. This was during the time that they would still just dump us on my grandparents but they weren't talking much because of tension from the whole Mac and Charlotte stuff from before.

By letting you go with Mark and Debbie out from under the court supervised visit, is an opportunity for them to claim you were abused.

Again, you keep beating this horse, there were no court ordered supervised visits at this time. Mark and Debbie still had legal custody of us.

Second, it was kind of cheap by Marvin and Sandra to rehash a sex abuse claim that your father had already reported against Mac, only now claiming it was Mark and it happened in present time(between custody hearings).

Again, not in between custody hearings, and it's not rehashing if they both did it. Which I happen to know and remember that they did.

Finally, I'll say that this narrative doesn't stack up against their narrative then. At least they *didn't* report it that way. I believe they used the Mac Baskins incident as a "foundation" and then altered the events. Which is why police believed you were coached. hence, my outed comment. I believe McGowen said it best when she stated your statements were "third person. Described as if he witnessed the events than experienced it".

Again. You keep going on about a lot of things where you're not providing anything to back it up. You have never once actually stated where you are getting any of your information, even after I have directly asked you.

Again, if "The Vaseline Incident" was separate from the Mac Baskins incident, then they were nearly identical incidents and the events surrounding them were identical. Which suggests either malingering or confusion.

It would assume that Mac probably abused Mark as a child, too, and Mark was simply carrying on what he had learned. In many ways I do have sympathy for Mark and Debbie, because Mark was born into a horrible situation, like myself, but likely never had anyone like my grandparents to rescue him, and Debbie probably didn't see what was going on until after she was at least pregnant with Jennifer, and was probably terrified for her own safety. These are not excuses, but, likely, they're both probably victims here, too, even with my side of the story holding up.

It's been asserted by law enforcement that you were unaware(and very well still may be) that Mark filed charges against Mac and that you were told that your mother and father didn't care. It was only over time(according to Sandra) that you stated that Mark and then eventually Debbie was there.

Again, we're having that pesky issue of sources, but this doesn't change from my own narrative.

By Sandra's own admission, you told her it was Mac Baskins your "Paw". It was only after weeks you told her Mark, then eventually Debbie.

The gang's all here.

If you by your own admission haven't reviewed the court documents, why are you even attempting to refute or clarify them?

Witness testimony is admissible evidence in the court of law. This is the court of the message forum. I have complete confidence in my memories, I'm simply not claiming to know all the intricacies surrounding the legal battle.

You are aware that your grandparents made both verbal and written statements to police?

Then you are also aware that the initial case made against Debbie and Mark had nothing to do with the "single incident" you described. Which is why it's a big contradiction.

Again, I haven't seen these statements. I'll have to look into that. Have you seen these statements, or is this just something you heard from the grapevine? If you've seen them, can you produce them? Can you provide any of your amazing sources you claim to have even once?

Sandra and Marvin's initial allegations were basically a claim "they(Mark and Debbie)" abandoned you. They also cited discipline issues. When that didn't work, only then did they raise the issue of sexual abuse and the incident described either completely borrowed from the Mac Baskins' incident years prior or attempted to swap details. Either way, it's deceptive and I believe they did so in order to confuse you and to create a window of alleged abuse.

Produce a source.

Nonsense. It's just a tough pill to swallow. I suggest you order the police reports and court documents or simply contact the FBI and/or The Murfreesboro Post.

I will, but you keep going on about things with no source, and I was there.

"The Satanic Angle" was never in play until well after it was established that you were "coerced". Even then, the only sexual abuse allegations ever made initially dated back to 86 or 87. Your grandfather went to Atlanta to consult Faye Yager who at the time was notorious for peddling "Satanic Ritual Abuse" from talk to talk show. After the consultation, the rest is history. The police also confirmed to the media that several phone calls between Marvin and Faye occurred in early 89.

If they believed that it was a Satanic cult, then they believed that. If they chose to twist the facts in order to save us from sexual abuse, then while questionable, I'm grateful to them for doing everything they can to save us.

That is not what Sandra told the police.

I misread the statement I was responding too, there. I told on Mac and Charlotte one afternoon to my grandmother.

The allegations you made to Sandra, according to Sandra(and only after abandonment claims were exhausted and obvious fabrication during custody proceedings), she explicitly stated you told her your "Paw" was doing it to you. That was her story to investigators. It was only after weeks that you said Mark and finally Debbie.

I'm with you up until there. this is all true and how it happened.

But it didn't stop there, she would further elaborate that you detailed to her satanic rituals and then placed social workers and police officers there, etc.

I don't believe you told her that.

No, no I did not. Again, though, sources are important.

Again, it's all in the documents that you by your own admission have yet to "order", even though an abundance of them were available to you and you refused to read them.

Not one single person contacted me offering me these documents. Not one. And when you hear about it on the TV and your main goal is to hold your life together, the very last thing that you're going to do is call Bill Sharp and ask for copies. We were hounded at every turn by the media for two weeks, and then it was the slow attempt to return to some sort of normalcy. And, again, if you're so familiar with these documents... do you have them? How did you get them? Can you produce them?

It's a lie? Coming from someone who admits they never read the court transcripts?

I'm saying that if anyone is saying I was abused during the supervised visitation, that's a lie, because it did not happen. That includes my grandparents.

I'll even tell you one of the last thing Marvin told Sharp when he was interviewed right after his arrest:

"I raised the kids the way I wanted to. I won"

If this is true, coming from a stroke victim who'd already lost half of his faculties and vocabulary, and couldn't even remember some of the most basic words anymore due to aphasia, then this statement doesn't bother me at all. He seemed normal to people because he stayed pretty quite after the stroke, but never bounced back 100%.

No sign of remorse. No mention of abuse. No mention of protecting the kids. Marvin didn't even run with the narrative. The ruse was up.

That's what you read into it. Why is he even going to want to go into detail at this time? He has no reason for remorse because he saved us, and whatever means he used to save us he felt justified in doing so.

Martin and Sandra simply wanted to "win". When the courts didn't crown them victorious, they made it happen. They did and said anything to make it happen.

If "winning" is loosing all of your friends (my grandparents were very loved), their family, their retirement, their peace of mind, their sanity, their health, their lives... then, yes, the really won. If "winning" is saving their grandchildren from sexual abuse, they most certainly won. Any other definition of winning is not applicable here.

Not a shred of remorse or concern.

A hero's remorse. Sounds like the name of a poem.

In the end, I don't find you at fault Jon. I really don't. What I find disturbing is that you defend the established fiction of the case. You're smarter than that. Even if what you said is 100% real, I still find it disturbing that Marvin and Sandra found it necessary to lie to both you and the courts. Which damages virtually all credibility on their end. We are supposed to believe that Sandra and Marvin's motive was protection of the kids, when Marvin said it was about "winning" based on a mountain of lies?

I've refuted all of these points. Assuming that half the stuff you're saying is true, any and all means to save us was greatly appreciated. But you've not provided a shred of evidence to back any of your statements. Witness testimony is admissible evidence. I'm a witness. Hearsay, and "oh, I think I read something about this somewhere," is not admissible evidence.

I know I posted something up above, but I felt weird saying what happened/didn't happen as I don't know these people. It's strange telling someone that they weren't sexually abused. This isn't a football game, there isn't any "picking sides" they're all grown, and they know what happened.

Thanks for at least saying that.

They lied about the parents on multiple occasions (to get custody), and likely lied to the kids about their parents.

You do not know that they lied, this is another statement that has not been, at least on these boards, corroborated with any actual proof, just someone spouting off.

My stance, I don't know. It's not for anyone to say. No one in this case was murdered, and they're all adults, so this is a family issue. I'm not going to sit here and say if he was molested or not, because I don't know, and that's not my place.

Thank you.

But even Stevie Wonder can see that the grandparents had an agenda, and lied to get and to keep custody.

Maybe, maybe not, but if they lied their agenda was to protect us.

Pretty sure he says he has spoken to people involved with the case, has gone to the trouble of obtaining court documents & has put those points here.

He's not named any actual sources, even when directly asked. He's made it easy to make an inference that he has, but he's been very specific with his words.

So if Jon lived all this abuse, he's only made one accusation. Anyway since Jon is so truthful, why is he referring to the Vaseline incident?

I've not made just one accusation, the one about Mark and Debbie seem to be the one I'm asked about the most -- go back and read my original posts on this message forum from months ago. Again, the interview was edited down from an hour-long interview to a 7 minute and change segment. And the Vaceline incident happened.

You do realize that the incident he is referring to was stated on Websleuths before he was ever found and Marvin's arrest? Just weeks before he was found? Pretty strange.

I have memories of that incident. They are vivid. And "weeks before" the arrest there was a San Diego article published about the case, so it makes sense that some of the Maple side of the family may have been annoyed and may have taken to the interwebs to talk about it. It's no more strange than you being a member here shortly after Mark and Debbie finished their interview with Holly Bounds and then taking such a particular interest in this case and having such amazingly intricate knowledge of it.

Jon in all honesty could be repeating a story told by someone else.

I have memories of this for the past 28 years, sir.

... it was bogus then and little has changed since.

It was bogus based on what?

Do you know who uncovered the incident? I do.

Funny how you always mention sources of knowledge of something but conveniently fail to divulge that information.

I also called Mark a coward for not "blowing off Mac Baskin's head".

So now you claim that it's OK to do something illegal -- murder, to be precise -- if you think that some children were molested. In fact, you're a "coward" if you don't. But if kids are being molested and you have to break the law to remove them from the situation and disappear, or lie in court, well, these people are just horrible. Logic only works if it's consistent, good sir.

See to believe Jon, you'd have to believe that Mark only decided to abuse his son only after he was accused of such and when he had limited access to his son. All this after he filed criminal charges against his own father.

Again, if you'd actually read my previous posts in the thread about us being found you would know that this statement is completely nonsensical.

As far as any other claim of me being a covert Baskin operative under the disguise of a casual poster, you'd simply have to check when I popped up and when you were propagating Jon's interview. Pretty simple.

You popped up here after Mark and Debbie had finished their portion of the interview. Again, no more suspect than someone posting about an incident that happened to me a few weeks before my grandfather's arrest.

I also would be inclined to take Jon more seriously had he not tried to intimidate everyone who challenged some of his accusations via PM. He'll go so far as to define what brainwashing is when it comes to him, then accuse Michael of the same.

I never intimidated you. I confronted everybodylovesrs because he said some really nasty things that were uncalled for about my grandfather. I PM'd you because I politely asked (and acknowledged that you could definitely choose not to) that out of respect for someone involved to not mention something about that person that another poster had mentioned. The other poster respectfully removed the comment... you never did. In that same PM to you I asked for some further clarification on some of your stances while providing some of my recollections to aid as a method of providing context. You never responded to either part of the PM. If asking for you to not mention something about another person who is innocent out of respect for that person, and asking for clarification about your stance on something, is intimidation, then you must have some pretty thin skin.

This is absolutely not true. I've told Jon (aka Nighthawk) directly that, while I believe he's sincere, I also believe that the Baskins are telling the truth. He has NEVER contacted me via PM and tried to intimidate me. He's been respectful the entire time and has never made anything personal.

Here we go again.

Okay, what? I absolutely have no clue what you are saying is not true. Are we having an "I am your father" moment here?

Please tell me you are not shaking your fist at the monitor.

Now you're calling TheCars1986 Darth Vader??? That's actually pretty cool. I call him Dragon.

So, SertumAEnigmA, I hope this is my last post for the time being. I don't feel the need to respond to you if you don't provide more specifics -- I have memories of this case, you claim to have read about it. Any credibility you had with me was lost when you started insulting CrystalDawn and this forum altogether, and started to rely on logical fallacies (i.e., doing something illegal is unacceptable in this situation for this person, but doing something that even a graver legal offence is acceptable for this other person in the same situation - this is a Special Pleading Fallacy). If you want to provide some verifiable sources, then that's great. Otherwise, and hopefully for some time, I'm done here.

This is a "freaking" long post. I have not had time to proofread it. I'll probably do that later, but for the time being, freakbook, here's your chance to look for some typos. ;)

The time will come when I order the transcripts, because it's needed to write the book I'm working on in order to deal with my trauma and further integrate it rather than attempt to ignore it. I have no doubt that my memories are 100% real, and hence the only reason I see fit to order the transcripts is to see the situation from more angles. Am I prepared to find things out that may indicate my grandparents did some questionable things in their terror to save us? Perhaps yes, perhaps no, but I do not feel there is any chance of me finding something to convince me that my memories are suspect.

Herein lies the issue-you have no doubt that your memories are real, despite the involvement of a SRA quack. Why would you bother ordering the transcripts? It appears they show nothing to support your version of events or the Maples, you will not commit to finding any fault with your grandparents regardless of the evidence & don't feel you would find anything to convince you that your memories were induced by people with an agenda.

... OK, then.


I never spoke to Bill Sharp. So that's simply not true.
-SNIP-



I could go line by line, but I'll cut this short since you seem "factually challenged".

Sir, I will make this easy.

If Bill Sharp said he spoke with you and you are aware that the case documents are available for you to read?

Is Bill Sharp lying?

Next, be honest. Honest.

Is it true or not, that you read the Vaseline Incident and are now claiming it as memory?

My sources-

I'll start with Bill Sharp and Carol Moore.

Yes, I've read actual documents. I've been upfront with my sources from the start. You know what's funny, is that you not only just reinforce what I've provided, you make excuses. Since we are on the subject of honesty, even if I provided you with a Sandra Maple statement, you'd just say "Well they had to say that to get custody". The documents are irrelevant in your eyes, they've been irrelevant for eight years.

As far as this alliance with CD, they are "factually challenged" as well. CD is more concerned with getting involved with someone in this case than anything else. This moderator called me a liar, even when you corroborated my statements. So then CD decided that I was a covert Baskin opportunist who solely came to peddle a Baskin slant, yet I was speaking about UMs before the interview was posted. Now if I was peddling a Baskin angle, I would say"Well did you see how honest Debbie was in that video, did you see her glasses and how much she loves those kids, that just proves what they are saying is real". That's the type of facts CD provides. Innuendo and observances become facts. Actual facts become fiction. Selective reading becomes memories.

You really want to call this person credible and your friend? A person who feels sorry for you and wants to steal your moment? At least I have integrity. I don't need to hide behind a couple of posters and seek their approval to speak just some very simple facts. Hell you act like I'm providing something compelling, this case was debunked a long time ago.

Now just a piece of advice, if CD was speaking on my behalf I'd be damned sure to make it clear that I want nothing to do with that. If CD is any representation of the board culture around here, I'd be ashamed. Many have expressed this.

Glad I could clear this up!

Always happy to help!

Now you're dismissed. I've said all I have to say about this case. I cannot help the "factually challenged". There is nothing more that I can do. When Bill Sharp knocked on your door with documents in hand, that's way more than I could ever provide. But you were raised to not trust the police.

Good luck to you sir!

freakbook, here's your chance to look for some typos. ;)

Oh, you dog, you. :p

There are comments about Marvin having contacted Faye Yeager. I have to wonder if maybe he was contacting her to get ideas on how to disappear with the children more than just to discuss Satanic Abuse.

Herein lies the issue-you have no doubt that your memories are real, despite the involvement of a SRA quack. Why would you bother ordering the transcripts? It appears they show nothing to support your version of events or the Maples, you will not commit to finding any fault with your grandparents regardless of the evidence & don't feel you would find anything to convince you that your memories were induced by people with an agenda.

I have not one memory of being told what happened to me. I remember what happened and I remember telling what happened. This is not consistent with implanted memories. I have memories of physical pain that are as clear as a broken ankle that happened a five years ago.

If Bill Sharp said he spoke with you and you are aware that the case documents are available for you to read?

Is Bill Sharp lying?

I never spoke to Bill Sharp. I never saw him. This whole thing went sideways from what they were expecting would happen. No big family reunion. No huge conviction but instead a little plea bargain with time served. He's probably making sure to cover himself so he seemed like he did his job.

Next, be honest. Honest.

Is it true or not, that you read the Vaseline Incident and are now claiming it as memory?

No, sir. I remember this happening since it happened. What you're trying to claim is that I'm not only someone who has fallen prey to undue influence, but that I'm also a complete psycho who reads things and says, "Yep, That happened to me, too."


My sources-

I'll start with Bill Sharp and Carol Moore.

You keep mentioning Carol Moore. I don't even know who this is.

Yes, I've read actual documents. I've been upfront with my sources from the start. You know what's funny, is that you not only just reinforce what I've provided, you make excuses. Since we are on the subject of honesty, even if I provided you with a Sandra Maple statement, you'd just say "Well they had to say that to get custody". The documents are irrelevant in your eyes, they've been irrelevant for eight years.

You haven't produced anything verifiable. You mention online sources but provide none. You use quotation marks for certain quotes which indicates an active access to these sources but, again, they're never provided.

As far as this alliance with CD, they are "factually challenged" as well. CD is more concerned with getting involved with someone in this case than anything else. This moderator called me a liar, even when you corroborated my statements. So then CD decided that I was a covert Baskin opportunist who solely came to peddle a Baskin slant, yet I was speaking about UMs before the interview was posted. Now if I was peddling a Baskin angle, I would say"Well did you see how honest Debbie was in that video, did you see her glasses and how much she loves those kids, that just proves what they are saying is real". That's the type of facts CD provides. Innuendo and observances become facts. Actual facts become fiction. Selective reading becomes memories.

The problem is you resort to name calling and huge insults when people aren't peddling the facts as you see then. Referring to people as "Goddamn fanboys" is pathetic on your part. I have a very specific reason to hate UM, and a lot of people on here have tried to take me to task. But there's a certain layer of respect you simply lack. I also believe that in some instances you are not being honest or are not fully remembering the time line. That is because you keep referring to things happening out of sequence.


You really want to call this person credible and your friend? A person who feels sorry for you and wants to steal your moment? At least I have integrity. I don't need to hide behind a couple of posters and seek their approval to speak just some very simple facts. Hell you act like I'm providing something compelling, this case was debunked a long time ago.

Now just a piece of advice, if CD was speaking on my behalf I'd be damned sure to make it clear that I want nothing to do with that. If CD is any representation of the board culture around here, I'd be ashamed. Many have expressed this.

I think CD is mostly responding to the fact that you keep outright accusing me of lying. You weren't there and you keep going on about "misleading," or other synonyms that mean "liar." This is going to trigger someone if they believe the person being taken to task. You're acting like this board has an impact on actual public opinion. It's a rather small group (on the global sense) who share thoughts and theories. You just go around throwing information about the case guided by your own opinions about it as fact without actually backing anything you're saying up.

Now you're dismissed. I've said all I have to say about this case. I cannot help the "factually challenged".

You never wanted to help. Had that been the case you would have responded to the PM I sent you asking for clarification on some of your stances. You wanted to "expose" something, as you have already admitted, and not getting a gratifying response to this means you're taking your toys away and playing with other children.

When Bill Sharp knocked on your door with documents in hand, that's way more than I could ever provide.

If Bill Sharp ever knocked on my door I wasn't home, and he didn't leave anything for me. I never spoke to or saw the man. And I have a lot of respect for the police, But like any profession some are good at their job, some not, some are crooked. But you seem like you're good friends with Bill as you must be close if he shared so much with you about this case.

There are comments about Marvin having contacted Faye Yeager. I have to wonder if maybe he was contacting her to get ideas on how to disappear with the children more than just to discuss Satanic Abuse.

Give this person a trophy!

I'm not on Jon's side, nor am I "starstruck", but I don't see why people are so emotional about this. Hell, I don't even know why this topic is still open for debate.

I've made some posts here, but I don't get why people are emotional, and mad at Jon. He's a grown man. (Hopefully) he knows right from wrong, and it's his decision if he wants to meet with his parents.

His mind is already made up, so be it. Why does anyone care if he wants to meet with his parents? I don't. Him and his sister were found alive, and the Baskins aren't in prison, so as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing to talk about.

This case is "solved" if you will, and no longer a mystery. It's a family matter, leave it as such. As fans of this show you have to know when you're "overstepping" your boundaries and going too far.

There's no mystery left. The Baskins aren't in prison, and the children can do as they please. Screaming at him over and over isn't going to change his mind. This is now bordering on someone's personal life, and you're telling a grown man what he should do.

As I've stated, I don't care. No one's murdered or still missing, and everyone is "okay". The rest is up to them.

Move along now people.

There are comments about Marvin having contacted Faye Yeager. I have to wonder if maybe he was contacting her to get ideas on how to disappear with the children more than just to discuss Satanic Abuse.

More than likely both-just a coincidence the Satanic stuff just came out of nowhere? Unlikely.

More than likely both-just a coincidence the Satanic stuff just came out of nowhere? Unlikely.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Faye Yeager probably convinced my grandparents that the satanic abuse was happening.

I'm not on Jon's side, nor am I "starstruck", but I don't see why people are so emotional about this. Hell, I don't even know why this topic is still open for debate.

I've made some posts here, but I don't get why people are emotional, and mad at Jon. He's a grown man. (Hopefully) he knows right from wrong, and it's his decision if he wants to meet with his parents.

His mind is already made up, so be it. Why does anyone care if he wants to meet with his parents? I don't. Him and his sister were found alive, and the Baskins aren't in prison, so as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing to talk about.

This case is "solved" if you will, and no longer a mystery. It's a family matter, leave it as such. As fans of this show you have to know when you're "overstepping" your boundaries and going too far.

There's no mystery left. The Baskins aren't in prison, and the children can do as they please. Screaming at him over and over isn't going to change his mind. This is now bordering on someone's personal life, and you're telling a grown man what he should do.

As I've stated, I don't care. No one's murdered or still missing, and everyone is "okay". The rest is up to them.

Move along now people.

My God. That is quite literally the first post of yours that I've read and said, "YES. I agree with EVERYTHING he just said!"

Completely random and somewhat off-topic, but there was mention of autobiographies.

Can I just say that I would absolutely read an autobiography written by Arthur Paul Beal, aka Tyler? I feel like it would be FASCINATING.

My God. That is quite literally the first post of yours that I've read and said, "YES. I agree with EVERYTHING he just said!"

Completely random and somewhat off-topic, but there was mention of autobiographies.

Can I just say that I would absolutely read an autobiography written by Arthur Paul Beal, aka Tyler? I feel like it would be FASCINATING.

It would just read "I don't know" over and over again.

250 pages. Each page just says "I don't know" in different fonts.

Completely random and somewhat off-topic, but there was mention of autobiographies.

Can I just say that I would absolutely read an autobiography written by Arthur Paul Beal, aka Tyler? I feel like it would be FASCINATING.

For me he holds the distinction of having the most bizarre 'mystery within the mystery'.

Like what's the deal with stealing frozen meat? Did he have some fantasy that he was like a made guy and would sell hot meat to some mob owned establishments in Vegas? Or was this all just to dodge child support?

For me he holds the distinction of having the most bizarre 'mystery within the mystery'.

Like what's the deal with stealing frozen meat? Did he have some fantasy that he was like a made guy and would sell hot meat to some mob owned establishments in Vegas? Or was this all just to dodge child support?

I always thought he just sold it, and probably partied with the money.

It would just read "I don't know" over and over again.

250 pages. Each page just says "I don't know" in different fonts.

Following a tragic heart attack, he's a borderline vegetable last I heard. If he's still alive, his autobiography may possibly just be drool stains on paper, sadly.

Following a tragic heart attack, he's a borderline vegetable last I heard. If he's still alive, his autobiography may possibly just be drool stains on paper, sadly.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I always thought he just sold it, and probably partied with the money.

Yeah but the whole amnesia bit and then to go on TV like that. To get out of trouble for stolen meat? Sounds like he's escaping more than just some criminal charges.

Better off just pretending to be Robin Hood. I had to feed all the children of degenerate gamblers.

I love the whole shot in the leg bit and then some mention of martial arts and CIA. Wonder if he scared himself in the mirror. Whoa a bad ass, oh it's me. Couldn't remember who he was, but he was some bad ass.

Yeah but the whole amnesia bit and then to go on TV like that. To get out of trouble for stolen meat? Sounds like he's escaping more than just some criminal charges.

Yeah, true. I'm sure it was something deeper, but according to all of those scorned women in his thread, and everything that they said about him he was definitely running from something else.

I love the whole shot in the leg bit and then some mention of martial arts and CIA. Wonder if he scared himself in the mirror. Whoa a bad ass, oh it's me. Couldn't remember who he was, but he was some bad ass.

Holy **** :lol: :lol: :lol:

This moderator called me a liar, even when you corroborated my statements. So then CD decided that I was a covert Baskin opportunist who solely came to peddle a Baskin slant, yet I was speaking about UMs before the interview was posted. Now if I was peddling a Baskin angle, I would say"Well did you see how honest Debbie was in that video, did you see her glasses and how much she loves those kids, that just proves what they are saying is real". That's the type of facts CD provides. Innuendo and observances become facts. Actual facts become fiction. Selective reading becomes memories.

I can't speak to your sources and what you know, if you are related to the case at all, if you just joined because of this case, blah blah blah, but the same thing happened to me (by a different moderator who won't be named). Needless to say I've done over 400+ posts on these forums and I've been here since at least 2008 when it was being revived on Spike. I've posted about many, many different cases, entirely unrelated from each other, sometimes in great detail, given links, articles, my opinions, on and on, not just this one case. Both in threads and in replies. But I was accused of being directly related to the Baskins in a private message. Some are just too concerned with being friends with TakeAWildGuess that they push all those facts aside in their rush to cast aspersions. Being passionate about your opinions and not just rolling over every time a slightly famous person walks by is called "trolling" these days. That's my opinion and I won't be surprised if it gets censored or removed.

I have a very specific reason to hate UM, and a lot of people on here have tried to take me to task.


If you hate UM, I don't know why you are here, as this board is for people who appreciate the show. Start a blog as your therapy.

If you hate UM, I don't know why you are here, as this board is for people who appreciate the show. Start a blog as your therapy.

I came on here because people kept talking about my life, my grandparents, and all sorts of random things on here. I realize some people love the show and understand why, but if you were terrified as a child every time you'd hear the theme song you'd have feelings about UM as well. Since coming on here, some people have been infinitely supportive. Others have been middle of the road. Others still have doubted me but been completely respectable about it. Then some have been like you. You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both, then there you have the Sitcoms Online UM message board.

I can't speak to your sources and what you know, if you are related to the case at all, if you just joined because of this case, blah blah blah, but the same thing happened to me (by a different moderator who won't be named). Needless to say I've done over 400+ posts on these forums and I've been here since at least 2008 when it was being revived on Spike. I've posted about many, many different cases, entirely unrelated from each other, sometimes in great detail, given links, articles, my opinions, on and on, not just this one case. Both in threads and in replies. But I was accused of being directly related to the Baskins in a private message. Some are just too concerned with being friends with TakeAWildGuess that they push all those facts aside in their rush to cast aspersions. Being passionate about your opinions and not just rolling over every time a slightly famous person walks by is called "trolling" these days. That's my opinion and I won't be surprised if it gets censored or removed.

Ah, we were warned years ago. WS, would often link Sitcoms as a source of high drama theories. But I would think with this being a UM dedicated forum, there would be a lot of informed people around.

I'm wrong from time to time.

Anyway, I was kinda hoping folks would notice to the big lie that Jon told, but it appears if it don't slap them in the face, ya know if it was a snake and all that.

So here it goes.

So IT WAS LONG speculated that one of the Baskin kids were out in the forums(same as in the 90s). Now I am far from being an expert on this case as there are people that have records ready on the whim at other places.

Thankfully. Otherwise Jon would be talking right about now how he was nearly sacrificed at the Coven til Marvin showed up. True story.

So a few good people had decided to tip off the Cold Case team being Sharp and Goodwin. Now I will inject my own personal theory to this. I long thought it was Christi Baskins as ya know sometimes the posts were kinda femmie and would take shots at Debbie like "Look at her hair". Stuff high school girls take shots at.

The weird thing with these posters as they were pissed, seriously pissed. You said something about Marvin and/or Sandra, you'd get bombarded with PMs getting called a ***** and coward for "hiding behind a keyboard". So it was quite obvious this person was either close to the Baskin kids(spouse or teenage kid) or was one of them.

Police got tipped, Sharp ran a story with Debbie and Mark and BAM they got caught. Hubris of Marvin and Jon.

You decide on what happened with that.

So, there was a long time running rumor that there way have been some truth to the molestation as Mac Baskins had been accused of this before by Mark. So, because WS will eat you alive if you start making bogus claims, a poster whom knew everyone on record personally, FOIA'd Mac's arrest. We got wound up like you guys are now and then we wised up to the "story".

Now this person knew the Baskins and Maples so well they could tell you just about anything. So this person basically painted Marvin as this lapdog and Sandra was kinda known as the town bully. You know, the type of person that if you upset her, she'd call Child Protective Services on you. Word for word- "she was hell bent on destroying you". This person actually went so far as to collect some statements from the town folk who witnessed this behavior. This really was no secret. People have said it for years.

Now because people have integrity, they just didn't have the Baskin slant, they went and got the scoop on Mac. Anyway, very basic details were told to the Baskin kids on the forum.

There, "The Vaseline Incident" was born.

Not because Jon, told you. But someone found it and then Jon ran with it. So a short time later "this person(likely Jon since well, ya know)" went on a tirade telling Baskin supporters to ask Mark and Debbie about the Vaseline Incident. Um, why because someone "told you" about it? They[Mark and Debbie] were asked and like always, they didn't deny or run from it.

So the details Jon provided was almost word for word is what an expert on the Baskin case provided. Yes, they know the Baskins, but they didn't hide the truth. It was that very day, Jon had a memory of the entire Vaseline Incident. Except he forgot about Mac.

So where you may be asking where was this lie? Sertum is lying again ya know, I don't know about what, but he is lying or telling some Baskin slant. I bet he's Debbie.

Well if you followed the conversation between Jon and I-- I pressed for details. Now deep down inside I wasn't looking for the sexual description that took place, I knew the Vaseline Incident would be named. I just waited. I asked nicely. I'm a nice person. This is after I am being attacked by many folks, some who have no clue as to what they are talking about. You were on Unsolved Mysteries? Panties fly right off. Those folks.

Jon word for word told everyone on this board "The sexual abuse happened in a non-supervised visit from Mark and Debbie where they took us all to some cheap motel".

He conveyed this as occurring while Marvin and Sandra had custody of he and Jennifer when Mark and Debbie came to visit.

It. Is. A. Lie.

So, since I am an honest person not wanting to look like such a cruel person for questioning a person who was allegedly abused as a child, kept waiting for one of the "smart" people around here like a certain board moderator to say, "wait, didn't you say Mark and Debbie in a cheap hotel". I didn't point this out, I let him tell "his story". A very deceptive one. And if you're honest, it was deceptive.

I simply asked "Hey, was this the same incident that Mark filed charges against Mac Baskins in 86 or 87?"

Because if you were smart, why would Debbie and Mark need to get a "cheap" hotel room(still taking cheap shots at Debbie, like her hair), when they lived in town in 86 or 87? Remember, Debbie was involved in this abuse, "she just wasn't too keen on it". I'm sure Jon will respond back, like always, with some new memory. How dare I question his "story". Why Mark and Debbie, these are married child sex abusers of a higher class. "We don't molest our kids at home, we molest them with Mark's parents at the telly" Cause you know, not one person there said "Hey, this is messed up". Pedophilia is a pretty personal lone wolf crime, unless you believe in things like Satanic Ritual Abuse. Then yes, there is this underground network of Satanists that molest kids and sacrifice pregnant women. Hundreds of cases, all proven to be pure BS, but there is a first for everything.

Jon wanted you to believe as he said "The sexual abuse occurred in some cheap motel during a non-supervised visit" while Sandra and Marvin had custody, implying his only memory of sexual abuse occurred, only after they were accused of such.

That's what he said. I let him run with it. Just in case I was mistaken, I pressed for clarification. How dare I? But face it, you ate it up. Because what mean person questions a person who said they were abused as a child.

Folks it wasn't another "visit" from Mark and Debbie at all.. The incident occurred when Mac Baskins was visiting. It is rumored that Bobbie had a fear of public restrooms, Mac went to treat the boy for constipation and that was that. He got mad, told daddy and daddy tried to get Mac locked up.

Except Robbie had an active imagination and certain things weren't told. Now when this person(Jon) ran with the "Vaseline Incident" he went on to allege that McGowen went to Marvin and told him "this is the most clear cut case I ever seen of child sex abuse". Now this was a lie. They couldn't even name the agency McGowen was from, but who cares? We're just making accusations. You bet your ass McGowen cleared up the BS. Quickly too. Because in the same post it accused McGowen of "losing physical evidence". When pressed for the evidence?

DNA. Yeah, cause Murfreesboro PD was dropping $250,000 on DNA testing in 86 or 87.

It was so obvious this was a Baskin kid that The Murfreesboro Post started to look in it. Well, because Jon started taking shots at Debbie with this same story in an article in the comments section.

IP got ran and the comment got deleted(not only because it was vile, but because smart and honest people presented facts and I suspect they didn't want the Maples to get wise). Sharp was on this like white on rice.

Mark and Debbie wanted to believe their son and they did.

Just that simple. End of story? Nope.

This started with a lie and ended with a lie, and you got fooled.

Just like Mark and Debbie. Marvin and Sandra and the list goes on.

You gotta think in this case, am I a Judge Corlew or a Judge Henry?

I gave Jon opportunity after opportunity to clarify the facts I was presenting.

He never mentioned Mac. I did. I asked him and now Mac is there too. And you attack me. I'm just not a fool. Don't get mad because you fell for the BS. Jon don't know anything about sexual abuse. Honest people went looking to see if there may have been some truth to the case. Jon heard about it and repeated the same story and began getting feisty on the boards with honest and smart people.

He got "Stomp" locked up and this is why Jennifer isn't too happy that he's back in action. When Jon gets to talking, people start going to jail and police show up and Child Protective Services show up.

Just like Sandra. There is hell to pay. Guys you really can't be this stupid.

Here's the thing, if Jon was honest, where is the mention of abuse prior to the custody case by him?

Why does "some covert Baskin supporter" gotta bring up the actual "poison"? If my position was simply to tell a Baskin slant, you'd never would have heard about Mac. Not from me. Certainly not from Jon.

FACT. Jon didn't remember the Mac Baskin incident. He heard about it. Then he ran with it and got the media and police showing up on the West Coast.

Stay off the damn boards. I was gonna let this go. I was gonna bite the bullet and if people are this stupid, then that's your problem. I was gonna be the bad guy "attacking" some guy who said he was sexually abused.

But just like Sandra and Marvin and his hubris. He. Just. Keeps. Going.

There you have it folks. You were duped. I joined the board as I had taken a long break from mysteries. UM came back on Amazon and I spoke occasionally. I didn't even touch all my old cases or even old friends at other places. Then the Baskins are back on TV and suddenly one is on the board!

Again! Like Deja Vu. Fool me once ya know...

So now, then there was the second exposure. I wasn't gonna bring it up, but I'm just too damn honest. So, remember when I said, "Jon I'm surprised you're not running with the typical 'There are two side to every story' camp's narrative that Satanic Ritual Abuse was invented by the Baskins in order to discredit the Maples".

Now this admission actually floored me. His response wasn't "well they are full of ****", No he said "I may have mentioned that the Baskins used it...."

So he admits to being the "Camp". Not a "well their thoughts and my thoughts are..." This kid is a liar and he thinks you're stupid. His whole life he's been raised to think when you want something, you do and say whatever you damn well please. It's all about winning and having your way.

Jon might be right about one thing. Now I'm done. This is very entertaining and all, but I'm getting very embarrassed for people around here. Seriously I am. It really shouldn't come to this. This is a very serious subject matter and two people are getting accused of child sex abuse. I do believe everyone here, CD included is having the very best of intentions. But many hardworking people were duped by this and it cost some people who did believe Bobbie their careers. Thousands of man hours went into this case by half a dozen agencies and not one shred of evidence showed up. They were called cultists and child abusers. Now liars by Jon Bunting. Sorry folks, this wasn't a case where one officer took a report and made a couple phone calls. a judge kept handling them the case and said "find it"! After ten months the ruse was up. And if Jon was being honest that the Maples learned at the last minute that they were gonna be given back to the Baskins, they why did they sell the house weeks earlier and consult Faye Yager "months" earlier? Sandra and Marvin got "lucky" to get the kids as long as they did, but they even knew the lie would get exposed. "Months" in advance. Sorry Jon, this was no last minute dip off. They thought about it and not once did they even try to get Michael. No effort. Wonder why?

Get real folks. If it was "Jon Bunting" and his therapist's strategy to come out here and start conning people, very well. Quite frankly, there is more compelling "fakery" that at least makes me have two cups of coffee before I can start weeding out the BS. It is very very nice to see and speak with folks profiled on the show. Really is. Very sad case and all. Obvious problems here. We are not doing any favors for the Maples, Buntings and/or Baskins engaging in lies. As far as his story getting put out there, hell, I could of showed you the BS he's offered. Nothing new. This is about feeding the ego. That Maple Hubris. Chips are all in Jon? Get my drift? I understand. So you can continue your personal jihad of attacking the poster, because hey there are a few idiots out there that bought the con. Maybe their chips are in too?

If he was honest and waging this 'jihad' to get the truth out, why hasn't he called Michael? These Baskins are so abusive and cruel, he hasn't even called his brother to see if he's okay. He's just so worried he'll be "ambushed" by the cult.

Have a nice day!

If you'll look at this post: http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=5159658&postcount=1256

Dated August 24, 2016, I said this:

I remember the abuse. I remember, back when I still called the people I now think of as Mom and Dad, Nanny and Stomp, telling my Nanny about the abuse for the first time one day sitting on the floor after having visited Mack Baskin's farm. I remember that everything changed that day. I remember being unable to testify because it was too hard to have to see Mack's face, and the complete terror in my soul taking hold of me. Try to face your tormentor and not cry when you're such a young child.

And now, today, you say:

He never mentioned Mac. I did. I asked him and now Mac is there too. And you attack me. I'm just not a fool.

For someone so hellbent on the truth you seem to only pay attention to the details that suit you. I've always included Mac and Charlotte in the abuse.

So it was quite obvious this person was either close to the Baskin kids(spouse or teenage kid) or was one of them.

Yeah, no, it was not myself nor anyone directly related to me unless Jennifer went out there on her own, and the only message forum I ever read on was this one.

BlahBlahBlahBlahBlah There, "The Vaseline Incident" was born.

I really don't care what was said. If you think that there are some boards where people know what they're talking about and can reference actual facts, then why in blue blazes can't it happen in another board? Are you the only online message board poster that has access to information you would acknowledge as being connected to the case?

Jon word for word told everyone on this board "The sexual abuse happened in a non-supervised visit from Mark and Debbie where they took us all to some cheap motel".

He conveyed this as occurring while Marvin and Sandra had custody of he and Jennifer when Mark and Debbie came to visit.

It. Is. A. Lie.

I keep saying, no, they did not have legal custody of us at the time. We were dumped on my grandparents and Mark was off somewhere going to school and couldn't afford to feed us (probably why the guy ate my food). You keep ignoring what I'm saying and claiming I'm saying something else.

Then, you keep saying I'm lying and you say some nonsense that doesn't actually explain why you think I'm lying. What is it about this case that has you so riled up, huh?

I didn't point this out, I let him tell "his story". A very deceptive one. And if you're honest, it was deceptive.

Absolutely nothing you're saying points to any deception.

Because if you were smart, why would Debbie and Mark need to get a "cheap" hotel room(still taking cheap shots at Debbie, like her hair), when they lived in town in 86 or 87?

Mark was off in another town, actually, studying. This is all verifiable. And they were both broke, so that's why the motel was cheap. I'm not taking cheap shots at Debbie, by the way, I never have on this board, but you can pretend to read what you want.

Remember, Debbie was involved in this abuse, "she just wasn't too keen on it". I'm sure Jon will respond back, like always, with some new memory.

I have never once contradicted myself, you manipulative, sad man. You must be really bored and lonely if, as you claim, you have no connection to this case and no real bias.

"The sexual abuse occurred in some cheap motel during a non-supervised visit" while Sandra and Marvin had custody, implying his only memory of sexual abuse occurred, only after they were accused of such.

I never implied that. You may have inferred that because that what you want implied. I have memories of abuse from age three. This has never been something that changed. The first seven years of my life were a war zone.

The incident occurred when Mac Baskins was visiting. It is rumored that Bobbie had a fear of public restrooms, Mac went to treat the boy for constipation and that was that. He got mad, told daddy and daddy tried to get Mac locked up.

Some of this is true some of it is not. I told my grandmother about the abuse. I did not tell Mark. I did not believe Mark would try to help me.

Well, because Jon started taking shots at Debbie with this same story in an article in the comments section.

Wasn't me, dude, and you can keep saying it is, but the fact that you place so much weight on something where there is absolutely no evidence and keep stating it as fact just proves that you have no interest in the truth, or evidence. You read up on this story, or were told, or know someone, and you wanted to feel like you could expose something. You're not making any case here, you just keep spouting nonsense.

Here's the thing, if Jon was honest, where is the mention of abuse prior to the custody case by him?

Please look at my first comment above, moron.

FACT. Jon didn't remember the Mac Baskin incident. He heard about it. Then he ran with it and got the media and police showing up on the West Coast.

Yeah, you have a real twisted definition of facts. What is your problem, man?

Stay off the damn boards. I was gonna let this go. I was gonna bite the bullet and if people are this stupid, then that's your problem. I was gonna be the bad guy "attacking" some guy who said he was sexually abused.

But just like Sandra and Marvin and his hubris. He. Just. Keeps. Going.

I'm really just starting to think you're a psychopath. You continually provide not actual evidence, you just STATE things as facts. This is not evidence when you admit you were not there. This is just spouting.

Now this admission actually floored me. His response wasn't "well they are full of ****", No he said "I may have mentioned that the Baskins used it...."

So he admits to being the "Camp". Not a "well their thoughts and my thoughts are..." This kid is a liar and he thinks you're stupid. His whole life he's been raised to think when you want something, you do and say whatever you damn well please. It's all about winning and having your way.

You're not even making any sense. I cannot make heads or tails of what you're saying here, it sounds like rage filled puss. Can I get a translator?

Sorry Jon, this was no last minute dip off. They thought about it and not once did they even try to get Michael. No effort. Wonder why?

Again... if they'd tried to get Michael, they would have literally had to take him from Mark and Debbie, and they were not going to allow that. Can you look at some facts??

Get real folks. If it was "Jon Bunting" and his therapist's strategy to come out here and start conning people, very well. Quite frankly, there is more compelling "fakery" that at least makes me have two cups of coffee before I can start weeding out the BS.

I'm seriously at a loss, here.

If he was honest and waging this 'jihad' to get the truth out, why hasn't he called Michael? These Baskins are so abusive and cruel, he hasn't even called his brother to see if he's okay. He's just so worried he'll be "ambushed" by the cult.

As I've said. I have attempted suicide in the past. I am dealing with a ton of emotional issues and am trying to work my way through them. I am doing my best. I care about Michael and have called him before at the number listed on the comic book shop he used to own. I have heard his voice when he called back but did not identify myself. I wonder what kind of life you've lived, what sort of luxury, that you cannot understand that some people are dealing with some serious issues.

I also have to wonder if Damion Moore is related to this Carole Moore you keep mentioning. Maybe that's your connection to this case.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Faye Yeager probably convinced my grandparents that the satanic abuse was happening.

Quite probable, what a horrible woman. Cannot believe she is still around propagating that stuff in her seventies.

I came on here because people kept talking about my life, my grandparents, and all sorts of random things on here. I realize some people love the show and understand why, but if you were terrified as a child every time you'd hear the theme song you'd have feelings about UM as well. Since coming on here, some people have been infinitely supportive. Others have been middle of the road. Others still have doubted me but been completely respectable about it. Then some have been like you. You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both, then there you have the Sitcoms Online UM message board.

I think most of us were scared out of our wits by the UM music-huge part of the appeal. Then again I was 12 when I first saw it & my earlier childhood was full of scary stuff as UK children's television in the 1970's & 1980's was terrifying. Public Safety Films with kids getting electrocuted, drowned etc used to be on right before the cartoons started at midday. The cartoons seemed to be made by people on drugs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1-TZw1Yplc

Quite probable, what a horrible woman. Cannot believe she is still around propagating that stuff in her seventies.

Googling her name brings up references to "Children of the Underground" and networks involving people helping others escape with their children, often noncustodial parents.

Seeing that Marvin contacted her would not surprise me in the least. Without Internet and other resources, who would you have contacted if you wanted ideas, guidance and/or assistance on how to disappear with the children?

If you hate UM, I don't know why you are here, as this board is for people who appreciate the show. Start a blog as your therapy.

I guess if I were in Jon's shoes, I would be terrified of UM, especially the music, even more so than many of us are who watched it when we were kids.

Writing can often be therapeutic, so if Jon does write a book (or blog), that's great.

@Sertum yeah some people have been duped but not me. I never bought the story back then & with all the info you have provided, most certainly do I not buy it now.

You know the things you have said about Sandra Maple I have heard from others. Which brings me to when I first saw this case on UM & saw the pic they showed of the Maples. I will never forget the first thing that came to mind was my god the grandmother looks just evil.

You know CD talks about things that are sad & disgusting. You wanna know what is sad & disgusting is a family was ripped to shreds over false accusations & the charade being continued making the one side look bad & evil when in fact it was the side who was doing the accusing is the evil ones.

This whole thing just makes me angry & sick to my stomach.

It's funny how someone can come here like you sertum with allot of info on this case challenging one of the persons involved & some think we are just suppose to accept & not challenge what that person says because oh they was a victim.

To you Jon, oh of course you hate UM because of that show it helped get the wheels in motion of exposing the truth & fake BS you & your disgusting grandparents have tried to peddle.

Sertum I thank you for coming here & posting what you did.

Funny how CD has done a complete 180 in regards to the case & now all up in Jon's ass coming to his defense. Just pathetic.

Anyway sadly this board has gone to ****.

See ya around suckers, I'm out.

Anyway sadly this board has gone to ****.

See ya around suckers, I'm out.

https://media.giphy.com/media/2ept7eRuyq98s/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/2ept7eRuyq98s/giphy.gif

+1.

I've refrained from commenting about the case since Jon came to our boards. I admittedly don't know what to think about what actually happened. But you know, it's not really that damn important what I think, anyway. I didn't live it. I'm not privy to volumes of information, nor would I clamor to become so. It's not my story to tell.

And I think that's where some folks get awfully damn confused. The better aware we are that the only individuals who get to own that story are those who were involved, the better off I think we're all going to be.

I admittedly don't know what to think about what actually happened. But you know, it's not really that damn important what I think, anyway. I didn't live it. I'm not privy to volumes of information, nor would I clamor to become so. It's not my story to tell.

Great point. In reality, all of our opinions about this case are irrelevant. I don't have all the information, and it's really none of my business in the grand scheme of things outside of a UM segment. I don't know why people are getting so worked up over it. Don't believe Jon? Fine. Believe him? Great. Agree to disagree and start posting reasons why Rob killed Angela instead.

I will just add something to this discussion.

In the search of "truth", we are avoiding the big elephant in the room here: We have a victim directly letting us know his side of the story. Let's not forget that Bobby/Jonathan and Christy/Jennifer are the victims of a horrible, traumatizing familial mess. Were they illegally kidnapped and stolen from their parents, or victims of parental abuse and saved by the grandparents? I, personally, don't know. I'm not involved in anyway shape or form into the affair. Most of us here are not. Bobby/Jonathan was, directly. He was at the center of all of this. And even he does not have access to all privy information.

That should make us pause and think that maybe he has good points.

Am I saying that the "true" events can be more complicated and gray? Yes.

Can both sides not have the whole truth? Yes.

But is UM's version of events - and what we want to believe - supersedes what Bobby/Jonathan wishes to relate to us about his experience as a child, a son, and a victim? No. I give more credence to the victim than a TV show. And this, coming that before they were found, I was full in support of their parents because all I had was the TV show for information. For years, the first thing we were hoping is that law enforcement would find Bobby/Jonathan and Christy/Jennifer alive.

Yes, false memories do exist. But even then, I would be very cautious to flat out argue with a victim that their version of events is "wrong" unless I have ironclad evidence to the contrary. For us viewers, UM was entertainment. They presented a version of events to inform, entertain, and to obtain information to solve a crime.

For Bobby/Jonathan and Christy/Jennifer, this was real ****. Two children who suffered a tremendous ordeal all the way to adulthood. On all sides, they deserve our respect and our attention.

So, Jonathan, let me say I am genuinely sorry for what you have gone through. It takes guts and courage to come here and bring your experience and your side of the story after going through all this, to set it straight.

I wish you and your sister to find peace. However justice goes, you have been found safe and sound and are able to live, hopefully, a life of happiness. That is what is important. Just remember that while from your side of the mirror, you were being protected, from our side of the mirror, you had been kidnapped. On both sides, what was foremost on our hearts and minds was your welfare and security.

Agree to disagree and start posting reasons why Rob killed Angela instead.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/3d/3d0fc926557a27d3bebae6145224690a1bb67d9af107ce9d9b4153b2679a1f0e.jpg

But was Rudolph Hess really Rudolph Hess or an imposter? Was Jack The Ripper really the Loch Ness Monster?

But was Rudolph Hess really Rudolph Hess or an imposter? Was Jack The Ripper really the Loch Ness Monster?

I just really want to know if UFO's were responsible for Frederick Valentich's disappearance. :D

Agree to disagree and start posting reasons why Rob killed Angela instead.

This is really bothering you, isn't it? First the Tim thread, and now this one. Now, now. It's all gonna be otay.

Great point. In reality, all of our opinions about this case are irrelevant. I don't have all the information, and it's really none of my business in the grand scheme of things outside of a UM segment. I don't know why people are getting so worked up over it. Don't believe Jon? Fine. Believe him? Great. Agree to disagree and start posting reasons why Rob killed Angela instead.
Lol great post. Really have nothing to add. Agree with all of this.

I haven't read much of anything on this thread but I get the gist of it; what I don't understand is if the kid, and I say kid because that's how he is remembered, doesn't want anything to do with his parents now as an adult then what business is it if anyone else's? Not everyone has a positive relationship with their parents. And secondly; some of these posts are like 3000 word essays, who the hell has the time or energy to write them up and expect the other readers to read them? This is just an UM board where we used to throw around ideas and have fun discussing the stories, not a boring university classroom..

I haven't read much of anything on this thread but I get the gist of it; what I don't understand is if the kid, and I say kid because that's how he is remembered, doesn't want anything to do with his parents now as an adult then what business is it if anyone else's? Not everyone has a positive relationship with their parents. And secondly; some of these posts are like 3000 word essays, who the hell has the time or energy to write them up and expect the other readers to read them? This is just an UM board where we used to through around ideas and have fun discussing the stories, not a boring university classroom..
Another great post. at least the one poster had the decency to conclude their essay with a nasty comment at the end. Cliff notes at its finest....basically tells the reader all they need to know.

To you Jon, oh of course you hate UM because of that show it helped get the wheels in motion of exposing the truth & fake BS you & your disgusting grandparents have tried to peddle.

Anyway sadly this board has gone to ****.

See ya around suckers, I'm out.

Whether you believe the Baskins side or the Maples side, Jon and his sister are the real victims any way you slice it. To point the finger of guilt towards them in any sort of fashion is what's truly disgusting. They might be adults now, but they were just kids when all of this went down. It takes a real piece of work to victim-blame in pretty much any case and especially one that involves child abuse.

Deuces.

Another great post. at least the one poster had the decency to conclude their essay with a nasty comment at the end. Cliff notes at its finest....basically tells the reader all they need to know.

A score out of /100 please?

A score out of /100 please?

Just link your Yelp and TripAdvisor page and I'm sure we can hook you up. :)

Just link your Yelp and TripAdvisor page and I'm sure we can hook you up. :)

Awesome!! ;)

This is just an UM board where we used to throw around ideas and have fun discussing the stories, not a boring university classroom..

Entertaining and straight to the point as always SP4CE INVADERZ. :lol:

A score out of /100 please?
1/100 for putting their screen name on it.

1/100 for putting their screen name on it.

Thank you for the score, I value that and will try to be better next time just for you.

Thank you for the score, I value that and will try to be better next time just for you.
Oh your score was 99 I was talking about the person that left the forum

It takes a real piece of work to victim-blame in pretty much any case and especially one that involves child abuse.

Deuces.

Your previous post:

As for the Baskin parents, I've always found Debbie Baskin to be a little bit of a nutjob myself. There are several women on my mother's side of my family that remind me a lot of her and I choose to have nothing to do with them either. And no, there wasn't any physical abuse in my case. Certainly not on the scale of what the Baskins are accused of doing to their kids anyway.

I don't blame Mr. Bunting or his sister for not reaching out to their biological parents one bit. Once a wingnut, always a wingnut. And those Baskin parents (at least the mother) sure take the cake in that department.

Isn't this victim-blaming? We can't be certain who's side is true, but Mrs. Baskin deserves this not because of the alleged abuse going around, but because of her beliefs you don't agree with? Is that what I'm reading here?

Isn't this victim-blaming? We can't be certain who's side is true, but Mrs. Baskin deserves this not because of the alleged abuse going around, but because of her beliefs you don't agree with? Is that what I'm reading here?

Even in my estimation both Debbie and Mark are victims. As I said, Mark was probably born into abuse, just like I was. I remember seeing Debbie in bed with her top ripped and breasts exposed looking blankly out into space while Mark washed up on the bathroom. She likely lived (and very well may still) in terror for her own well being.

https://media.giphy.com/media/2ept7eRuyq98s/giphy.gif

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Even in my estimation both Debbie and Mark are victims. As I said, Mark was probably born into abuse, just like I was. I remember seeing Debbie in bed with her top ripped and breasts exposed looking blankly out into space while Mark washed up on the bathroom. She likely lived (and very well may still) in terror for her own well being.

I'm sorry for bringing this up, but it sounds like they just had sex. Whether there were abuse going on, I can't blame you for being disturbed by this. Anyone who walks in on their parents doing these things would.

I'm sorry for bringing this up, but it sounds like they just had sex. Whether there were abuse going on, I can't blame you for being disturbed by this. Anyone who walks in on their parents doing these things would.

Yes, of course they had just had sex. The Ripped top, and the fact that she couldn't stop herself from looking out at nothing or move even as I walked in the room, indicate something more Insidious happened as well. At least to me.

Whether you believe the Baskins side or the Maples side, Jon and his sister are the real victims any way you slice it. To point the finger of guilt towards them in any sort of fashion is what's truly disgusting. They might be adults now, but they were just kids when all of this went down. It takes a real piece of work to victim-blame in pretty much any case and especially one that involves child abuse.

Deuces.

I'm guessing you've not been a parent - but the Baskins could very well be victims too, if their kids were wrongfully taken, without cause, from them. They'll never get those years back. And, if they are to be believed, which I have no reason to not believe them, they are heartbroken that they don't have time with their kids. Plus *still* there are accusations flying that they touched their kids. If that didn't happen, and you have no proof they did other than JB's memories, how does that not hurt their reputation in the public when people Google them? So how are they not a victim too?

(Usual disclaimer: I'm not related to them, I'm not friends with them, and I don't know them.)

I'm guessing you've not been a parent - but the Baskins could very well be victims too, if their kids were wrongfully taken, without cause, from them. They'll never get those years back. And, if they are to be believed, which I have no reason to not believe them, they are heartbroken that they don't have time with their kids. Plus *still* there are accusations flying that they touched their kids. If that didn't happen, and you have no proof they did other than JB's memories, how does that not hurt their reputation in the public when people Google them? So how are they not a victim too?

(Usual disclaimer: I'm not related to them, I'm not friends with them, and I don't know them.)

I get what you are saying but as someone on the pro-Maples/Bunting side of things, I don't see it that way. Of course I have no way of knowing 100% because I wasn't there, but that's the way I feel. No matter which "side" you are on, Jon and Jennifer are the only parties that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt are victims in this case. When the poster lumped Jon in with Marvin and Sandra as being "disgusting" during their tirade, that's what I was posting in response to. If they had just left it at Marvin and Sandra, I wouldn't have responded even though I don't necessarily agree with that point of view.

Either way, season 5 is out. Time to get watching...

No matter which "side" you are on, Jon and Jennifer are the only parties that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt are victims in this case.

Michael is definitely a victim, no matter which side of the story is true.

Michael is definitely a victim, no matter which side of the story is true.

Yes he is.

I think that Bobby is telling the truth. Nobody would go to such lengths if it didn't happen. Its not like he's doing the Christina Crawford/Mommie Dearest thing

I think that Bobby is telling the truth. Nobody would go to such lengths if it didn't happen. Its not like he's doing the Christina Crawford/Mommie Dearest thing

....I'm so fighting the urge to put up a Mommie Dearest gif... :)

....I'm so fighting the urge to put up a Mommie Dearest gif... :)

How about a C Ricci gif instead?

https://media.giphy.com/media/lZ8Dam3aJlRao/giphy.gif

Regardless of what actually happened in this case, the end result is still unfortunate, because just about everyone involved is a victim to some extent.

Bobby and Christi/Jon and Jennifer are obvious. The Maples were victims because they never were able to share in the lives of their other children and family members (same goes for the kids). Marvin and Sandra could still be alive today. Michael did not get to have a brother and sister. The Baskins did not get to have their children with them (regardless of guilt or innocence). Anyone who was abused was a victim. Probably all the abusers were also abused themselves. The case workers and other folks involved saw a case with a mostly sad ending after a long hiatus, which they are prepared for and must deal with, but nobody likes a sad ending.

It is good we have gotten to see various theories over the years with this case, and to hear firsthand from parties involved. Jon must especially be commended for coming forward and sharing first hand memories that must have been extremely difficult to relive, amid much chatter and criticism from other posters.

There is fortunately one good thing that has come out of this. Thankfully, now the cycle of abuse, wherever that might have been in the parties involved, has been broken with Jon's generation. I have to say that Jon and Jennifer have endured a lot over the years, and they have grown to succeed despite the circumstances.

Regardless of what actually happened in this case, the end result is still unfortunate, because just about everyone involved is a victim to some extent.

Bobby and Christi/Jon and Jennifer are obvious. The Maples were victims because they never were able to share in the lives of their other children and family members (same goes for the kids). Marvin and Sandra could still be alive today. Michael did not get to have a brother and sister. The Baskins did not get to have their children with them (regardless of guilt or innocence). Anyone who was abused was a victim. Probably all the abusers were also abused themselves. The case workers and other folks involved saw a case with a mostly sad ending after a long hiatus, which they are prepared for and must deal with, but nobody likes a sad ending.

It is good we have gotten to see various theories over the years with this case, and to hear firsthand from parties involved. Jon must especially be commended for coming forward and sharing first hand memories that must have been extremely difficult to relive, amid much chatter and criticism from other posters.

There is fortunately one good thing that has come out of this. Thankfully, now the cycle of abuse, wherever that might have been in the parties involved, has been broken with Jon's generation. I have to say that Jon and Jennifer have endured a lot over the years, and they have grown to succeed despite the circumstances.

Anyone that can argue with this is a dink. Regardless of the truth of what happened/didn't happen (and I'll keep my opinions off of here, because I can see and have lived/seen both sides of the matter in my own life. And opinions are like...well...a certain body part that everyone has...), everyone involved in this is a victim, to some extent. Especially Michael. Though...I'm tempted to say to Hell with the social workers. But, admittedly, that is my own bias coming through.

Anyone that can argue with this is a dink. Regardless of the truth of what happened/didn't happen (and I'll keep my opinions off of here, because I can see and have lived/seen both sides of the matter in my own life. And opinions are like...well...a certain body part that everyone has...), everyone involved in this is a victim, to some extent. Especially Michael. Though...I'm tempted to say to Hell with the social workers. But, admittedly, that is my own bias coming through.

Bonus points for use of the word "dink." :lol: :lol:

Anyone that can argue with this is a dink. Regardless of the truth of what happened/didn't happen (and I'll keep my opinions off of here, because I can see and have lived/seen both sides of the matter in my own life. And opinions are like...well...a certain body part that everyone has...), everyone involved in this is a victim, to some extent. Especially Michael. Though...I'm tempted to say to Hell with the social workers. But, admittedly, that is my own bias coming through.

I felt and always do felt this whole case is about the four kids and the fact they all got cheated out growing up; together no matter what side is right. I hope one day Jon, Jennifer, Michael and adopted brother Jared I think his name is shall get chance to meet and become friends out side of all this and get to know one another some. All four kids are adult I think it should be possible for them to regain some sort of bond as siblings without other parties involvement . The parents are the last things on my mind , the kids are the first :)

Maybe it's just me, but it makes me roll my eyes anytime somebody refers to Jon and Jennifer as "kids" or as "the children" anymore. They're almost 40 years old, man.

Maybe it's just me, but it makes me roll my eyes anytime somebody refers to Jon and Jennifer as "kids" or as "the children" anymore. They're almost 40 years old, man.

+20

Thank you very much. I've felt that way for a very long time.

https://i.redd.it/oa88k4328nxx.gif

Jon you are funny. Lol.

But I totally get you. That annoys me too when ppl call my sister and I "children". We're in our mid-twenties. At least young adult is better (like the name of that charlize theron film)

Also in college I ALWAYS got mistaken for a freshman. Like ok props to you ma'am but no I'm not lost lmao.

ALWAYS!

Jon you are funny. Lol.

But I totally get you. That annoys me too when ppl call my sister and I "children". We're in our mid-twenties. At least young adult is better (like the name of that charlize theron film)

Also in college I ALWAYS got mistaken for a freshman. Like ok props to you ma'am but no I'm not lost lmao.

ALWAYS!

My mum has always said I saw a little girl/boy while shopping-you imagine a child but it turns out to be a 20 year old, young woman/lad ends up being a 40-50 year old etc.

Also in college I ALWAYS got mistaken for a freshman.

One of the reasons I usually have a beard because all of my wrinkles are in my forehead. I look like a cross between a child on lower face and an old man on the upper face. It's hilarious. So if the lighting is just right and not a lot of overhead sources of light, I look like a child when clean shaven. In other lights settings I look just confusing. "How old are you?" So stubble or a beard help with that.

One of the reasons I usually have a beard because all of my wrinkles are in my forehead. I look like a cross between a child on lower face and an old man on the upper face. It's hilarious. So if the lighting is just right and not a lot of overhead sources of light, I look like a child when clean shaven. In other lights settings I look just confusing. "How old are you?" So stubble or a beard help with that.

Lookin' like a grown ass child.

Honestly, The Baskins are better off. I've followed this case for years and always felt sorry for the kids, hoped for a resolution. I always hoped they would both be found and reunited with their parents and finally learn the truth about their kidnapping.

Once I heard that John and Jennifer weren't even going to bother to meet with their parents, I thought, "Okay, they just need time to process everything.." Now, after reading this whole thread and others, I've come to the conclusion that John and Jennifer are both brats. Just full grown, adult brats. They don't care about anyone but themselves.

I can't imagine the years of accusations, heartache, and simply not knowing where my children, only to have them resurface and not want to make any sort of contact. It's a slap in the face, and it's selfish. Regardless of what the Baskins may or may not have done, what is the harm of meeting up with them and finding out? The children were so young when they were taken from their parents. Who knows what memories are real and which ones are blurry...

But really, the Baskins are better off. Inviting these two into their lives would just be inviting drama and misery. I wish they would see them for the ungrateful brats they are, but the unfortunate fact is that The Baskins will still pine to see them. So sad.

Sad case, no winners.

Thought about them when I saw these pieces of work, obviously brainwashed by their evil twisted father.

https://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/video/matt-leili-to-daughter-you-know-say-something-insulting-678770755571

Regardless of what the Baskins may or may not have done, what is the harm of meeting up with them and finding out? The children were so young when they were taken from their parents. Who knows what memories are real and which ones are blurry...



Well if they are their abuser, which I have no reason to doubt the memories of a grown man, there'd be plenty of harm in meeting up.

He seems to know his memories aren't blurry. That should be good enough for people.

Regardless of what the Baskins may or may not have done, what is the harm of meeting up with them and finding out?

If this is truly the way you think, then you are an absolutely morally bankrupt individual. Seriously, go away.

If this is truly the way you think, then you are an absolutely morally bankrupt individual. Seriously, go away.

Not at all. And as to your request: no.

I'm going to just say something here which is really a new part of my continuing therapy, healing, and self-discovery.

In the past I have made a few statements, vowed to not post again, then allowed someone to make me feel hurt or attacked by their words, thus returned to defend myself and my grandparents. I have never felt particularly upset at those who respectfully stated that they disagree, are not sure what to believe, or even don't believe me. Everyone has the right to believe what they choose, and I've always supported freedom of speech. It's those I've viewed as particularly hostile, rude, or cruel that I have responded to. As is evidenced by previous posts on this forum, I have had debates, I have met fire with fire, and ultimately fed into a circle of argument and nastiness.

Everything I have said is my truth. You each will take that for what you will. I choose now to believe that those who have illicited a reaction from me were representing their own truths. Whatever their life experiences, backgrounds, or even if they've merely followed my story for years and cannot believe a narrative other than the prevailing one, something has caused a hostile or negative response. This is their experience, and I can't claim to know, condone, or condemn them knowing nothing about them and expect them not to do the same about me.

To those I've engaged in hostilities with in the past, and to any who have felt or will feel the need to speak out against me whom I have not and will not directly engage in the future... thank you for sharing your beliefs. I'm sure it meant something to you to put your thoughts to words, otherwise you would not have done so. I maintain all statements made about myself, and my family, those things I know. I apologize, however, for any hostility I returned your way, either directly or in unspoken emotional energy. I do not know what you are going through, and if my story strikes a painful chord with you in your own life experiences that made you feel compelled to address me in a hostile or defensive way then I am sorry for what you are going through. I disagree with what you've said, and I know my history and memories. But your mind is your own.

To those who have or would come to my defense, I thank you sincerely. It means so much to me. If you feel the need to do so or continue to do so for your own reasons then I will not request you to refrain. But please do not do so on my account alone. Whatever negative or hurtful emotions that the others are going through will only be made worse by a counterattack.

Namaste.

I'm going to just say something here which is really a new part of my continuing therapy, healing, and self-discovery.

In the past I have made a few statements, vowed to not post again, then allowed someone to make me feel hurt or attacked by their words, thus returned to defend myself and my grandparents. I have never felt particularly upset at those who respectfully stated that they disagree, are not sure what to believe, or even don't believe me. Everyone has the right to believe what they choose, and I've always supported freedom of speech. It's those I've viewed as particularly hostile, rude, or cruel that I have responded to. As is evidenced by previous posts on this forum, I have had debates, I have met fire with fire, and ultimately fed into a circle of argument and nastiness.

Everything I have said is my truth. You each will take that for what you will. I choose now to believe that those who have illicited a reaction from me were representing their own truths. Whatever their life experiences, backgrounds, or even if they've merely followed my story for years and cannot believe a narrative other than the prevailing one, something has caused a hostile or negative response. This is their experience, and I can't claim to know, condone, or condemn them knowing nothing about them and expect them not to do the same about me.

To those I've engaged in hostilities with in the past, and to any who have felt or will feel the need to speak out against me whom I have not and will not directly engage in the future... thank you for sharing your beliefs. I'm sure it meant something to you to put your thoughts to words, otherwise you would not have done so. I maintain all statements made about myself, and my family, those things I know. I apologize, however, for any hostility I returned your way, either directly or in unspoken emotional energy. I do not know what you are going through, and if my story strikes a painful chord with you in your own life experiences that made you feel compelled to address me in a hostile or defensive way then I am sorry for what you are going through. I disagree with what you've said, and I know my history and memories. But your mind is your own.

To those who have or would come to my defense, I thank you sincerely. It means so much to me. If you feel the need to do so or continue to do so for your own reasons then I will not request you to refrain. But please do not do so on my account alone. Whatever negative or hurtful emotions that the others are going through will only be made worse by a counterattack.

Namaste.


https://img0.etsystatic.com/168/2/14487148/il_340x270.1188544774_nkji.jpg

I'm going to just say something here which is really a new part of my continuing therapy, healing, and self-discovery.

Hi, Jon - I applaud you for your candor and maturity in handling this, and continuing to interact with the posters on this board. The truth is, none of us will ever know what happened and none of us need to know what happened. I'm sure what you went through was very traumatic especially as a young child. Thanks for answering so many of the questions people have asked you here. I wish you continued healing and success in your life.

Happy Thanksgiving!

I'm going to just say something here which is really a new part of my continuing therapy, healing, and self-discovery.

In the past I have made a few statements, vowed to not post again, then allowed someone to make me feel hurt or attacked by their words, thus returned to defend myself and my grandparents. I have never felt particularly upset at those who respectfully stated that they disagree, are not sure what to believe, or even don't believe me. Everyone has the right to believe what they choose, and I've always supported freedom of speech. It's those I've viewed as particularly hostile, rude, or cruel that I have responded to. As is evidenced by previous posts on this forum, I have had debates, I have met fire with fire, and ultimately fed into a circle of argument and nastiness.

Everything I have said is my truth. You each will take that for what you will. I choose now to believe that those who have illicited a reaction from me were representing their own truths. Whatever their life experiences, backgrounds, or even if they've merely followed my story for years and cannot believe a narrative other than the prevailing one, something has caused a hostile or negative response. This is their experience, and I can't claim to know, condone, or condemn them knowing nothing about them and expect them not to do the same about me.

To those I've engaged in hostilities with in the past, and to any who have felt or will feel the need to speak out against me whom I have not and will not directly engage in the future... thank you for sharing your beliefs. I'm sure it meant something to you to put your thoughts to words, otherwise you would not have done so. I maintain all statements made about myself, and my family, those things I know. I apologize, however, for any hostility I returned your way, either directly or in unspoken emotional energy. I do not know what you are going through, and if my story strikes a painful chord with you in your own life experiences that made you feel compelled to address me in a hostile or defensive way then I am sorry for what you are going through. I disagree with what you've said, and I know my history and memories. But your mind is your own.

To those who have or would come to my defense, I thank you sincerely. It means so much to me. If you feel the need to do so or continue to do so for your own reasons then I will not request you to refrain. But please do not do so on my account alone. Whatever negative or hurtful emotions that the others are going through will only be made worse by a counterattack.

Namaste.

Perfectly said. As I've said before, until someone has lived a situation such as yours, they have no business trashing you for any decisions you make pertaining to that situation. The person(s) who lived it know better what happened than anyone on the outside, especially when the main narrative the outsiders have heard is very one-sided.

I'm going to just say something here which is really a new part of my continuing therapy, healing, and self-discovery.

In the past I have made a few statements, vowed to not post again, then allowed someone to make me feel hurt or attacked by their words, thus returned to defend myself and my grandparents. I have never felt particularly upset at those who respectfully stated that they disagree, are not sure what to believe, or even don't believe me. Everyone has the right to believe what they choose, and I've always supported freedom of speech. It's those I've viewed as particularly hostile, rude, or cruel that I have responded to. As is evidenced by previous posts on this forum, I have had debates, I have met fire with fire, and ultimately fed into a circle of argument and nastiness.

Everything I have said is my truth. You each will take that for what you will. I choose now to believe that those who have illicited a reaction from me were representing their own truths. Whatever their life experiences, backgrounds, or even if they've merely followed my story for years and cannot believe a narrative other than the prevailing one, something has caused a hostile or negative response. This is their experience, and I can't claim to know, condone, or condemn them knowing nothing about them and expect them not to do the same about me.

To those I've engaged in hostilities with in the past, and to any who have felt or will feel the need to speak out against me whom I have not and will not directly engage in the future... thank you for sharing your beliefs. I'm sure it meant something to you to put your thoughts to words, otherwise you would not have done so. I maintain all statements made about myself, and my family, those things I know. I apologize, however, for any hostility I returned your way, either directly or in unspoken emotional energy. I do not know what you are going through, and if my story strikes a painful chord with you in your own life experiences that made you feel compelled to address me in a hostile or defensive way then I am sorry for what you are going through. I disagree with what you've said, and I know my history and memories. But your mind is your own.

To those who have or would come to my defense, I thank you sincerely. It means so much to me. If you feel the need to do so or continue to do so for your own reasons then I will not request you to refrain. But please do not do so on my account alone. Whatever negative or hurtful emotions that the others are going through will only be made worse by a counterattack.

Namaste.


Most definitely not the response of the "full-grown, adult brat" that the most recent attacker wants and/or needs to believe that you are.

Most definitely not the response of the "full-grown, adult brat" that the most recent attacker wants and/or needs to believe that you are.

I don't understand how this entire thread has people pulling this. Like we understand their entire dynamic from some internet links and 15 minutes on a show from the 80s that we know has also distorted other segments to fit a narrative, versus a person who was there and lived it.

Live your truth Jon.

I don't understand how this entire thread has people pulling this. Like we understand their entire dynamic from some internet links and 15 minutes on a show from the 80s that we know has also distorted other segments to fit a narrative, versus a person who was there and lived it.

Live your truth Jon.

This is frustrating to me too! I mean, we all like the show as entertainment and all, but we don't know what ACTUALLY happened UNLESS we were there. Then to have someone new come on, and post about someone being a brat, because of something they read or saw in the media, it is just obnoxious.

I'm going to just say something here which is really a new part of my continuing therapy, healing, and self-discovery.

In the past I have made a few statements, vowed to not post again, then allowed someone to make me feel hurt or attacked by their words, thus returned to defend myself and my grandparents. I have never felt particularly upset at those who respectfully stated that they disagree, are not sure what to believe, or even don't believe me. Everyone has the right to believe what they choose, and I've always supported freedom of speech. It's those I've viewed as particularly hostile, rude, or cruel that I have responded to. As is evidenced by previous posts on this forum, I have had debates, I have met fire with fire, and ultimately fed into a circle of argument and nastiness.

Everything I have said is my truth. You each will take that for what you will. I choose now to believe that those who have illicited a reaction from me were representing their own truths. Whatever their life experiences, backgrounds, or even if they've merely followed my story for years and cannot believe a narrative other than the prevailing one, something has caused a hostile or negative response. This is their experience, and I can't claim to know, condone, or condemn them knowing nothing about them and expect them not to do the same about me.

To those I've engaged in hostilities with in the past, and to any who have felt or will feel the need to speak out against me whom I have not and will not directly engage in the future... thank you for sharing your beliefs. I'm sure it meant something to you to put your thoughts to words, otherwise you would not have done so. I maintain all statements made about myself, and my family, those things I know. I apologize, however, for any hostility I returned your way, either directly or in unspoken emotional energy. I do not know what you are going through, and if my story strikes a painful chord with you in your own life experiences that made you feel compelled to address me in a hostile or defensive way then I am sorry for what you are going through. I disagree with what you've said, and I know my history and memories. But your mind is your own.

To those who have or would come to my defense, I thank you sincerely. It means so much to me. If you feel the need to do so or continue to do so for your own reasons then I will not request you to refrain. But please do not do so on my account alone. Whatever negative or hurtful emotions that the others are going through will only be made worse by a counterattack.

Namaste.

That is about as perfect of a response as you could have possibly written. I really wished that I lived in California so I could buy you a beer (or six) and talk about literally anything else.

I was in a contested court case involving child abuse recently. I'll never forget the words of an expert psychologist: "You may forget the certain facts around an incident and the order in which they occurred. You, however, never forget how a person makes you feel."

Anything else I could add to the conversation, Jon has already said for himself.

Now, after reading this whole thread and others, I've come to the conclusion that John and Jennifer are both brats. Just full grown, adult brats. They don't care about anyone but themselves.

This is absolutely, 100% false.

This thread should be locked.

There's nothing else to discuss. This is a person who was directly involved in this case who said what happened to him. If you believe him or not doesn't matter. This is no longer an unsolved mystery, it's a family issue. Any opposition will just say that he's a liar, which we don't know and isn't our place.

This isn't a cold case, but a personal issue between family members. Both children were found, and no one was killed, so our involvement in this is inappropriate and not worthy of discussion.

Yes, I've also shared my opinions on this case, but now it's just a "Jon is a liar" "No, he's not" thread. I really hate to be a hypocrite as I've also participated but this really should be closed.

You're a cool guy Jon, and I hope your therapy goes well.

I wish you and yours healing and peace, Jon. Healing is all that matters now.

You're a cool guy Jon, and I hope your therapy goes well.

+1

I've been deeply moved by the recent outpouring of support from so many. I wanted to take a moment to say a so.

He seems to know his memories aren't blurry.

I appreciate That, Drew.

Most definitely not the response of the "full-grown, adult brat" that the most recent attacker wants and/or needs to believe that you are.

Thanks asmitty.

I don't understand how this entire thread has people pulling this.

This is frustrating to me too!... to have someone new come on, and post about someone being a brat, because of something they read or saw in the media, it is just obnoxious.

Drew, cdr, it's human nature. People tend to reject what goes against something they've believed for a long time, especially if they have something invested in the belief. Galileo spent the end of his life under house arrest because he said the Earth revolved around the sun.

Live your truth Jon.

Thank you. I will!

You're a cool guy Jon, and I hope your therapy goes well.

Thanks, freakbook. The feeling's mutual.

Perfectly said.

That is about as perfect of a response as you could have possibly written. I really wished that I lived in California so I could buy you a beer (or six) and talk about literally anything else.

Appreciate that, bell83 and Hot Jock. And Hot Jock, if you're ever in the San Francisco Bay Area, I'll take you up on that beer and conversation.

"You may forget the certain facts around an incident and the order in which they occurred. You, however, never forget how a person makes you feel."

That sums it up pretty well, CRicci.

This is absolutely, 100% false.

I'm glad you think so, TheCars.

I wish you and yours healing and peace, Jon. Healing is all that matters now.

So true, Necco, and touching.

I wish you continued healing and success in your life.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Thanks for the kind words Todd. I hope you have a great Thanksgiving, too.




Happy Thanksgiving to everyone on the board. I hope you all spend it with somebody you love.

If I hit a nerve, that's not what I intended to do. But I'm not going to apologize either... it was a very public case and while some may consider it "over", people are still going to speculate. It doesn't matter what sides have spoken up- people like myself who have followed and have an interest in the case are still going to form an opinion. I have formed mine and I'm not going to apologize if someone doesn't like it. The response seemed a bit... brainwashed but that's just the vibe that I picked up on. I hope that "Jon' gets the help he needs and is able to move on and live with everything that has happened, including his own choices.

Anywhoo, that'll be my last comment on this case on this website because it seems to be a sensitive subject here. Just posting to say that I it wasn't my intention to "stir the pot" and on most websites I'm not as controversial. I promise!

If I hit a nerve, that's not what I intended to do. But I'm not going to apologize either... it was a very public case and while some may consider it "over", people are still going to speculate. It doesn't matter what sides have spoken up- people like myself who have followed and have an interest in the case are still going to form an opinion. I have formed mine and I'm not going to apologize if someone doesn't like it. The response seemed a bit... brainwashed but that's just the vibe that I picked up on. I hope that "Jon' gets the help he needs and is able to move on and live with everything that has happened, including his own choices.

Anywhoo, that'll be my last comment on this case on this website because it seems to be a sensitive subject here. Just posting to say that I it wasn't my intention to "stir the pot" and on most websites I'm not as controversial. I promise!

The responses aren't "brainwashed", they're just in consideration of someone who went through a traumatic experience who's on this board. Whether the charges happened to him or not isn't the point, it was still traumatic what happened to them.

You're totally right to speculate, but it's kind of weird telling someone that something didn't happen to them when you weren't there and in casual conversation. "You weren't molested, stop lying" is how this is starting to look. It's achieving nothing. Again, I'm not saying your speculation is wrong, but at this point it's just calling him a liar which is pointless.

So in terms of it being "over", it kind of is. This is a personal issue between family members.

If I hit a nerve, that's not what I intended to do. But I'm not going to apologize either... it was a very public case and while some may consider it "over", people are still going to speculate. It doesn't matter what sides have spoken up- people like myself who have followed and have an interest in the case are still going to form an opinion. I have formed mine and I'm not going to apologize if someone doesn't like it. The response seemed a bit... brainwashed but that's just the vibe that I picked up on. I hope that "Jon' gets the help he needs and is able to move on and live with everything that has happened, including his own choices.

Anywhoo, that'll be my last comment on this case on this website because it seems to be a sensitive subject here. Just posting to say that I it wasn't my intention to "stir the pot" and on most websites I'm not as controversial. I promise!


I think it's important to remember though that we're not talking about the happenings on an fictional episode of Star Trek, we're talking about the real life experiences of real people and you can't understand those from 15 minutes on an entertainment program.

Look, I love this show and I think Unsolved Mysteries in large has done a lot more good than harm but in this case they absolutely failed this family. To hear that the sisters wanted to come on the show and defend their parents but were told (paraphrasing) "No thanks, we have the story we want" is disheartening as a fan of the show. But there's no reason to doubt it and if you re-watch the segment again (which I did out of curiosity after initially reading this thread) she admits in their interview that she's lost "their entire family" and makes an almost reference to her siblings before stopping herself.

So what you have by all accounts is apparently an entire family against a husband and wife and no attempts were made to get that side of the story because it would go against the narrative they wanted to tell to make good TV. There's no journalistic standards met here with this segment, and thus why every episode started out with "What you are about to see is not a news broadcast".

The responses aren't "brainwashed", they're just in consideration of someone who went through a traumatic experience who's on this board. Whether the charges happened to him or not isn't the point, it was still traumatic what happened to them.

You're totally right to speculate, but it's kind of weird telling someone that something didn't happen to them when you weren't there and in casual conversation. "You weren't molested, stop lying" is how this is starting to look. It's achieving nothing. Again, I'm not saying your speculation is wrong, but at this point it's just calling him a liar which is pointless.

So in terms of it being "over", it kind of is. This is a personal issue between family members.

Off topic, but I just want to take a moment to respect how the tables have turned over the course of the past year. Ten months ago, freakbook would have been the one with the unpopular opinion, and someone else would be trying to talk him down.

It's a bit like the later seasons of Growing Pains when Kirk Cameron, the slacker teenager, grew up and became an effective high school teacher himself.

Off topic, but I just want to take a moment to respect how the tables have turned over the course of the past year. Ten months ago, freakbook would have been the one with the unpopular opinion, and someone else would be trying to talk him down.

It's a bit like the later seasons of Growing Pains when Kirk Cameron, the slacker teenager, grew up and became an effective high school teacher himself.

Lmao.

Thanks asmitty. But I'm the same ol negative nancy

I wasn't going to say anything, because I seem to remember from previous visits to the boards, another even longer thread on this case where the discussion was just as contentious/spirated. After skimming selected posts in this newer thread here, I'm with freakbook - it's a personal issue between family members.

Jon - hope you have a happy thanksgiving and find continued success with your recovery.

Maybe it's just me, but it makes me roll my eyes anytime somebody refers to Jon and Jennifer as "kids" or as "the children" anymore. They're almost 40 years old, man.


No! Know matter how old you get you will always be your parents child and your parents baby or to whom ever raised you. And to be honest this whole thread sickens me. You people do not get that this is not just an episode of a tv show it is actually peoples lives. Real people who went through a real horor. You can not make it the happy ending you want just because you think it should be so. We got a broken family and lot of healing and recovery is needed. So let them do it and leave them alone. They have a right to find their happiness and some normality in their lives. So let them do it and back off!

I just really want to know if UFO's were responsible for Frederick Valentich's disappearance. :D

It was Rob. Before he intentionally blew up his transmission.

After skimming selected posts in this newer thread here, I'm with freakbook - it's a personal issue between family members.


That sums it up... it was an interesting ride for us on the outside but a nightmare for those going through it. At the very least, we should be happy that the "kids" are alive and from all indications, thriving in their current everyday lives.

No! Know matter how old you get you will always be your parents child and your parents baby or to whom ever raised you. And to be honest this whole thread sickens me. You people do not get that this is not just an episode of a tv show it is actually peoples lives. Real people who went through a real horor. You can not make it the happy ending you want just because you think it should be so. We got a broken family and lot of healing and recovery is needed. So let them do it and leave them alone. They have a right to find their happiness and some normality in their lives. So let them do it and back off!

You’re barking up the wrong tree, I assure you. A brief summary of this very thread is proof positive of that.

You’re barking up the wrong tree, I assure you. A brief summary of this very thread is proof positive of that.

i read the thread and the title says it all.

I honestly have no clue in Hell what to believe on this one. We may never know the truth. Having watched that interview the son sounds so certain that these things did really happen. But the fact that Marvin apparently confessed to his own daughter the truth is bizarre too. And the Baskins seem sincere, and if they were truly abusers I cant help but think they would not have stopped cold turkey with Michael, and nothing more surfaced that they abused him.

If indeed the Maples brainwashed those kids, they did a job for the ages that even years later they can't see the truth and this is a terrible nightmare with no end for Mark and Debbie. If its the case, I just pray for a miracle that somehow those two will see the truth one day.

I'm still inclined to believe the Baskins, their are just to many things that don't add up that they are abusers. And frankly, something seemed a little off to me about Bobby, or John or whatever he calls himself. He was to matter of fact when talking about the abuse. The only time he got emotional as the interviewer pointed out was talking about his brother. It still struck me as something that may be the result of years of programming. I could be totally wrong.

But the fact that Marvin apparently confessed to his own daughter the truth is bizarre too.

I will clarify something that I'm not sure if has been addressed on here. Debbie lied in the most recent tv interview. Marvin was NOT in the EARLY stages of dementia when her and Mark went to see him. He was in ADVANCED dementia by then and didn't even know who Jon was at that point. That's why Mark and Debbie were allowed to see him at all. Marvin had always declined to see them before but in his mental state he had no idea who they were. They things they attribute to him saying (which wasn't a 'confession' at all btw) were ramblings of a man who had, in essence, lost his mind. That is also why he wanted them to take him home with them. Anyone in advanced dementia at a nursing home is going to ask anyone to take them home. In addition to Debbie being dishonest about her father's mental state she also had someone take a picture of her posing with him to put on her blog to make people think she was this loving, forgiving daughter which is, at the least, extremely disingenuous.

I will clarify something that I'm not sure if has been addressed on here. Debbie lied in the most recent tv interview. Marvin was NOT in the EARLY stages of dementia when her and Mark went to see him. He was in ADVANCED dementia by then and didn't even know who Jon was at that point. That's why Mark and Debbie were allowed to see him at all. Marvin had always declined to see them before but in his mental state he had no idea who they were. They things they attribute to him saying (which wasn't a 'confession' at all btw) were ramblings of a man who had, in essence, lost his mind. That is also why he wanted them to take him home with them. Anyone in advanced dementia at a nursing home is going to ask anyone to take them home. In addition to Debbie being dishonest about her father's mental state she also had someone take a picture of her posing with him to put on her blog to make people think she was this loving, forgiving daughter which is, at the least, extremely disingenuous.

Appreciate the clarification. Still, there is to much he said she said evidence here for us to really know the truth for sure. Either way, terrible injustices have been done and its a very sad story for everyone.

I honestly have no clue in Hell what to believe on this one. We may never know the truth. Having watched that interview the son sounds so certain that these things did really happen. But the fact that Marvin apparently confessed to his own daughter the truth is bizarre too. And the Baskins seem sincere, and if they were truly abusers I cant help but think they would not have stopped cold turkey with Michael, and nothing more surfaced that they abused him.

If indeed the Maples brainwashed those kids, they did a job for the ages that even years later they can't see the truth and this is a terrible nightmare with no end for Mark and Debbie. If its the case, I just pray for a miracle that somehow those two will see the truth one day.

I'm still inclined to believe the Baskins, their are just to many things that don't add up that they are abusers. And frankly, something seemed a little off to me about Bobby, or John or whatever he calls himself. He was to matter of fact when talking about the abuse. The only time he got emotional as the interviewer pointed out was talking about his brother. It still struck me as something that may be the result of years of programming. I could be totally wrong.

Thank you so much for summing up exactly my impression from what I have seen of this case. Is anyone here following the case of the Turpin 13 or the case of the white lesbian couple from Washington state who drove a van load of adopted black kids over a cliff in California? In both cases the households seemed very different to observers on the outside than to the poor kids suffering through the abuse.

There could also be truth on both sides here. I would like to point out there are a number of cases, some involving famous or celebrity parents, where the older children suffered hideous abuse while the younger children were so well-treated they practically idolized the same parents. Joan Crawford and Bing Crosby were absolute poster children for such cases, and there have been others such as John Lennon, where the celebrity parent was busy with a career when the older child was young, but lavished attention on the younger child while continuing to neglect the older child.

Just wanna say hi to Jon again if he's still around. How are you doing?

It seems there is a lot of brainwashing still....it seems like classic parental alienation syndome, except it's toward both parents. I believe still that the kids (now adults of course) still believe what they have been told for soooo many years now, they believe it's the truth. And that's their choice of course, and they have the right to their choices and feelings. However there is just not any evidence that the Baskins deserved what happened to them. Even if they did, you go about it the legal way. I still haven't seen anything substantiated from that other side of the camp. When kids are young, even early elementary years, it's easy to convince them of things if they are told over and over, it's easy to believe they remember if you hear it over and over. After years of working in psych, I've seen similar dynamics to this case at play, and it's bizarre the lengths some people will go through for something.

I also don't believe debbie deliberately decived anyone with the blog...if you aren't in the medical field you aren't exactly going to know the difference between the types of dementia. She could have been misinformed, she could have had a lot of reason why she identified it as early vs late. She hadn't seen him or been involved with him for ages.

In the end it's true, no one here knows any of the parties involved. It is what it is, and people have the right to feel, live, and believe as they want and I definitely don't criticize the now adult children in this case. Time can change things....or they may not change. As the years go by, have to see what happens...if we find out at all

Perhaps we should not continue to theorize about them, given the son is likely receiving email notifications whenever this thread is replied to and surely doesn't need people accusing him of being "brainwashed".

None of us were there or know these people, the kids are adults, they're not missing anymore, there's no mystery unsolved, and it's been omitted from future broadcasts and platforms for a reason. Perhaps in the name of polite good taste we leave it be?

Perhaps we should not continue to theorize about them, given the son is likely receiving email notifications whenever this thread is replied to and surely doesn't need people accusing him of being "brainwashed".

None of us were there or know these people, the kids are adults, they're not missing anymore, there's no mystery unsolved, and it's been omitted from future broadcasts and platforms for a reason. Perhaps in the name of polite good taste we leave it be?

You must be new :lol:

Mia Farrow may have done something very similar to her children, who went from believing Woody Allen did nothing wrong involving the youngest girl to full-blown belief that he is a horrible child molester. Yet no one has accused him before or since--surely not typical of a true offender?

Here is the latest article for my blog. A detailed account by Jon Bunting of his life in hiding. I think you guys will find it very interesting!

https://wwwlostnfoundblogscom.godaddysites.com/f/hiding-in-plain-sight

Here is the latest article for my blog. A detailed account by Jon Bunting of his life in hiding. I think you guys will find it very interesting!

https://wwwlostnfoundblogscom.godaddysites.com/f/hiding-in-plain-sight

I'd have liked to see the grandparents under cross examination regarding their story.

I'd have liked to see the grandparents under cross examination regarding their story.

Me too. From all the posts of the Baskin boy I can see both those kids need much counseling. He keeps saying this is my truth. The problem it is not the truth. It is His truth, or their truth they choose to believe. Because it is easier to do so then deal with the trauma of reality. That is what makes it so sad. They can not even come to the relisation they were kidnapped. When the court gives you an order to hand over the kids to their legal guardians on certain time and date and you do not show up that is kidnapping and custodial interference. Happens all the time.

They seem very stunted in mental growth. The come across as still these scared confused little kids from when they were taken. They still believe if they call and talk to their younger brother . Their parents will show up and take then away. Come on they are all adults. When the guy said nothing good would come of them meeting their parents that is were he so wrong. Something good would come of it. Healing and growth and dealing with the traumas they indured head on. Even it is to say to them we never want to talk to you again. Putting of the inevitable not dealing with the situation just keeps them stunted and never being able grow and heal.

Somethings in that blog about them. Are not exactly correct. First off the cops would never say weather they believe the baskin kids or not. It is not their job to decide that. Only to ask if they want to meet and nothing more they can do if they choose not to reunite. And as for getting there grandfather and lawyer and fighting the charges it would never have worked. To much evidence saying he committed a crime for that to work. People he admitted it to . becasue he wanted to raise those kids his way. I think putting his grandkids on the stand after all the truama they been through. Would just prove to show how much counseling they really need and still need.


They whole things is just sad and messed up.

"I’m actually terrified to meet Michael. He spent his life with Mark and Debbie… I don’t know what his state of mind is or what his recollection of events are."

I'll bet you're terrified. Michael might not have the recollections of events you think he should have.

Me too. From all the posts of the Baskin boy I can see both those kids need much counseling. He keeps saying this is my truth. The problem it is not the truth. It is His truth, or their truth they choose to believe. Because it is easier to do so then deal with the trauma of reality. That is what makes it so sad. They can not even come to the relisation they were kidnapped. When the court gives you an order to hand over the kids to their legal guardians on certain time and date and you do not show up that is kidnapping and custodial interference. Happens all the time.

They seem very stunted in mental growth. The come across as still these scared confused little kids from when they were taken. They still believe if they call and talk to their younger brother . Their parents will show up and take then away. Come on they are all adults. When the guy said nothing good would come of them meeting their parents that is were he so wrong. Something good would come of it. Healing and growth and dealing with the traumas they indured head on. Even it is to say to them we never want to talk to you again. Putting of the inevitable not dealing with the situation just keeps them stunted and never being able grow and heal.

Somethings in that blog about them. Are not exactly correct. First off the cops would never say weather they believe the baskin kids or not. It is not their job to decide that. Only to ask if they want to meet and nothing more they can do if they choose not to reunite. And as for getting there grandfather and lawyer and fighting the charges it would never have worked. To much evidence saying he committed a crime for that to work. People he admitted it to . becasue he wanted to raise those kids his way. I think putting his grandkids on the stand after all the truama they been through. Would just prove to show how much counseling they really need and still need.


They whole things is just sad and messed up.

Their not meeting their brother, and the grandparents attitude towards Michael is extremely bizarre. So bizarre it causes me to doubt that this is the entire truth. Heck, he even admits to it, calls it His Truth.

Their not meeting their brother, and the grandparents attitude towards Michael is extremely bizarre. So bizarre it causes me to doubt that this is the entire truth. Heck, he even admits to it, calls it His Truth.

That is what I mean. His truth is not exactly the truth and refusing to look at the files on the trial. All we know of Michael is from unsolved mysteries and thet he was scared to death he was going to get taken too. And of course thy have no connection with there adopted brother. If the parents are so bad why would they able to adopt?

What a mess that was created for these kids. Sad. A lot of therapy is needed here. Very sad.

Their not meeting their brother, and the grandparents attitude towards Michael is extremely bizarre. So bizarre it causes me to doubt that this is the entire truth. Heck, he even admits to it, calls it His Truth.

That is what I mean. His truth is not exactly the truth and refusing to look at the files on the trial. All we know of Michael is from unsolved mysteries and thet he was scared to death he was going to get taken too. And of course thy have no connection with there adopted brother. If the parents are so bad why would they able to adopt?

What a mess that was created for these kids. Sad. A lot of therapy is needed here. Very sad.

I said the same thing a few years ago on this same thread and I was basically attacked. :rolleyes: This case took such a bizarre turn with so many unanswered questions. I still maintain that he seems brainwashed, but many members on here will defend him because victims who appear on this board are treated with kids gloves, I’ve noticed.

I totally agree with the “my truth” comment. There’s someone’s version of the truth and then there’s actually what happened. I think this is a case of heavy brainwashing. I just can’t imagine being kidnapped as a child then years later not wanting to meet my parents or my younger brother. To not even want to meet up with them and at least ask questions and clarify some of the memories that may not even have happened. It’s just so strange to me. That’s why being brainwashed by their grandparents fits the bill. I believe the grandfather, over the years, really did a number on them both.

It sucks because there are no winners in this case. The parents lost their children, the children lost their parents. The younger brother doesn’t know his siblings and no one faced consequences for this crime. In a sense, it is over, though it will never be over for the Baskins.

I still maintain that he seems brainwashed, but many members on here will defend him because victims who appear on this board are treated with kids gloves, I’ve noticed.

If having respect and empathy for people who are victims of crimes or horrible circumstances, than yes -- many here are guilty. :rolleyes: You make it sound like everyone gets a free pass here, which is far from the truth. I like that most people here have so much respect for those who have been victimized. There is also a huge difference between a VICTIM and a SUSPECT. Victims are going to get empathy, as they should! Even then, we don't always agree with what they post and in many cases there have been some pointed discussions. So your comment is way off base.

I totally agree with the “my truth” comment. There’s someone’s version of the truth and then there’s actually what happened.

That's the point... Where you there? No? I wasn't either. As someone who was very critical of the grandparents for a long time, my mind was changed after hearing from Jon. We weren't there so we don't know. As he has said, it is "his truth" which means the reality can be somewhere in between, but seeing as he lived through this I have to respect what he says. We can't say that Jon's perceptions of things are wrong because they belong to him. We don't know what his parents did or did not do -- same goes for the grandparents. This story ended up being way, way more complicated than the story was presented on UM. That seemed pretty clear cut but in reality there is so much more.

It sucks because there are no winners in this case.

This we can agree on. Everyone involved will never be the same. The best we can do is hope and pray that they all get healing, and that they can somehow find peace with what transpired as they live their lives. But that is up to all of them, not us.

I don't understand why people keep trying to litigate this. There's no unsolved mystery here. He's had his say, it's his life and he was actually there, it's so bloody weird how people want to keep injecting themselves into their situation like this when even the segment's been blacklisted.

Leave the guy alone.

I don't understand why people keep trying to litigate this. There's no unsolved mystery here. He's had his say, it's his life and he was actually there, it's so bloody weird how people want to keep injecting themselves into their situation like this when even the segment's been blacklisted.

Leave the guy alone.

One of the things that stuck out from an interview Jon did was when he mentioned the media said he had children, but in fact, he didn't: he only had a cat.

I think this goes to show how we make assumptions based on media/ news articles, without being the ones directly involved.

I agree there is a reason that this is no longer aired on Filmrise. I am glad, as both parties can move on with their lives.

To me, it doesn't make logical sense that the grandparents would spend their final years raising their grandchildren, exhausting their savings, living in hiding, if there really was no basis to do so.

I believe Debbie's narrative of forgiveness of her father was more of a religious exclamation to their church followers, to show how her faith has remained so strong throughout the years. I do think in some ways, she is also a victim, and the religious part of it probably does not help.

If having respect and empathy for people who are victims of crimes or horrible circumstances, than yes -- many here are guilty. :rolleyes: You make it sound like everyone gets a free pass here, which is far from the truth. I like that most people here have so much respect for those who have been victimized. There is also a huge difference between a VICTIM and a SUSPECT. Victims are going to get empathy, as they should! Even then, we don't always agree with what they post and in many cases there have been some pointed discussions. So your comment is way off base.



That's the point... Where you there? No? I wasn't either. As someone who was very critical of the grandparents for a long time, my mind was changed after hearing from Jon. We weren't there so we don't know. As he has said, it is "his truth" which means the reality can be somewhere in between, but seeing as he lived through this I have to respect what he says. We can't say that Jon's perceptions of things are wrong because they belong to him. We don't know what his parents did or did not do -- same goes for the grandparents. This story ended up being way, way more complicated than the story was presented on UM. That seemed pretty clear cut but in reality there is so much more.



This we can agree on. Everyone involved will never be the same. The best we can do is hope and pray that they all get healing, and that they can somehow find peace with what transpired as they live their lives. But that is up to all of them, not us.

Exactly. Jon and Jennifer choose to believe their truth instead of the truth and nothing we can do about it. Untill they they deal with their past instead dening it they will not be able to move forward and remain those scared kids for ever. Sad!

Exactly. Jon and Jennifer choose to believe their truth instead of the truth and nothing we can do about it. Untill they they deal with their past instead dening it they will not be able to move forward and remain those scared kids for ever. Sad!


It drives me crazy to hear people talk about "their truth". There is no such thing as "your truth", "my truth", etc. There is only The truth. This is true in every event in life.

There are too many things off with this whole case. I don't believe Marvin Maples and his wife were acting in a noble manner in any way. If The Baskins were such terrible parents, why didn't they even try to take the youngest son? This alone makes Marvin and Sandra Maples liars. Or worse, it makes their actions completely despicable because they cared so little for Michael's well being (their story is that Mark and Debbie were abusive) that they didn't even try to get Michael away from the Baskins as well.

It drives me crazy to hear people talk about "their truth". There is no such thing as "your truth", "my truth", etc. There is only The truth. This is true in every event in life.

There are too many things off with this whole case to make me believe that Marvin Maples and his wife were acting in a noble manner in any way. If The Baskins were such terrible parents, why didn't they even try to take the youngest son? This alone makes Marvin and Sandra Maples liars. Or worse, it makes their actions completely despicable because they cared so little for Michael's well being (their story is that Mark and Debbie were abusive) that they didn't even try to get Michael away from the Baskins as well.


exactly Jon had postedon facebook saying it is his truth. my saying there is only the truth. you know he believes a sham. its sad.

Even in my estimation both Debbie and Mark are victims. As I said, Mark was probably born into abuse, just like I was. I remember seeing Debbie in bed with her top ripped and breasts exposed looking blankly out into space while Mark washed up on the bathroom. She likely lived (and very well may still) in terror for her own well being.

You know, I'll be honest, my kids would all be horrified if they walked in on my wife and I having sex too. Or just finishing. Before we realized that there was a risk in the kids possibly waking up at midnight and coming into the room, this happened once or twice. Since then the door is always locked. Because, well, seeing your parents in that sort of light is weird. Natural, for them of course, but weird for a kid.

I do have to wonder about your memories of walking in on your parents after they had sex. That is never going to be a great memory regardless, but at 7 years old (at best I assume) is it not possible that it is a very foggy memory?

Have read all of this thread. It got a little dicey, haha. Strong opinions on both sides. And the case is over now of course and while it is sad all around for all parties, I guess we can take solace in knowing that no one died. The Maples both have died naturally of course. I will admit, they have never struck me as a very likeable loving set of grandparents. Just my own thought. And I did appreciate Jon telling his story. There was a bit of a promotional side to it, I thought. He's in what looks to be a park in the middle of the day, he is dressed up in a suit, he has an autobiography he planned on bringing out, and yet there was still just vague details in that interview. I don't know, I would have liked to have heard from Jennifer as well.

Here is my thought on this. I too had the whole feeling in past years that the Baskins were 100% victims. In hearing both sides, I am not sure if I put them at 100%, but I will say this. I have a family member whose parents split up at basically the same age that Jon and Jennifer were taken away from their parents. So he was 7. He was raised by his mother and never saw his father growing up. He was told a lot of bad things about him, and he was cut off from his father's family too. Cousins, Aunts, Uncles, even a grandmother. He never saw them after 7 years old. Long story short, a chance reunion happens and he listens to his dad's side of the story. No, his dad wasn't perfect by any means, but the quote he had after meeting his father and building a bit of a relationship with him was that "I feel like I gave my dad a 30 year prison sentence." That just hits the gut right there. Not everything his mom said was true. There were some grey areas, and there were some stories he had heard his whole childhood that he asked his dad about and his dad had a different perspective of things. He was never abused.

He met his grandmother and had a good relationship with her before she died, and has gotten close with some cousins and aunts and uncles. His dad and him are okay, not great, as there is definitely still a lot of damage, but he doesn't regret meeting him at all and at least hearing his side face to face.

Which brings me to the Baskin kids. They were 7 and 8. That's young. My family member thought there were a lot more scandalous things that happened when he was a kid in his dad's presence and there weren't. Even his own mother sort of shrugged them off despite telling him for years his father was a monster. Basically this was a power struggle between two divorced parents and his mom got full custody and really painted his dad in a bad light and kept him away from him. So if this happens, why couldn't this have happened to the Maples and Baskins? I would bet there is a lot more than meets the eye, and I have no idea why Jon or Jennifer wouldn't want to know "the truth" instead of "my truth". It might hurt, but wouldn't you at least want to hear your parents out? I would. That much would be worth it. You can still tell them off at the end of it. You can still be convinced that Marvin saved you and that your parents were monsters. I would just want to know for my own sanity. Jon has this weird coldness in his interview. No curiousity to hear their side of the story. I know brainwashing and manipulating are words that get bounced around, but the bottom line is most of the things he knows are things he was told. There can be a lot of fog in those memories, especially from 7 years old and prior. I do believe there could be a "Mandela Effect" here too. Either way, if I were the Buntings I would want to know if there was or not.

Their parents never had anything brought against them, they still kept their brother, they were allowed to adopt another child without any problems and they spent 20 years not knowing if their children were dead. That doesn't strike you as two people that at the very least deserve to have even just one meeting with their kids to explain things to them? If the Baskins are the monsters Jon thinks they are, then wouldn't the meeting be the closure you would need to confirm all the memories and rumours you heard? I don't know, at least for me I would want to know. I'd want to ask them the hard questions, and I'd want to go in with an open mind that my life was a lie for the last 30+ years. Or, if they were exactly as he thinks they are..............I'd want to know that too.

I think someone posted it already, but this is Debbie at her church in a video posted in 2012. She talked about forgiveness, and I am actually impressed with the grace she seems to give her father.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDHJe3spq4A

I don't know, if the Baskins are innocent completely, but if they are genuine, they sure as hell suffered, and still do to this day.

Yep, there are strong opinions on this one. I don't even know if Jon is still checking in on this site-- I wish him well in his life endeavors.

I think that any way you flush it, Michael and the Maples attitude towards him casts doubt on the whole thing. No matter how they try to justify it, the fact that they made these claims about the Baskins and did nothing to try to get Michael out of that situation casts doubt on their credibility and possibly that of Bobby and Christy's too. Having thought about this case often, I just don't see any way around that. And the reasons they have given for not meeting Michael or even talking to him don't really hold any water with me at all. They just don't.

I personally would like to see Michael interviewed and how he comes off. I think it would tell us a lot. If he comes off as an articulate person who has it together than to me it casts even more doubt on the Maples' story. and of course if he firmly denies there was any abuse towards him. I would like to see if he comes off as more impressive than Bobby did in his interview. There was definitely something off there.

Jon has addressed a ton of Issues brought up here today and I don't believe wants to continue posting but here are a few things about the kidnapping aspect he mentioned to me that I'll share.

a) they had full physical custody of us and with that in mind kidnapping cannot legally happen at the time that we left,

b) we were already gone when the custody changed so no one could be kidnapped because it already happened in the past and there are laws about how you can't be found guilty of something you already did after the fact that a new law or legal finding says it shouldn't be done,

c) just like all the other things that they did wrong in filing the kidnapping warrants, it's not hard to believe that they also filed a warrant for the wrong crime, and

d) we have a system in the United States called innocence until proven guilt, and the law has never found Marvin Maple guilty of kidnapping. So legally he's not guilty of kidnapping, just like legally the Baskins aren't guilty of doing what I remember they did. It doesn't mean it's right, but if you weren't there you can't say it happened

I've just been kinda reading through this.. and.. While I realize I'm responding to something from 5 years ago.. AND.. Rarely do I disagree with CD.. but.. The above is incorrect.

I'll stay pretty much out of the rest of the arguments, but.. This part.. I do want to address.

Now, in a way, it may be right in that kidnapping is certainly not likely to be something the Buntings were guilty of.. But.. We're getting into semantics here.

Point "B" above is "Ex Post Facto".. That does not apply here. that is enacting a law that criminalizes an act and then punishing someone for committing said act when it was NOT illegal. Now.. That's a bit of a dance here, because.. The most well known argument regarding that is Sex Offender Registries. Those came into being around 1995, but anyone who committed a crime that would land them on the registry PRIOR to that was required to be on the registry. The argument is that is Ex Post Facto, and, really.. It's not an argument. It is. Therefore, it should be illegal and a constitutional violation. Some states agree with this. Others not.. It's made it to the Supreme Court who has found that it is NOT Ex Post Facto punishment, that it's 'public safety' and Sex Offender Registries are not punishment. Which.. Let's be honest, is BS. Whether you are happy that it worked out that way or not I don't care, but be honest that they certainly are punishment.

So.. What happened here is that the grandparents absconded with the children. They knew that their custody was coming to an end and the left with the kids before they had to return them. That is against the law.

Specifics of the law may vary by state.. And while I'll agree this may not be kidnapping everywhere (Again, certain states may have different statute wording)

The grandparents also knew that custody had been returned to the parents. As evidenced by the mentions of them being scared when they viewed the Unsolved Mysteries broadcast (I believe Jon said that).. So.. Right there, they knew. Which means the most likely charge would be some form of Custodial Interference. Again.. All depends on the state and how the statutes are worded there.

SOME states refer to this basically as "Parental Kidnapping" right in their statute.. So.. Saying that they are not guilty of "Kidnapping".. While the 'classic' definition.. Probably correct.. It all depends on the locale where it happened.

The idea that the Grandparents can say "oh, we didn't know we didn't have custody".. Please. See how that would work out in court. In fact, The grandfather DID find out, if he tried to use that as a defense. Because he went to jail. If he tried this his defense attorney likely would have laughed him out of his office. This would be an argument that someone who made the brilliant decision to represent themselves would come up with and then be shocked that they were found guilty.

At the end of the day.. The grandparents were and are criminals. They absconded and kept the kids with no right to do so and further went so far as to assume new identities to keep them from being found.


If you want to agree with what they did and think they did the right thing.. Hey.. I'm OK with that. A mother has no money and steals a loaf of bread from a store to feed her kids.. That's understandable. But it's STILL ILLEGAL.


as for "D".. Legally.. The grandmother is the only one who isn't guilty and that's because she died before she could be found guilty. The grandfather *IS* guilty.. Not sure what he eventually pled out to.. But part "D" above makes it sound like they did nothing wrong and that is spin. That's Bill Clinton coming out and saying "I did not have sexual relations" and then saying getting a BJ isn't "sexual relations"

AS for the grandmother.. She's only not guilty in the eyes of the law. By EVERY other metric she's guilty.


These kids don't want to have anything to do with their parents? That's their right. They're so dead set against having anything to do with them, it'd probably be a really bad idea for them to try or someone to force it. If I were the parents.. I'd probably, as they seem to be doing, just hope that they have the best life they can.


FWIW.. it looks like TN would call this "Custodial Interference".. Statute is here.

https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2021/title-39/chapter-13/part-3/section-39-13-306/

One thing to note in that statute..

It is a defense to custodial interference:


That the person who removed the child or incompetent person reasonably believed that, at the time the child or incompetent was removed, the failure to remove the child or incompetent person would have resulted in a clear and present danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the child or incompetent person;

However.. That wouldn't hold up since multiple courts and agencies found no evidence of a "clear and present danger"

If the grandfather had been a younger man in better health when he was caught.. He'd have done more time than he did.



Crap.. I have to bring this part up as well.. There's possibilities. That this COULD have become a jury nullification situation. To be honest.. I'm a believer in Jury Nullification. But this wouldn't really be the right way to use it. Jury nullification, for those not familiar, is a jury basically ignoring the law and exonerating a defendant. If you ever want to get out of jury duty.. Just say the words "Jury Nullification". That'll get you out every time, most likely. I wouldn't overly recommend it, because there's also a chance that it removes you from jury duty permanently via a felony conviction! Not quite sure that would be possible, but it scares the hell out of the courts. The best example of this was OJ. That was most likely Jury Nullification, at least on some level.

I think that any way you flush it, Michael and the Maples attitude towards him casts doubt on the whole thing. No matter how they try to justify it, the fact that they made these claims about the Baskins and did nothing to try to get Michael out of that situation casts doubt on their credibility and possibly that of Bobby and Christy's too. Having thought about this case often, I just don't see any way around that. And the reasons they have given for not meeting Michael or even talking to him don't really hold any water with me at all. They just don't.

I personally would like to see Michael interviewed and how he comes off. I think it would tell us a lot. If he comes off as an articulate person who has it together than to me it casts even more doubt on the Maples' story. and of course if he firmly denies there was any abuse towards him. I would like to see if he comes off as more impressive than Bobby did in his interview. There was definitely something off there.

Michael and both Mark and Debbie are on Facebook. I have checked them out. Look, we all know social media isn't always a gauge for how things really are, but one thing that I find true is that the Baskins don't seem to have changed their beliefs. They are both strong Christians, they make reference to this often, they were that way 30 years ago and they look like they have raised two very healthy boys, Michael and the adopted boy Paul. Also, no proof ever came out about the abuse. They do have a couple of pictures of Bobby and Christi with some sadness to it. Hey look, someone is wrong here. Either the Baskins are wolves in sheeps clothing and their "Leave it to Beaver" image is completely the opposite of who they are.................or they actually are that way and the Maples were criminals.

Either way, I have never gotten past the idea that they leave Michael there. You just wouldn't do that. You'd let the other kids go back to their parents and stay in their lives and look out for them, all three of them. You don't just abandon one of them, and yes I have heard their explanation. It's bad.

I still don't get why Bobby and Christi never got a hold of their brother. How can their curiousity not get to them? Is there something they are afraid of finding out that 30 they've believed 30 years of lies. Because I sure as heck wouldn't trust my 8 year old self's memory, I'd want to corroborate it.

Michael and both Mark and Debbie are on Facebook. I have checked them out. Look, we all know social media isn't always a gauge for how things really are, but one thing that I find true is that the Baskins don't seem to have changed their beliefs. They are both strong Christians, they make reference to this often, they were that way 30 years ago and they look like they have raised two very healthy boys, Michael and the adopted boy Paul. Also, no proof ever came out about the abuse. They do have a couple of pictures of Bobby and Christi with some sadness to it. Hey look, someone is wrong here. Either the Baskins are wolves in sheeps clothing and their "Leave it to Beaver" image is completely the opposite of who they are.................or they actually are that way and the Maples were criminals.

Either way, I have never gotten past the idea that they leave Michael there. You just wouldn't do that. You'd let the other kids go back to their parents and stay in their lives and look out for them, all three of them. You don't just abandon one of them, and yes I have heard their explanation. It's bad.

I still don't get why Bobby and Christi never got a hold of their brother. How can their curiousity not get to them? Is there something they are afraid of finding out that 30 they've believed 30 years of lies. Because I sure as heck wouldn't trust my 8 year old self's memory, I'd want to corroborate it.

I don't know its all so bizarre. And now I've also heard that even Debbie's own sisters were on the Maple's side!

I mean even I find it hard to believe they made up all this. If none of this was true, what in God's name caused them to do something so horrible to their own daughter and sister? They had to have hated her guts to do something like this. Unless of course the sisters were deceived by Marvin and Sandra too. And if indeed Debbie and Mark are innocent of all this, they have to be first degree saints and Christ like to have forgiven this. I am a Christian myself, and I can't say I would have forgiven Marvin and Sandra for something like this. I don't even want to say on this forum what I might have done if someone turned my own children on me and assassinated my character like that!

I don't know its all so bizarre. And now I've also heard that even Debbie's own sisters were on the Maple's side!

I mean even I find it hard to believe they made up all this. If none of this was true, what in God's name caused them to do something so horrible to their own daughter and sister? They had to have hated her guts to do something like this. Unless of course the sisters were deceived by Marvin and Sandra too. And if indeed Debbie and Mark are innocent of all this, they have to be first degree saints and Christ like to have forgiven this. I am a Christian myself, and I can't say I would have forgiven Marvin and Sandra for something like this. I don't even want to say on this forum what I might have done if someone turned my own children on me and assassinated my character like that!

Happens all the time in families. And friend groups. It could be that they didn't like their strong religious beliefs. Or... it could simply be the fact that some people are mentally ill.

I believe Jon and hope he's doing okay.

I believe Jon and hope he's doing okay.


I believe he believes what he believes. Doesn't make it true. I'm sure he's hard at work on writing his biography which will eventually become a companion Lifetime movie.

Happens all the time in families. And friend groups. It could be that they didn't like their strong religious beliefs. Or... it could simply be the fact that some people are mentally ill.

I don't know about all the time, yeah sure families become estranged all the time but I don't know that this level of betrayal happens all the time.

And its pretty incredible as well that they would hate Debbie to that extent just because of her religious faith, anything is possible of course. I could probably believe that easier today with the woke movement but this was back in the 80's when even atheists were way more tolerant of such beliefs even if they didn't share them.

I don't suspect this case will ever go away on these boards though, unless Jon and Jennifer change their minds one day. Simply because to many people see Mark and Debbie as victims of a terrible injustice. For the reasons I have stated, I am inclined to believe that as well. I just can't get past their whole attitude towards Michael and them leaving him in that situation if all of this was true. I just can't. That is the main reason I am inclined to believe Mark and Debbie.

But on the other hand, its pretty incredible to me as well that these two did that amazing a job of brainwashing that Jon and Jennifer can't even shake it even in adulthood. I mean my God even most of Charles Manson's followers managed to free themselves of his BS. Of course, most of them were adults at the time whereas Jon and Jennifer were still children when this happened. So I suppose its possible.

Truthfully the whole thing is just flabbergasting to me. An awful injustice was done regardless of which side you believe. Just a matter of who did it.

I don't know about all the time, yeah sure families become estranged all the time but I don't know that this level of betrayal happens all the time.

And its pretty incredible as well that they would hate Debbie to that extent just because of her religious faith, anything is possible of course. I could probably believe that easier today with the woke movement but this was back in the 80's when even atheists were way more tolerant of such beliefs even if they didn't share them.

I don't suspect this case will ever go away on these boards though, unless Jon and Jennifer change their minds one day. Simply because to many people see Mark and Debbie as victims of a terrible injustice. For the reasons I have stated, I am inclined to believe that as well. I just can't get past their whole attitude towards Michael and them leaving him in that situation if all of this was true. I just can't. That is the main reason I am inclined to believe Mark and Debbie.

But on the other hand, its pretty incredible to me as well that these two did that amazing a job of brainwashing that Jon and Jennifer can't even shake it even in adulthood. I mean my God even most of Charles Manson's followers managed to free themselves of his BS. Of course, most of them were adults at the time whereas Jon and Jennifer were still children when this happened. So I suppose its possible.

Truthfully the whole thing is just flabbergasting to me. An awful injustice was done regardless of which side you believe. Just a matter of who did it.

So maybe it was Jon who said this on this board, but he did mention that the Maples were devout Christians. He said growing up his grandpa read them the Bible everyday. Yet he kidnapped him. But his parents were devout Christians....................yet they were accused of some horrible crimes. I mean, this is what you are dealt with at 8 years old. How the heck do you even know up from down at this point? Nothing would make sense and you would trust nothing at all.

So I think more the reason to go and see just how accurate things are. Mark and Debbie are in their 60s. They won't be around forever. I would want to at least hear their story. You may not be able to someday.

So maybe it was Jon who said this on this board, but he did mention that the Maples were devout Christians. He said growing up his grandpa read them the Bible everyday. Yet he kidnapped him. But his parents were devout Christians....................yet they were accused of some horrible crimes. I mean, this is what you are dealt with at 8 years old. How the heck do you even know up from down at this point? Nothing would make sense and you would trust nothing at all.

So I think more the reason to go and see just how accurate things are. Mark and Debbie are in their 60s. They won't be around forever. I would want to at least hear their story. You may not be able to someday.

I saw those posts from Bobby/John. If indeed that's him, he definitely sounded more open to meeting Michael though seemed afraid to. My gut feeling is they will eventually agree to meet their brother if not their parents. And depending on how it goes it might lead to a reunion, but it might not. Hard to say.

If Mark and Debbie are who they say they are and like I said I am inclined to believe they are, I don't expect them to give up. These two are their children any way you flush it. No matter long they are estranged they were with them when they were young, they watched them take their first steps say their first words and everything, you don't just forget that. I sure never would. And if all these allegations were false, I sure as hell would never give up in their place, would want not only my children back in my life but my name cleared as well. I mean what a terrible thing to be falsely accused of. People who have said in the thread Mark and Debbie should just give up probably never had children, you never give up on your children.

Of course, its always possible we could have been wrong and it could have been true, after all none of us were there so none of us know for sure. But given what I know, to many things don't add up.

They are all still fairly young. I just pray for the truth to come out for all of them so they might all have peace. And if the Baskins were innocent I hope they finally get vindication.

I saw those posts from Bobby/John. If indeed that's him, he definitely sounded more open to meeting Michael though seemed afraid to. My gut feeling is they will eventually agree to meet their brother if not their parents. And depending on how it goes it might lead to a reunion, but it might not. Hard to say.

If Mark and Debbie are who they say they are and like I said I am inclined to believe they are, I don't expect them to give up. These two are their children any way you flush it. No matter long they are estranged they were with them when they were young, they watched them take their first steps say their first words and everything, you don't just forget that. I sure never would. And if all these allegations were false, I sure as hell would never give up in their place, would want not only my children back in my life but my name cleared as well. I mean what a terrible thing to be falsely accused of. People who have said in the thread Mark and Debbie should just give up probably never had children, you never give up on your children.

Of course, its always possible we could have been wrong and it could have been true, after all none of us were there so none of us know for sure. But given what I know, to many things don't add up.

They are all still fairly young. I just pray for the truth to come out for all of them so they might all have peace. And if the Baskins were innocent I hope they finally get vindication.

It has been 14 years. You would think they'd want to have seen their brother by now. That's the thing, the Buntings don't come off as terribly likeable people. It just makes me think they've been trained to think a certain way and it does seem toxic. They remember their brother, were apparently heart broken he couldn't come, but they didn't bother meeting him? Are they afraid he might be normal and that it was the Buntings and not the other Baskin children that missed out on a normal life? Man, that would be a huge twist for them, and I would want to at least know one way or another.

So here is the question, how much did the Baskins try to reconcile with the kids after they were found in 2009? They did fly out to California. Jon says they were only doing it for show. But have they made efforts since?

It has been 14 years. You would think they'd want to have seen their brother by now. That's the thing, the Buntings don't come off as terribly likeable people. It just makes me think they've been trained to think a certain way and it does seem toxic. They remember their brother, were apparently heart broken he couldn't come, but they didn't bother meeting him? Are they afraid he might be normal and that it was the Buntings and not the other Baskin children that missed out on a normal life? Man, that would be a huge twist for them, and I would want to at least know one way or another.

So here is the question, how much did the Baskins try to reconcile with the kids after they were found in 2009? They did fly out to California. Jon says they were only doing it for show. But have they made efforts since?

Its not surprising he would think that, he obviously believes his parents are hellspawns, whether he was brainwashed to think that or it is genuine.

I haven't heard there has been any attempts to see them, there could have been. But even if there wasn't, it doesn't necessarily mean they don't care. Mark and Debbie I'm sure are aware that at this point and time they want nothing to do with them, so they could very well just be trying to respect their wishes all the while hoping they change their minds someday.

I've never seen Jennifer interviewed either way, I did see that interview with Jon. I didn't think he came of as unlikeable exactly, but there did seem to be something slightly off about him. His demeanor when speaking about the abuse seemed to unemotional and robotic, but it may just be me. He was emotional when he talked about his younger brother though.

Assuming the abuse allegations weren't true, my best guess on why he is afraid to meet his brother is because he has had this world shaped for him since childhood with this narrative, and he is afraid if he meets Michael and he comes off as totally normal and someone who has it together the whole narrative and world he has come to believe in will collapse and place the grandparents who raised him in a whole different light and not a good one. So it could very well be denial and refusal to face that possibility. I mean think about it, when you have believed something your whole life it is extremely hard to turn away from it I mean it literally becomes a part of your world and who you are. and I think that may be what is happening with him and his sister. They want to believe their grandparents were heroes.

Of course, if the abuse allegations were true, that's a whole different story and everything is sort of obvious so no point in rehashing it.

Its not surprising he would think that, he obviously believes his parents are hellspawns, whether he was brainwashed to think that or it is genuine.

I haven't heard there has been any attempts to see them, there could have been. But even if there wasn't, it doesn't necessarily mean they don't care. Mark and Debbie I'm sure are aware that at this point and time they want nothing to do with them, so they could very well just be trying to respect their wishes all the while hoping they change their minds someday.

I've never seen Jennifer interviewed either way, I did see that interview with Jon. I didn't think he came of as unlikeable exactly, but there did seem to be something slightly off about him. His demeanor when speaking about the abuse seemed to unemotional and robotic, but it may just be me. He was emotional when he talked about his younger brother though.

Assuming the abuse allegations weren't true, my best guess on why he is afraid to meet his brother is because he has had this world shaped for him since childhood with this narrative, and he is afraid if he meets Michael and he comes off as totally normal and someone who has it together the whole narrative and world he has come to believe in will collapse and place the grandparents who raised him in a whole different light and not a good one. So it could very well be denial and refusal to face that possibility. I mean think about it, when you have believed something your whole life it is extremely hard to turn away from it I mean it literally becomes a part of your world and who you are. and I think that may be what is happening with him and his sister. They want to believe their grandparents were heroes.

Of course, if the abuse allegations were true, that's a whole different story and everything is sort of obvious so no point in rehashing it.

Yes, and very unnatural to me. Just "off" I guess is possibly how to describe it. I also have to think that the memories I have prior to 7 or 8 years old exist, but barely. I can remember punching a kid in Grade 1 in the nose because he took my boot off during recess in the winter time. He got a bloody nose. However I can't remember things with 100% accuracy during that time. So basically you are trusting your memory at a very vulnerable age. That's risky.

It has been 14 years. You would think they'd want to have seen their brother by now. That's the thing, the Buntings don't come off as terribly likeable people. It just makes me think they've been trained to think a certain way and it does seem toxic. They remember their brother, were apparently heart broken he couldn't come, but they didn't bother meeting him? Are they afraid he might be normal and that it was the Buntings and not the other Baskin children that missed out on a normal life? Man, that would be a huge twist for them, and I would want to at least know one way or another.

So here is the question, how much did the Baskins try to reconcile with the kids after they were found in 2009? They did fly out to California. Jon says they were only doing it for show. But have they made efforts since?

Seems to me, as I mentioned before.. This would be a really, really, really bad idea to try to force it.

The Baskins (The parents.. The names are throwing me for a bit of a loop at times) seem to not be forcing it.. Which.. Is the right thing to do, no matter how hard it might be for them. If the kids don't want anything to do with them, there's a reason behind that. Whether that reason is valid/true or not is basically irrelevant. It's what they believe. Forcing them into a meeting against their will isn't going to change their minds. In fact, it's apt to have the exact opposite outcome and cause them to dig in their heels.

Some of the stories that were told to the social workers seem.. Really to have a whole lot in common with McMartin, as I believe someone mentioned before.

Here's a writeup I haven't seen before.. It's off Facebook, so.. Grain of salt. But..

The troubles for the Baskin family started in October 1986. Bobby Baskin, who was almost five years old at the time, told his grandmother about sexual abuse at the hands of his paternal grandfather. Bobby then later told the story to his mother, Debbie.
Debbie and her husband, Mark, then asked Debbie’s parents, Marvin and Sandra Maple, what they should do about it.The Maples encouraged them to press charges, and that’s what they did. The grandfather denied the abuse, and Bobby was unable to tell his story on the stand. Instead, he just cried.
As a result, the charges were dismissed in January 1987. During the ordeal, Debbie and Mark decided to move their family from Murfreesboro, Tennessee, to Louisville, Kentucky. However, Mark and Debbie were worried it might be too stressful for Bobby. So the Maples offered to look after Bobby and his 6 year old sister, Christi.
In June 1987, the Baskins made the difficult decision to move and leave Bobby and Christi with the Maples. For a few months, things went well. When Debbie asked for the children back twice, the Maples convinced her to postpone the move. But by spring 1989, the Baskins were demanding the return of their children. That’s when the Maples got temporary custody of the children.
They told the police that the Baskins had abandoned the children and sexually abused them during a visit. The Maples also told the police that the Baskins were involved with a satanic cult. Investigators looked into the claims, and they found the charges to be baseless. They ordered the Maples to hand over Christi and Bobby on March 1st 1989, almost two years after offering to keep them for a short time. But instead of handing over the children, they sold their house and fled.
The police and FBI launched a search, but the Maples couldn’t be found. Over the years, their disappearance was featured on both Unsolved Mysteries and America’s Most Wanted. There were a few sightings, but there were no confirmations. After fleeing Tennessee, the Maples moved to San Jose, California, with new names. Christi and Bobby were now Jennifer and Jonathan Bunting.
Twenty years after the disappearance, a Kentucky newspaper ran a story about the kidnapping, which Marvin Maple read online. He was unhappy with how he was depicted in the story and expressed this at the bar where he socialized. At least one of the people listening to Marvin went to the authorities, and Marvin (who was going by the name John Bunting) was arrested for the kidnapping on February 2nd 2009. Sandra Maple had already passed away in 2005. When Marvin was arrested, Christi was in shock and couldn’t understand that the man she called “Daddy” could be facing kidnapping charges.
Bobby and Christi were also hesitant to meet their parents and didn’t immediately contact them after the arrest. The parents believe that the children may have been brainwashed after so many years.
Marvin pleaded guilty to custodial interference and was given four months of probation.

Now, that's a detail I didn't know or didn't pick up on before.. Apparently, originally, the abuse came from Mark's father?

Allegations of abuse against the parents didn't, seemingly, start until after that.

I wonder if this is a situation where the kids remember the abuse from the paternal grandfather, which may be legit.. and when they say "The abuse was real".. That's what they're talking about?

Maybe there's a situation here where the parents weren't going to keep the kids from their grandparents, but allegation of abuse, the maternal grandparents weren't going to allow that to happen? and.. Perhaps are saying that the Baskins were complicit in the abuse due to that?

That.. Actually might cause a whole lot of things to add up here. Other than the fact that the Baskins apparently did press charges, but they didn't stick for lack of evidence..

Seems to me, as I mentioned before.. This would be a really, really, really bad idea to try to force it.

The Baskins (The parents.. The names are throwing me for a bit of a loop at times) seem to not be forcing it.. Which.. Is the right thing to do, no matter how hard it might be for them. If the kids don't want anything to do with them, there's a reason behind that. Whether that reason is valid/true or not is basically irrelevant. It's what they believe. Forcing them into a meeting against their will isn't going to change their minds. In fact, it's apt to have the exact opposite outcome and cause them to dig in their heels.

Some of the stories that were told to the social workers seem.. Really to have a whole lot in common with McMartin, as I believe someone mentioned before.

Here's a writeup I haven't seen before.. It's off Facebook, so.. Grain of salt. But..



Now, that's a detail I didn't know or didn't pick up on before.. Apparently, originally, the abuse came from Mark's father?

Allegations of abuse against the parents didn't, seemingly, start until after that.

I wonder if this is a situation where the kids remember the abuse from the paternal grandfather, which may be legit.. and when they say "The abuse was real".. That's what they're talking about?

Maybe there's a situation here where the parents weren't going to keep the kids from their grandparents, but allegation of abuse, the maternal grandparents weren't going to allow that to happen? and.. Perhaps are saying that the Baskins were complicit in the abuse due to that?

That.. Actually might cause a whole lot of things to add up here. Other than the fact that the Baskins apparently did press charges, but they didn't stick for lack of evidence..

Hmm, does seem like this case may have been a lot more complicated than we initially thought. This could explain why the Maples including Debbie's sisters may have taken a grudge against her, because of Mark's family. Maybe even if Debbie wasn't guilty of abuse directly, they felt that she was being to tolerant of them being near the children as abusers and that may have been why they wanted them away. It still doesn't explain their attitude towards Michael. But it does seem like there was abuse by someone in this situation, there is an awful lot of smoke here for there to be no fire for sure. The children's grandfather though being taken to court does add a new dynamic to the whole thing.

Even if Mark and Debbie were not directly guilty of abuse, if they were still allowing the children to be around their grandfather who was apparently doing these things, that would definitely make what the Maples did more understandable if not totally right. I still think it was handled wrong but it definitely gives them stronger motivation to pull something like this.

Seems like its really just a matter of who did what and when.

Like I said, hopefully the whole truth about it comes out someday.

Hmm, does seem like this case may have been a lot more complicated than we initially thought. This could explain why the Maples including Debbie's sisters may have taken a grudge against her, because of Mark's family. Maybe even if Debbie wasn't guilty of abuse directly, they felt that she was being to tolerant of them being near the children as abusers and that may have been why they wanted them away. It still doesn't explain their attitude towards Michael. But it does seem like there was abuse by someone in this situation, there is an awful lot of smoke here for there to be no fire for sure. The children's grandfather though being taken to court does add a new dynamic to the whole thing.

Even if Mark and Debbie were not directly guilty of abuse, if they were still allowing the children to be around their grandfather who was apparently doing these things, that would definitely make what the Maples did more understandable if not totally right. I still think it was handled wrong but it definitely gives them stronger motivation to pull something like this.

Seems like its really just a matter of who did what and when.

Like I said, hopefully the whole truth about it comes out someday.

Again.. grain of salt on that link.. I've never heard those facets of the story before.. I've got nothing to say that they're true.. That could be 'internet lore' for all I know.

But, if it is factual.. Then.. Some of the pieces might start falling into place. That being said.. If that is the case, the maternal grandparents and the kids are/were certainly not being very clear on the situation. They are, at least best I read, flat out accusing the parents of DIRECT abuse. Which.. If the situation was as we're theorizing a little bit.. That's VERY disingenuous. Bordering on flat out lies.

I just want to stress here.. That link contains things that I've never heard of.. Especially the part about the boy breaking down on the stand and being unable to provide testimony against the grandfather. Who.. I would assume is dead and buried by now.

I'd just like to see if anyone can find anything to give credence to that FB posting.

Not to mention.. Don't know if anyone has mentioned this before.. But there were a number of sightings of the kids and grandparents in the San Jose area. The fact that this case wasn't solved until the grandfather, I presume in the early stages of dementia, started talking.. That bothers me.

Again.. grain of salt on that link.. I've never heard those facets of the story before.. I've got nothing to say that they're true.. That could be 'internet lore' for all I know.

But, if it is factual.. Then.. Some of the pieces might start falling into place. That being said.. If that is the case, the maternal grandparents and the kids are/were certainly not being very clear on the situation. They are, at least best I read, flat out accusing the parents of DIRECT abuse. Which.. If the situation was as we're theorizing a little bit.. That's VERY disingenuous. Bordering on flat out lies.

I just want to stress here.. That link contains things that I've never heard of.. Especially the part about the boy breaking down on the stand and being unable to provide testimony against the grandfather. Who.. I would assume is dead and buried by now.

I'd just like to see if anyone can find anything to give credence to that FB posting.

Not to mention.. Don't know if anyone has mentioned this before.. But there were a number of sightings of the kids and grandparents in the San Jose area. The fact that this case wasn't solved until the grandfather, I presume in the early stages of dementia, started talking.. That bothers me.

If I recall, there were sightings all over the U.S. Eastern U.S. as well. I could be wrong, but that is what I remember. I suspect those leads led to nothing and maybe the ones in California did too. Remember, Marvin Maple kept the kids indoors for long periods of time when he suspected things were hot. Like right after the Unsolved Mysteries episode they were extra careful to be out and about.

Here is a story I have about someone in my family. And it sort of ties to what the Baskin situation is about. A family member had a dream that she was sexually assaulted by a family member. This was years later when she was with a family of her own. She confronts an aunt who she claims would know about this abuse, and the aunt says nothing ever happened. Mind you, she never gives a name of who did this to her. But there was a grandpa, a couple of uncles, a father, etc. around in her life at the time. She doesn't know who did it, but figures one of them does and that the people closest to her would know this had happened. Yet it didn't happen and long story short it sort of tore the relationship apart that this person had with her aunt.

I see the same sort of thing happen here. Things can get clouded. Especially with memories when you are young. The Baskin kids would barely be able to remember being with their parents. They were pretty young. Combine that with the stories they were told and I would suspect that they think this stuff happened to them at the hands of their parents. It could be just something that simple.

Again.. grain of salt on that link.. I've never heard those facets of the story before.. I've got nothing to say that they're true.. That could be 'internet lore' for all I know.

But, if it is factual.. Then.. Some of the pieces might start falling into place. That being said.. If that is the case, the maternal grandparents and the kids are/were certainly not being very clear on the situation. They are, at least best I read, flat out accusing the parents of DIRECT abuse. Which.. If the situation was as we're theorizing a little bit.. That's VERY disingenuous. Bordering on flat out lies.

I just want to stress here.. That link contains things that I've never heard of.. Especially the part about the boy breaking down on the stand and being unable to provide testimony against the grandfather. Who.. I would assume is dead and buried by now.

I'd just like to see if anyone can find anything to give credence to that FB posting.

Not to mention.. Don't know if anyone has mentioned this before.. But there were a number of sightings of the kids and grandparents in the San Jose area. The fact that this case wasn't solved until the grandfather, I presume in the early stages of dementia, started talking.. That bothers me.

Right. Obviously none of us were there, none of us knows for sure.

But if it is true, it would explain a lot and would cause the picture to come into focus a little more.

Bottom line is, one of the biggest things to cause rifts between parents and their adult children is the parents disliking their spouse and in laws. And in the worst cases, it can get out of hand and causes their relationship to totally deteriorate. Seems like its very possible the Maples had serious issues with Mark and his family and it eventually destroyed their relationship with their daughter and they came to see her as one of his family and no longer one of theirs. Couple that with the fact that they had those children for long periods of time and may very well have gotten more attached to them than they should have. Perhaps they seized on the alleged abuse perpetrated by Mark's father and simply caused the blame to extend to Mark and Debbie in the minds of the children, who knows?

All just speculation of course.

Right. Obviously none of us were there, none of us knows for sure.

But if it is true, it would explain a lot and would cause the picture to come into focus a little more.

Bottom line is, one of the biggest things to cause rifts between parents and their adult children is the parents disliking their spouse and in laws. And in the worst cases, it can get out of hand and causes their relationship to totally deteriorate. Seems like its very possible the Maples had serious issues with Mark and his family and it eventually destroyed their relationship with their daughter and they came to see her as one of his family and no longer one of theirs. Couple that with the fact that they had those children for long periods of time and may very well have gotten more attached to them than they should have. Perhaps they seized on the alleged abuse perpetrated by Mark's father and simply caused the blame to extend to Mark and Debbie in the minds of the children, who knows?

All just speculation of course.

I agree. But it certainly feels to me like there's a piece of the puzzle that we don't have here.

is the 'paternal grandfather abuse' that piece? Quite possibly. Is it the ONLY piece we don't have? Well.. Not quite sure about that.

I would say, as I did before.. If that is the piece.. I feel that the maternal grandparents AND the kids are(were in the case of the grandparents) being VERY misleading here.

They are accusing the parents of abuse directly. Not that they weren't protecting them from being abused. That the parents were COMMITTING the abuse.

While permitting the abuse isn't much different than committing it yourself.. There certainly is a difference.

Now.. If the paternal grandfather did commit abuse and the parents either didn't believe it or were, indeed, still going to provide access to the kids to the paternal grandfather.. That certainly changes my opinion of the parents. But let's be clear.. They were not committing the abuse, and they should not be accused of committing it. Accusing them of permitting it, being complicit in it.. All that would be totally fair. AND.. That could be sufficient justification for the maternal grandparents absconding with the kids. I won't say 100%, that'd be for a court to decide.. But.. Absolutely there'd be an argument there.


And, for definition purposes.. I'm talking about sexual abuse above. I know the parents were also accused of emotional and physical abuse.. Not touching on that with the above. Strictly speaking towards sexual abuse.

I agree. But it certainly feels to me like there's a piece of the puzzle that we don't have here.

is the 'paternal grandfather abuse' that piece? Quite possibly. Is it the ONLY piece we don't have? Well.. Not quite sure about that.

I would say, as I did before.. If that is the piece.. I feel that the maternal grandparents AND the kids are(were in the case of the grandparents) being VERY misleading here.

They are accusing the parents of abuse directly. Not that they weren't protecting them from being abused. That the parents were COMMITTING the abuse.

While permitting the abuse isn't much different than committing it yourself.. There certainly is a difference.

Now.. If the paternal grandfather did commit abuse and the parents either didn't believe it or were, indeed, still going to provide access to the kids to the paternal grandfather.. That certainly changes my opinion of the parents. But let's be clear.. They were not committing the abuse, and they should not be accused of committing it. Accusing them of permitting it, being complicit in it.. All that would be totally fair. AND.. That could be sufficient justification for the maternal grandparents absconding with the kids. I won't say 100%, that'd be for a court to decide.. But.. Absolutely there'd be an argument there.


And, for definition purposes.. I'm talking about sexual abuse above. I know the parents were also accused of emotional and physical abuse.. Not touching on that with the above. Strictly speaking towards sexual abuse.

Oh yeah, in fact I'd say there are several missing pieces. There is really a ton we don't know about who did what and when.

I do seriously doubt though that Jon and Jennifer, (Bobby and Christy), are being deliberately dishonest about their parents. I mean the idea that at a young age they just decided they hated their parents to such a degree that they have aided their grandparents for decades in maintaining a lie about them is pretty far fetched. I'm pretty sure they believe what they are saying is true and aren't knowingly besmirching them. Again anything is possible but I'd bet money they at least believe what they are saying whether its because it actually happened or brainwashing.

On the other hand as well, the idea they were brainwashed has holes in it as well. The only real reason I believe its possible is because they were only children at the time and the Maples did have a lot of time to systematically do this. But it doesn't mean they did.

I think we can all agree, that if indeed Jon and Jennifer were brainwashed, the Maples did an exceptional job of it. I mean is there anything in the Maples' background prior to all these events that indicates that they not only possessed the moral bankruptcy to do something like this, but the skills as well? I don't know a great deal about mental manipulation admittedly, I never tried to do it to anyone. But even with children, you'd have to believe that it can't be easy to do such a thing to the point where you can plant false memories in someone's psyche. And doing so would have to involve a careful, well executed, and systematic process. i think we can agree the Maples had opportunity since they spent a great deal of time with them, but did they have the means or the know how? That is at least debatable.

Having read some of Jon's posts from earlier, he argued that if his grandparents had this kind of control over him that he would be a Christian because he claims his grandfather read the Bible to him every day, and that they would accept all of their teachings and ways. To me, that argument really doesn't hold water. If indeed the Maple's brainwashed them it was for one purpose, to turn them against their parents. I don't know that they were concerned with trying to shape their morals for the future.

And its noteworthy that police investigations did not find any evidence of abuse. I don't take police investigations as the gospel, but even in cases of abuse in the confines of the home they often do manage to turn up some amount of proof of it in most cases. In this case they didn't.

As I've said, I'm still inclined to believe the Baskins for the reasons I have given. But there are some things about their side of it I am admittedly iffy on and find hard to believe.

And its noteworthy that police investigations did not find any evidence of abuse. I don't take police investigations as the gospel, but even in cases of abuse in the confines of the home they often do manage to turn up some amount of proof of it in most cases. In this case they didn't.

As I've said, I'm still inclined to believe the Baskins for the reasons I have given. But there are some things about their side of it I am admittedly iffy on and find hard to believe.

I find it noteworthy that Michael was never taken away from them. And that they adopted another son, Paul. This doesn't happen to Satan worshiping pedos. At least not stuff that would turn up in the investigation. Which it didn't. Michael and Paul would be a very good testimonial to the deep rooted values of the Baskins. They were raised by them. If there was never any sort of abuse, that has got to say something.

I find it noteworthy that Michael was never taken away from them. And that they adopted another son, Paul. This doesn't happen to Satan worshiping pedos. At least not stuff that would turn up in the investigation. Which it didn't. Michael and Paul would be a very good testimonial to the deep rooted values of the Baskins. They were raised by them. If there was never any sort of abuse, that has got to say something.

I think it does. Although I would like to see them interviewed just to see how they come off. If they come off as normal and sound very assured and sincere if they defend Mark and Debbie, it would reinforce my inclination to believe the Baskins. and if something doesn't seem off like it did with John.

But something I'd be curious to know, its been speculated on endlessly why Jon and Jennifer won't meet their brother. But I'd be curious to know what Michael's attitude towards the whole thing is. Remember, he was very young when all this happened, I think only 3-4 years old was he not? He probably has no memory of Bobby and Christy. And only knows what his parents told him. I mean, for all we know he may not even care about reuniting with them anymore. Think about it, you have two older siblings who you don't even have a memory of, and not only are they saying disparaging things about your parents but they apparently want nothing to do with you as well? Michael would be in his late 30's now, his attitude towards them at this point may very well be okay piss on you. In his shoes, I might very well feel that way. But we don't really know what Michael is like now so he may not. Hard to say. I heard it mentioned he owns a comic book shop now, which does suggest some independence but that's about all we know about him now.

Then again, if Mark and Debbie were innocent and are who they say they are, they have probably encouraged him not to feel that way and to attempt the reunion, but its possible he feels that way anyway. But Mark and Debbie, as I said assuming they are innocent, I don't expect them to give up. Obviously, no one can give them back the years they lost but they watched these tow take their first steps among other things, you don't forget things like that. I don't expect them to give up till they take their last breath. And if they are innocent I hope they find peace and clear their name once and for all.

As for Jon and Jennifer, again I hope the light goes on someday if these things didn't happen. They were victims either way.

People get placed with bad people by social services and adoption agencies all the time. There are literally 5 segments from this very show alone that highlight this.

The mother's sisters corroborated everything and sided with the grandparents. Unsolved Mysteries wouldn't let them speak. That's worth more than the mental gymnastics and word salad people are doing to make their personal anecdotal histories that have nothing to do with this case into the benchmarks by which all behavior should be judged.

I think it does. Although I would like to see them interviewed just to see how they come off. If they come off as normal and sound very assured and sincere if they defend Mark and Debbie, it would reinforce my inclination to believe the Baskins. and if something doesn't seem off like it did with John.

But something I'd be curious to know, its been speculated on endlessly why Jon and Jennifer won't meet their brother. But I'd be curious to know what Michael's attitude towards the whole thing is. Remember, he was very young when all this happened, I think only 3-4 years old was he not? He probably has no memory of Bobby and Christy. And only knows what his parents told him. I mean, for all we know he may not even care about reuniting with them anymore. Think about it, you have two older siblings who you don't even have a memory of, and not only are they saying disparaging things about your parents but they apparently want nothing to do with you as well? Michael would be in his late 30's now, his attitude towards them at this point may very well be okay piss on you. In his shoes, I might very well feel that way. But we don't really know what Michael is like now so he may not. Hard to say. I heard it mentioned he owns a comic book shop now, which does suggest some independence but that's about all we know about him now.

Then again, if Mark and Debbie were innocent and are who they say they are, they have probably encouraged him not to feel that way and to attempt the reunion, but its possible he feels that way anyway. But Mark and Debbie, as I said assuming they are innocent, I don't expect them to give up. Obviously, no one can give them back the years they lost but they watched these tow take their first steps among other things, you don't forget things like that. I don't expect them to give up till they take their last breath. And if they are innocent I hope they find peace and clear their name once and for all.

As for Jon and Jennifer, again I hope the light goes on someday if these things didn't happen. They were victims either way.

You can't reunite with your parents if they are dead. Or confirm that they were monsters. Either or I would want to know. But they won't be around forever.

People get placed with bad people by social services and adoption agencies all the time. There are literally 5 segments from this very show alone that highlight this.

The mother's sisters corroborated everything and sided with the grandparents. Unsolved Mysteries wouldn't let them speak. That's worth more than the mental gymnastics and word salad people are doing to make their personal anecdotal histories that have nothing to do with this case into the benchmarks by which all behavior should be judged.

So that is a story I am aware of, but was there ever another side to that? You can say UM didn't want me to speak and told me not to but what is UM's version of the events?

People get placed with bad people by social services and adoption agencies all the time. There are literally 5 segments from this very show alone that highlight this.

The mother's sisters corroborated everything and sided with the grandparents. Unsolved Mysteries wouldn't let them speak. That's worth more than the mental gymnastics and word salad people are doing to make their personal anecdotal histories that have nothing to do with this case into the benchmarks by which all behavior should be judged.

Its not mental gymnastics and word salad that they all said these things and none of them made any attempt to get Michael out of that situation. And their explanations for not doing so are weak. And neither is a police investigation that turned up no evidence of any abuse of any kind. Nor is it word salad or mental gymnastics that there is no evidence either Michael or their stepson were abused which they likely would have been had Debbie and Mark been what they said.

Besides they were not foster parents, they did a full fledged adoption I'm certain that is a totally different process whereas most foster homes are temporary.

As for the sisters, we really don't even know what their story was or why they were not interviewed on the show you are just speculating. Even if they did side with the Maples it doesn't mean anything, they may never have witnessed a thing for all we know and just decided to believe their parents over Debbie for whatever reason. As i pointed out it may have been nothing more than a grudge against Mark and his family that caused them to sell out their own. We simply don't know.

You can believe what you want to believe, but to simply ignore all these holes in the Maples story is disingenuous. Bottom line is none of us were there so none of us know for sure. You are entitled to your opinion but that's really all it is.

The mother's sisters corroborated everything and sided with the grandparents. Unsolved Mysteries wouldn't let them speak. That's worth more than the mental gymnastics and word salad people are doing to make their personal anecdotal histories that have nothing to do with this case into the benchmarks by which all behavior should be judged.

:clap

Its not mental gymnastics and word salad that they all said these things and none of them made any attempt to get Michael out of that situation. And their explanations for not doing so are weak. And neither is a police investigation that turned up no evidence of any abuse of any kind. Nor is it word salad or mental gymnastics that there is no evidence either Michael or their stepson were abused which they likely would have been had Debbie and Mark been what they said.

Besides they were not foster parents, they did a full fledged adoption I'm certain that is a totally different process whereas most foster homes are temporary.

As for the sisters, we really don't even know what their story was or why they were not interviewed on the show you are just speculating. Even if they did side with the Maples it doesn't mean anything, they may never have witnessed a thing for all we know and just decided to believe their parents over Debbie for whatever reason. As i pointed out it may have been nothing more than a grudge against Mark and his family that caused them to sell out their own. We simply don't know.

You can believe what you want to believe, but to simply ignore all these holes in the Maples story is disingenuous. Bottom line is none of us were there so none of us know for sure. You are entitled to your opinion but that's really all it is.


Yeah these defenders love to say they cared so much but they didn't do anything to save Michael .

Yeah these defenders love to say they cared so much but they didn't do anything to save Michael .

Yep. Any way you flush it, Michael is the one thing in all this that makes the Maples and all their defenders look like frauds either way. Whether they didn't get him out of that situation because they knew it was all BS they made up, or whether they didn't do it because they simply didn't care enough to. Either way he makes them look like trash. Even if the grandparents couldn't do anything where were these holier than thou sisters? The whole thing is pretty disgusting either way really. Stinks to high heaven. They should have went to hell's far side to get Michael out of that if they believed any of this was true, period.

As for the Baskins, like I said nothing surfacing about any of this happening with Michael or his stepbrother casts doubt on the whole thing whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Its not absolute proof that this didn't happen but it sure doesn't pass the smell test.

And with regards to Jon and Jennifer, nobody who was brainwashed ever admits it. You can't fault them for what they had planted into their head as a child, and you certainly can't if the abuse allegations were true. But I do say shame on them for not wanting anything to do with their brother. This idea they were afraid of getting ambushed by their parents if they met him is childish nonsense. They are all adults now. Could at least talk on the phone. I think they are just afraid that their whole past narrative will collapse if they meet him and find out he is perfectly fine.

Like I said though, if I was Michael I probably wouldn't want anything to do with them either by this point.

I'm still willing to acknowledge the possibility the abuse allegations were true, I got that much humility. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. What annoys me is people who only acknowledge one side and the arguments for one side. Even I find it difficult to believe that the Maples pulled off this level of brainwashing. But there is enough pointing to just that to where I am inclined to believe them.

Yep. Any way you flush it, Michael is the one thing in all this that makes the Maples and all their defenders look like frauds either way. Whether they didn't get him out of that situation because they knew it was all BS they made up, or whether they didn't do it because they simply didn't care enough to. Either way he makes them look like trash. Even if the grandparents couldn't do anything where were these holier than thou sisters? The whole thing is pretty disgusting either way really. Stinks to high heaven. They should have went to hell's far side to get Michael out of that if they believed any of this was true, period.

As for the Baskins, like I said nothing surfacing about any of this happening with Michael or his stepbrother casts doubt on the whole thing whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Its not absolute proof that this didn't happen but it sure doesn't pass the smell test.

And with regards to Jon and Jennifer, nobody who was brainwashed ever admits it. You can't fault them for what they had planted into their head as a child, and you certainly can't if the abuse allegations were true. But I do say shame on them for not wanting anything to do with their brother. This idea they were afraid of getting ambushed by their parents if they met him is childish nonsense. They are all adults now. Could at least talk on the phone. I think they are just afraid that their whole past narrative will collapse if they meet him and find out he is perfectly fine.

Like I said though, if I was Michael I probably wouldn't want anything to do with them either by this point.

I'm still willing to acknowledge the possibility the abuse allegations were true, I got that much humility. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. What annoys me is people who only acknowledge one side and the arguments for one side. Even I find it difficult to believe that the Maples pulled off this level of brainwashing. But there is enough pointing to just that to where I am inclined to believe them.

That has always bugged me as well. The explanation that the Maples gave the kids was weak too. It was "Either two of you get saved or none of you do." Ummm, what? You break up siblings based on that? Heck no. If these allegations against the Baskins were true, the last thing I would want to do is run away and leave a child behind. If the Maples were as noble as Jon and Jennifer say they were, why not give the kids back to the Baskins and stay in their lives? Why not keep close tabs on things, keep fighting the system if the Baskins are truly the devil? That would have made more sense.

That has always bugged me as well. The explanation that the Maples gave the kids was weak too. It was "Either two of you get saved or none of you do." Ummm, what? You break up siblings based on that? Heck no. If these allegations against the Baskins were true, the last thing I would want to do is run away and leave a child behind. If the Maples were as noble as Jon and Jennifer say they were, why not give the kids back to the Baskins and stay in their lives? Why not keep close tabs on things, keep fighting the system if the Baskins are truly the devil? That would have made more sense.

I have to somewhat disagree here. For the reasons I have cited, I am skeptical of the abuse allegations against Mark and Debbie. But if they were true, if I had a chance to get two children away I would do so and not want them to spend another day in a home like that.

But like I said, once they were safe, there were things they could have done for Michael. If not them, what about these holier than thou sisters who apparently turned against Debbie? They should have went to Hell's far side to get any child out of that situation if they thought any of this was true. The fact that they didn't is a lot of what makes me doubt the whole thing. and nothing surfacing about Michael or his stepbrother being abused is pretty much the icing on the cake for me. At least given the info we have now.

Very curious about the two younger children not being abused and makes it look like the two older children were brainwashed. Keeps reminding me of Joan Crawford, whose two older children claimed horrible abuse while the two younger said she was a great mom. If you look it up, the two younger Crawford children are identical twins, making Christina's claim that they are not twins false. They are also connected to the Georgia Tann case.

I have to somewhat disagree here. For the reasons I have cited, I am skeptical of the abuse allegations against Mark and Debbie. But if they were true, if I had a chance to get two children away I would do so and not want them to spend another day in a home like that.

But like I said, once they were safe, there were things they could have done for Michael. If not them, what about these holier than thou sisters who apparently turned against Debbie? They should have went to Hell's far side to get any child out of that situation if they thought any of this was true. The fact that they didn't is a lot of what makes me doubt the whole thing. and nothing surfacing about Michael or his stepbrother being abused is pretty much the icing on the cake for me. At least given the info we have now.

Fair points. That is the so-called smoking gun. Seeing a normal upbringing with the two other kids, as far as the eye can tell.

Very curious about the two younger children not being abused and makes it look like the two older children were brainwashed. Keeps reminding me of Joan Crawford, whose two older children claimed horrible abuse while the two younger said she was a great mom. If you look it up, the two younger Crawford children are identical twins, making Christina's claim that they are not twins false. They are also connected to the Georgia Tann case.

Bing Crosby too had a similar situation. After he died, one child claimed he was an abusive father (more or less the physical abuse from what I know) and it split the remaining children. There were two of Bing's kids that committed suicide. That's never a good sign of course. But it still doesn't mean Gary Crosby's book that he wrote about his father's mental and physical abuse. But most of his kids said Gary's book wasn't true.

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??

Then on the flipside, if Mark/Debbie were 100% innocent, what could've possibly driven Marvin/Sandra to abduct 2 of their grandkids and fill their heads with everything that they did?? Outside of being involved in some crazy stuff themselves or otherwise being complete sociopaths, I can't think of anything plausible.

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??

Then on the flipside, if Mark/Debbie were 100% innocent, what could've possibly driven Marvin/Sandra to abduct 2 of their grandkids and fill their heads with everything that they did?? Outside of being involved in some crazy stuff themselves or otherwise being complete sociopaths, I can't think of anything plausible.

I think it was a combination of getting attached to those children and them having a strong disdain for Debbie's in-laws which eventually extended to her. Seen that happen many times with parents and their grown children when the parents don't approve of the spouse. Which in the beginning if the abuse allegations against Mark's father were true, they were somewhat justified. However by disowning their own daughter and transferring the abuse allegations to them, they took things way to far.

This is of course assuming that Mark and Debbie were innocent. I do have some doubt if the Maples could have pulled off this level of brainwashing, more specifically if they had both the ability and the moral bankruptcy to do so. But given what we know about Mark and Debbie and how things appear to have gone with their two younger children, plus a few other things like the Maples' actions and how they handled this, I'm still inclined to believe it must have happened.

Very sad to see how an adult mind can still be so strongly affected by brainwashing. It doesn't seem like either of the children will ever be able to see the truth.

Very sad to see how an adult mind can still be so strongly affected by brainwashing. It doesn't seem like either of the children will ever be able to see the truth.

Or want to try. For me, I'd rather know as an adult that the memories I believe are true are actually true. These kids would have been 7-8 the last time they saw their parents and by the sounds of it there was a couple of years where they didn't see them much leading up to that either. So that means they are even younger. I just couldn't NOT verify that what I believed was true. I'd want to know for sure.

Very sad to see how an adult mind can still be so strongly affected by brainwashing. It doesn't seem like either of the children will ever be able to see the truth.

Or want to try. For me, I'd rather know as an adult that the memories I believe are true are actually true. These kids would have been 7-8 the last time they saw their parents and by the sounds of it there was a couple of years where they didn't see them much leading up to that either. So that means they are even younger. I just couldn't NOT verify that what I believed was true. I'd want to know for sure.

I think they see the truth.. According to them. And, perhaps, according to their grandparents.

Whether that is THE truth or not.. That part I can't speak to.

The sad part of all this.. i think they have the story from their grandparents and what they remember.. Their parents have another story..

As the old saying goes.. The truth.. Likely lies somewhere in the middle.

This thread should be locked.

There's nothing else to discuss. This is a person who was directly involved in this case who said what happened to him. If you believe him or not doesn't matter. This is no longer an unsolved mystery, it's a family issue. Any opposition will just say that he's a liar, which we don't know and isn't our place.

This isn't a cold case, but a personal issue between family members. Both children were found, and no one was killed, so our involvement in this is inappropriate and not worthy of discussion.



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

Or want to try. For me, I'd rather know as an adult that the memories I believe are true are actually true. These kids would have been 7-8 the last time they saw their parents and by the sounds of it there was a couple of years where they didn't see them much leading up to that either. So that means they are even younger. I just couldn't NOT verify that what I believed was true. I'd want to know for sure.


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