Baskin son on why he won't reunite with parents...

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by Labonte18

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.

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

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.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by Labonte18

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.

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by Labonte18

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.

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

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.

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by Labonte18

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.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

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.

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

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.

[drew790]

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.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

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.

Originally Posted by drew790

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?

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by drew790

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.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by drew790

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.

[everybodylovesrs]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

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 .

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by everybodylovesrs

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.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

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.