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

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

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.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

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.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

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.

Originally Posted by Cori aka ChrisSCrush

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.

[Huskerz85]

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.

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by Huskerz85

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.

[Stratego]

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.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by Stratego

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.

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by Stratego

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.

Originally Posted by Clockwork

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.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by freakbook

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

[Stratego]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

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.

[drew790]

Originally Posted by Stratego

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

The other side of ... child abuse?

[ghosthouse]

Originally Posted by Huskerz85

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

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

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

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by ghosthouse

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

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

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

[drew790]

"monitor the situation"

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

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

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by drew790

"monitor the situation"

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

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

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