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

[ghosthouse]

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

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

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

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

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

[drew790]

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

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by SPD Yellow

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

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

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

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

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

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Zero]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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

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

[Killarney Rose]

Originally Posted by Zero

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

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

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Zero

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

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

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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

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

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

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

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by Labonte18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by Labonte18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by Labonte18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

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

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

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

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

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

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

They said the parents were the abusers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[drew790]

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