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

[DazzlerSparkler]

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

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by drew790

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

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

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

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

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

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

Found this.. https://mountsinaiparks.org/obituari...049/guestbook/

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

[DazzlerSparkler]

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

[drew790]

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

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by drew790

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

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

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

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by drew790

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

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

[Zero]

Originally Posted by drew790

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

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

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Zero]

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.

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

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

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

Either way, either scenario is so outrageous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Zero

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

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

Originally Posted by Zero

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Zero

Either way, either scenario is so outrageous.

How so?

Originally Posted by Zero

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

So you think Jon is lying, when he said:

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

Originally Posted by Zero

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

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

Originally Posted by Zero

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

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

Originally Posted by Zero

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

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

Originally Posted by Zero

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

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

Originally Posted by Zero

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

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

Originally Posted by Zero

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

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

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Labonte18

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

And Jon had grandparents who believed him.

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

And Jon had grandparents who believed him.

Or brainwashed him

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

And Jon had grandparents who believed him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ghosthouse]

Originally Posted by drew790

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

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