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

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by Labonte18

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.

Assuming Michael was never abused, and there is nothing to indicate he was, then he knows the truth about his parents and knows they aren't abusers. Unless you think that Mark and Debbie abused their two older children and reformed with Michael and his stepbrother Paul. Which I suppose is possible but I seriously doubt it.

I would love to see him interviewed and how he comes off. If he comes off like he has it together and staunchly defends his parents it would solidify by belief even more the whole thing was garbage. I can't even really imagine how he must feel hearing his parents slandered his whole life as abusers by his older siblings, older siblings who want nothing to do with him either even though he did nothing wrong to them. I don't know how I'd feel in his shoes, I'd probably want nothing to do with them either by this point. He's a man now in his late 30's.

I think most of us in the Baskin camp agree, Michael is the one thing in the whole story that makes the whole Maple side of the story stink to high heaven. Their abandoning him in that situation despite their belief that his parents were satanic abusers is absolutely appalling. And of course if they are lying about the whole thing and brainwashed those kids that is even more disgusting. He makes them look bad either way.

As for Jon and Jennifer, again the reasons they gave for not meeting their brother are ridiculous. And makes their story look even more shaky. As I said, I truly believe they don't want to meet him for the fear of their whole narrative collapsing.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

Assuming Michael was never abused, and there is nothing to indicate he was, then he knows the truth about his parents and knows they aren't abusers. Unless you think that Mark and Debbie abused their two older children and reformed with Michael and his stepbrother Paul. Which I suppose is possible but I seriously doubt it.

I would love to see him interviewed and how he comes off. If he comes off like he has it together and staunchly defends his parents it would solidify by belief even more the whole thing was garbage. I can't even really imagine how he must feel hearing his parents slandered his whole life as abusers by his older siblings, older siblings who want nothing to do with him either even though he did nothing wrong to them. I don't know how I'd feel in his shoes, I'd probably want nothing to do with them either by this point. He's a man now in his late 30's.

I think most of us in the Baskin camp agree, Michael is the one thing in the whole story that makes the whole Maple side of the story stink to high heaven. Their abandoning him in that situation despite their belief that his parents were satanic abusers is absolutely appalling. And of course if they are lying about the whole thing and brainwashed those kids that is even more disgusting. He makes them look bad either way.

As for Jon and Jennifer, again the reasons they gave for not meeting their brother are ridiculous. And makes their story look even more shaky. As I said, I truly believe they don't want to meet him for the fear of their whole narrative collapsing.

It is probably the most likely reason they wouldn't want to meet him. Even if you are able to find the truth out one way or another most people don't want to shake the world they live in. Imagine the years you lost if you find out your parents were actually good parents. There are some people that would rather never know that out of sheer fear. Or having to eat crow. Or it is so much built inside of them already that they couldn't believe it either way. That is the take I get even just from Jon's interview.

[Huskerz85]

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.

The fact that the Maples took two of the kids, but left two more with parents who were supposedly devil-worshipping abusers is the crux of it, I don't care how you spin that - it just doesn't sit right with me.

If Mark/Debbie were truly abusers, there would be no way, absolutely no way they would inflict that kind of cruelty on 2 of their kids and then not subject their other 2 to even an ounce of the same.

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by Huskerz85

The fact that the Maples took two of the kids, but left two more with parents who were supposedly devil-worshipping abusers is the crux of it, I don't care how you spin that - it just doesn't sit right with me.

If Mark/Debbie were truly abusers, there would be no way, absolutely no way they would inflict that kind of cruelty on 2 of their kids and then not subject their other 2 to even an ounce of the same.

If I'm not mistaken, I don't believe the Baskins adopted their youngest child until after the Maples were gone with Jon and Jennifer. So they would not have known about him. I don't think it would have mattered even if they had if they didn't even care about Michael, they don't sound like the type who would have cared about anyone who was not their own flesh and blood anyway. I am betting they probably had sort of a tribalist mentality and that was the start of this, they developed a hatred of Mark and his family enough it caused them to disown their own daughter.

No matter, Michael alone made the whole thing abhorrent. Their disdain for Mark's family was justified in the beginning if the abuse allegations against Mark's father were true. But of course I believe they went way to far with it.

[Sewan23]

is there anyway I can watch the segment?

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

If I'm not mistaken, I don't believe the Baskins adopted their youngest child until after the Maples were gone with Jon and Jennifer. So they would not have known about him. I don't think it would have mattered even if they had if they didn't even care about Michael, they don't sound like the type who would have cared about anyone who was not their own flesh and blood anyway. I am betting they probably had sort of a tribalist mentality and that was the start of this, they developed a hatred of Mark and his family enough it caused them to disown their own daughter.

No matter, Michael alone made the whole thing abhorrent. Their disdain for Mark's family was justified in the beginning if the abuse allegations against Mark's father were true. But of course I believe they went way to far with it.

You are correct about the timing. When the kids were absconded with.. Michael was the only other child.

Now, i'm not talking, when I say think of how Michael must feel.. Whether he was abused or not is basically irrelevant. The grandparents honestly believed that there was behavior that the kids needed to be removed from. I do actually believe that. They might have had twisted thinking to think that, but, it was an honest belief.

So, regardless of whether Michael was abused. You had people who THOUGHT he was, and left him to the wolves(At least in their minds eye).

Can't be good for the psyche.

[Zero]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

There’s nothing concrete to suggest they DIDN’T keep in touch. Except family members in threads elsewhere online who went on diatribes and tirades and said things that gave the impression that yes, the Maples DID keep in contact with relatives. It was easy to back then. No cell phones. No IP or MAC addresses.

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

So you think Jon is lying, when he said:

I’m not sure where in my paragraphs I mentioned that I thought Jon was “lying."

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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"?

Why are you asking me? Information regarding the case against Mac Baskin being dropped and evidence disappearing is available online if you look for it. And as far as unfounded and ridiculous claims, I was specifically talking about those made by the Maples. The allegations WERE unfounded.

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

Yes I can. In the case against Mac Baskin, Bobby couldn’t testify and broke down crying. He was 5 I believe. Later on, it was his level of discomfort with these people who were trying to get information out of him that prevented him from saying anything. Two completely different things. Would he have been more comfortable had he been 12 years old? We'll never know.

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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

Has ANYTHING from either side been “proven?” To your standard or the standard of any jury or any judge? If you need to have it “proven” to you before you can believe it, then you shouldn’t believe anything from either side of this mess.

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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?

As I mentioned before, or maybe I forgot, but, relatives of the Maples believing the Maples’ side of things isn’t a surprise and holds no bearing. When children accuse someone of abuse, family members take sides. As for Jennifer, yeah, I do think she was brainwashed. She was stunned and in disbelief that her “dad” (Marvin) kidnapped them. According to Jon, he knew they were on the run and that Marvin was his grandpa and not his dad. Jennifer must have been really out of it, or she bought into everything 1000% and completely forgot her first 8 years of life.

But, what bothered me is Jennifer “not approving” of her brother talking to the media about this, according to the news reporter. The guy was like 35 at the time. She probably didn’t want him talking about what happened because it wouldn’t perpetuate the world she lives in. In any event, if, when I was 35, my older brother told me he didn’t “approve” of who I talked to, I would've told him what he could do with his disapproval.

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

This sounds like what someone unfamiliar with the case would say. There is a story that, allegedly, the Baskin's first left Bobby with the Maples because they thought moving him out of state after what he had recently been through (Mac Baskin trial) was too much for him. Christi joined him later.

I’m no fan of the Baskin’s for leaving their children with the grandparents, ESPECIALLY AFTER the Maples refused to let the Baskin’s visit their children. The Baskin’s were too nice AND too stupid to call the cops to retrieve their kids. According to the UM segment, and other readings found online, the Baskin’s tried unsuccessfully to convince the Maples to give them back their kids, and when it was soon the time to take them back, the Maples ran to court with allegations of abuse. I read the reason you gave above, but all in all, it was rather convenient timing.

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

Two things; Why the hell did the Maple’s not let the Baskin’s visit with their own children? If it wasn’t allegations of abuse, what then? They didn’t like the color of toilet paper the Baskin’s were buying?

Also, you’re under the assumption that Jon should just “know better” had he been brainwashed. This is a man who doesn’t believe his grandparents kidnapped him because they had custody when they left. This is also a man who believes that since Marvin pled to a lesser charge, it wasn’t really kidnapping. I don’t know what fantasy world Jon lives in, but this way of thinking is akin to the criminal who says, “I didn’t get caught, so I technically didn’t break the law.” “No one saw me, so technically I wasn't even there.” “I never heard her say "No," so technically, I didn’t assault her.” “It was a mistrial, so technically, I’m not guilty.”

He went back and forth with some user on technicalities and semantics. It struck me as a really desperate and pathetic attempt. Probably, if he believed that Marvin kidnapped him, it would shatter the perfect "savior" image he has of his grandpa.

I think Marvin himself knew he kidnapped the children better than Jon ever will.

All of Jon’s education and “well roundedness” and he can't even adhere to the reality that he was indeed kidnapped. Leaves a lot of room for speculation and doubt on virtually anything he says. It shouldn't strike you as odd. I mean, it's pretty glaring!

There is a lot out there to read on this subject. This board alone has two threads, each with 20 plus pages. Each page with multiple posts and responses and dialog. There’s a couple of lengthy threads elsewhere on the web. There’s newspaper articles, The lost and found blog where more of what Jon said was posted. There’s the original UM segment with information that would have easily answered some of your questions beforehand. I suggest diving deep and familiarizing yourself with all this information again.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Zero

There’s nothing concrete to suggest they DIDN’T keep in touch. Except family members in threads elsewhere online who went on diatribes and tirades and said things that gave the impression that yes, the Maples DID keep in contact with relatives. It was easy to back then. No cell phones. No IP or MAC addresses.

They weren't found until 2009, when IP addresses were definitely a thing. And the only reason they were found was because Marvin started blabbing to people at a bar.

Originally Posted by Zero

I’m not sure where in my paragraphs I mentioned that I thought Jon was “lying."

So he isn't lying. What is it then?

Originally Posted by Zero

Information regarding the case against Mac Baskin being dropped and evidence disappearing is available online if you look for it.

Okay, can you point me in the direction of this information?

Originally Posted by Zero

Yes I can. In the case against Mac Baskin, Bobby couldn’t testify and broke down crying. He was 5 I believe. Later on, it was his level of discomfort with these people who were trying to get information out of him that prevented him from saying anything. Two completely different things. Would he have been more comfortable had he been 12 years old? We'll never know.

Why is this any different for someone, regardless of if they are 5 or 9 years old, describing abuse to a room full of strangers?

Originally Posted by Zero

Has ANYTHING from either side been “proven?” To your standard or the standard of any jury or any judge? If you need to have it “proven” to you before you can believe it, then you shouldn’t believe anything from either side of this mess.

I actually do not believe either side of this mess and think there is truth in both sides. It's the disciples of the Baskins, who, for whatever reason, get really worked up when you dare to question their version of events.

Originally Posted by Zero

As I mentioned before, or maybe I forgot, but, relatives of the Maples believing the Maples’ side of things isn’t a surprise and holds no bearing.

Maybe to you it doesn't. To me, the fact that the entire family was aligned with them, does hold weight in the fact that maybe they weren't total whackjobs dead set on kidnapping their grandchildren because they didn't want to give them back to their parents.

Originally Posted by Zero

But, what bothered me is Jennifer “not approving” of her brother talking to the media about this, according to the news reporter. The guy was like 35 at the time. She probably didn’t want him talking about what happened because it wouldn’t perpetuate the world she lives in. In any event, if, when I was 35, my older brother told me he didn’t “approve” of who I talked to, I would've told him what he could do with his disapproval.

Why does this bother you at all? Are you a relative?

Originally Posted by Zero

This sounds like what someone unfamiliar with the case would say. There is a story that, allegedly, the Baskin's first left Bobby with the Maples because they thought moving him out of state after what he had recently been through (Mac Baskin trial) was too much for him. Christi joined him later.

This is literally what they said in the UM segment. They left them with the Maples due to "financial hardship".

Originally Posted by Zero

Two things; Why the hell did the Maple’s not let the Baskin’s visit with their own children? If it wasn’t allegations of abuse, what then? They didn’t like the color of toilet paper the Baskin’s were buying?

I won't pretend to know what exactly transpired between the two parties. It could have been something as simple as the Baskin's saying they didn't think Mac Baskin did anything to Jon; which led to a rift between the two. But the aww shucks Christian Baskins still did nothing in an effort to get their children back. If you left your children with a grandparent and said grandparents wouldn't allow you to visit them...you would just accept that? Don't buy it.

Originally Posted by Zero

Also, you’re under the assumption that Jon should just “know better” had he been brainwashed. This is a man who doesn’t believe his grandparents kidnapped him because they had custody when they left. This is also a man who believes that since Marvin pled to a lesser charge, it wasn’t really kidnapping. I don’t know what fantasy world Jon lives in, but this way of thinking is akin to the criminal who says, “I didn’t get caught, so I technically didn’t break the law.” “No one saw me, so technically I wasn't even there.” “I never heard her say "No," so technically, I didn’t assault her.” “It was a mistrial, so technically, I’m not guilty.”

It's really bizarre to see people not connected with this case get so worked up over what people who actually were involved with this case have said.

Originally Posted by Zero

All of Jon’s education and “well roundedness” and he can't even adhere to the reality that he was indeed kidnapped. Leaves a lot of room for speculation and doubt on virtually anything he says. It shouldn't strike you as odd. I mean, it's pretty glaring!

Because I don't think he believes he was. From a legal standpoint he absolutely was. But, if what he is saying is the truth (and not "his truth"), I could see why he would be steadfast in his belief that he wasn't kidnapped.

Originally Posted by Zero

There is a lot out there to read on this subject. This board alone has two threads, each with 20 plus pages. Each page with multiple posts and responses and dialog. There’s a couple of lengthy threads elsewhere on the web. There’s newspaper articles, The lost and found blog where more of what Jon said was posted. There’s the original UM segment with information that would have easily answered some of your questions beforehand. I suggest diving deep and familiarizing yourself with all this information again.

I've read most of the information. And I do not believe the Baskins version. Nor do I believe the Maples side of things either. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Were the Baskins molesting the kids? My gut says no. Did Jon and Jennifer suffer abuse at the hands of their paternal grandparents? My gut says probably. Did the Maples use this abuse and a fear that the Baskins would ingratiate said paternal grandparents back into the kids' lives as a jumping point to exaggerate more instances of abuse? Maybe. Do I think the Maples spent most of their life on the run living in an apartment, financially struggling, constantly looking over their shoulder because they thought it was "fun" to raise two young children? Absolutely not.

[TakeAWildGuess]

https://open.substack.com/pub/jswb/p...droid&r=4g1ftg

[Stratego]

I'm totally with you on this, Zero.

"the Baskin’s tried unsuccessfully to convince the Maples to give them back their kids, and when it was soon the time to take them back, the Maples ran to court with allegations of abuse."

Exactly.

[JenniferS.]

It is easier to believe the false world their grandparents put up for them to believe then because of all the trauma and pain they were put through. It is easy to tell 7 and 8 year old kids that things they experience are abuse when they are not. yes they were kidnapped. the grandparents took the day they had no custody of them anymore and were to turn them over the day they left and di not show up that is kidnapping. It is sad there mentality is still when they were 7 and 8 and still think they will be taken back to their parents as adults. The grandparents are going to have to explain the damage they did to their maker. They as adults choose to live in the fantasy the grandparents made for them. To pain full for them to believe reality or even read the trial transcripts. nothing we can do we are just tv viewers.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by TakeAWildGuess

https://open.substack.com/pub/jswb/p...droid&r=4g1ftg

That is an actual article from Jon I suppose? The thing with him is that the rare time we have seen or heard him in interviews his explanations are very vague. If he has memory of abuse why not state it very clearly in this article about who, what and when it was? This is one of those cases where the more I hear him talk about it the more it seems like his grandparents were the true villains here, and not his parents.

[Allierain]

Originally Posted by Sewan23

is there anyway I can watch the segment?

Go down the list to the Ts for The Maples.

https://archive.org/details/unsolved...l+1+(Full).mp4

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

That is an actual article from Jon I suppose? The thing with him is that the rare time we have seen or heard him in interviews his explanations are very vague. If he has memory of abuse why not state it very clearly in this article about who, what and when it was? This is one of those cases where the more I hear him talk about it the more it seems like his grandparents were the true villains here, and not his parents.

Yeah I do believe that is him.

I honestly don't know what to believe on this anymore. I still lean towards the Baskins, but I don't know.

If the Baskins story is true, then this might be the most infuriating case I ever read about. If i lost my children to someone lying about me like this, I honest to God don't know what I'd do.

Of course if it was true, they got less than they deserved.

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

That is an actual article from Jon I suppose? The thing with him is that the rare time we have seen or heard him in interviews his explanations are very vague. If he has memory of abuse why not state it very clearly in this article about who, what and when it was? This is one of those cases where the more I hear him talk about it the more it seems like his grandparents were the true villains here, and not his parents.

Originally Posted by XCalibur

Yeah I do believe that is him.

I honestly don't know what to believe on this anymore. I still lean towards the Baskins, but I don't know.

If the Baskins story is true, then this might be the most infuriating case I ever read about. If i lost my children to someone lying about me like this, I honest to God don't know what I'd do.

Of course if it was true, they got less than they deserved.

Here's the issue I have with how that is written. It's talking down to anyone who dares question anything, even though there is zero evidence.

Now.. I give SOME slack here, because.. The internet can be a bad place. I don't believe anyone here has been nasty in stating their beliefs/thoughts, but.. There's certain places.. <cough> Reddit <cough> that are.. FAR more.. Blunt? How about.. Just nasty about it?

And, I do get how.. Upsetting it could be to have everyone questioning you. But.. To your above points.. Explain. And.. Wouldn't you really want to see the parents who supposedly did all this be brought to justice?

The other thing.. "Abuse" is a very broad term. There' people out there that had luxurious upbringings and their parents 'abused' them by refusing to allow them to live at home and not have a job. Or they were 'abused' because the parents didn't show them enough love - in their minds. IIRC.. He never once in that article states what kind of abuse it was. In fact.. It's almost written in such a way as to imply it's sexual abuse without saying it. Which.. You do have to give some leeway.. Sometimes, people just block it out or it's too painful to revisit.. But.. you can write an article calling out the internet just fine?

I don't know who to believe, but i'm pretty sure we can't FULLY believe anyone.


Blindly accepting 'victim' statements.. Three words.. Duke Lacrosse Case.