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

[James T]

Yeah not really buying this narrative the kids have been told. They have no actual real recollection of being abused it seems, just what they were told for decades. Why would the Maples leave another child with the parents to carry on being physically & sexually abused? The son remembers vividly the pain-like having his ankle broken, yet there is it seems no medical records of this. How can this be anything else other than brainwashing?

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by SertumAEnigmA

It's pretty sad how the narrative had continued to evolve, when there was absolutely zero evidence that supported their claims.

Bingo.

I do think there was some abuse that went on, but it was by a different family member. I wonder if it's possible that the kids have some sort of "Mandela effect" going on where they are misremembering who abused them, and are blaming the parents.

[NDAlum2003]

Originally, like many others, I was on the Baskins' side. However, my opinions have changed.

1. We have heard Jon's side of the story, so let's talk about the Baskins. The UM story presents an entirely one sided story to the abuse allegations. Debbie's sisters apparently were on the Maples' side. UM never interviewed them. It would have been fair to at least hear out their side. This is not the first time UM has only showed us one side of the story. Based on hearing all this, I was empathetic towards the Baskins and was on their side after seeing the story, as were many others.
2. I have not been able to examine the court records and such in the case, however at this point the only people stating the Baskins were accused of being Satan worshipers are the Baskins themselves. They paint themselves as victims well. Indeed, Mark and Debbie appear to be very religious Christians, though maybe they do worship Satan? In any case, Satan worship in itself, is not illegal.
3. After the accusations came out, I have a suspicion that any abuse at that point would have been severely curtailed as the Baskins were being watched much more closely at that point.
4. The grandparents were essentially considered guilty because the Baskins had been cleared of any wrongdoing (which does not always prove one's complete innocence, it only means that evidence is insufficient), and the grandparents violated a court order and did not appear at the March 29, 1989 hearing. Clearly given what they truly believed, they had no choice but to take the children and violate the order. I am impressed that they told the children that they had a choice in the matter, and informed them truthfully of what would happen if they appeared (meaning they would likely go back to their parents).
5. Many of us were surprised the Baskins played themselves in the reenactment. Did anyone else find the huge sunglasses Debbie wore when being interviewed for the news segment strange?
6. The children clearly were afraid to tell the story of abuse. Without the whole story, the perpetrators often go unpunished.
7. Debbie's story that Marvin told her to take him home sounds true but the question is what state of mind was Marvin truly in on that very day. It didn't sound to me as if Marvin knew what he was going on. My own grandmother was once in the same state as Marvin (including being placed in a wheelchair in full view of the nurses' station as they do for many dementia patients who may cause issues) and she would have told anyone to take her home, including her worst enemies. I believe Jon has mentioned that at that point, Marvin didn't even know who he was, so how could he even know who Debbie was?

Finally, I must give kudos to Jon for deciding to come and tell his side of the story. I certainly understand Jennifer's reluctance, but Jon also did a huge deed and told the world that the Maples did the right thing, despite what it cost them, including some of Marvin's freedom.

[NDAlum2003]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

Bingo.

I do think there was some abuse that went on, but it was by a different family member. I wonder if it's possible that the kids have some sort of "Mandela effect" going on where they are misremembering who abused them, and are blaming the parents.

I believe some sources stated the Baskin grandparents, specifically the grandfather, were involved.

[idol]

Good find CD, thanks for sharing.

I don't know what to believe.

The Baskins to me seem like good people and Jon seems like a well rounded intelligent guy.

[crystaldawn]

Originally Posted by NDAlum2003

Originally, like many others, I was on the Baskins' side. However, my opinions have changed.

1. We have heard Jon's side of the story, so let's talk about the Baskins. The UM story presents an entirely one sided story to the abuse allegations. Debbie's sisters apparently were on the Maples' side. UM never interviewed them. It would have been fair to at least hear out their side. This is not the first time UM has only showed us one side of the story. Based on hearing all this, I was empathetic towards the Baskins and was on their side after seeing the story, as were many others.
2. I have not been able to examine the court records and such in the case, however at this point the only people stating the Baskins were accused of being Satan worshipers are the Baskins themselves. They paint themselves as victims well. Indeed, Mark and Debbie appear to be very religious Christians, though maybe they do worship Satan? In any case, Satan worship in itself, is not illegal.
3. I also remember it being said that Michael was a challenging child. After the accusations came out, I have a suspicion that any abuse at that point would have been severely curtailed as the Baskins were being watched much more closely at that point.
4. The grandparents were essentially considered guilty because the Baskins had been cleared of any wrongdoing (which does not always prove one's complete innocence, it only means that evidence is insufficient), and the grandparents violated a court order and did not appear at the March 29, 1989 hearing. Clearly given what they truly believed, they had no choice but to take the children and violate the order. I am impressed that they told the children that they had a choice in the matter, and informed them truthfully of what would happen if they appeared (meaning they would likely go back to their parents).
5. Many of us were surprised the Baskins played themselves in the reenactment. Did anyone else find the huge sunglasses Debbie wore when being interviewed for the news segment strange?
6. The children clearly were afraid to tell the story of abuse. Without the whole story, the perpetrators often go unpunished.
7. Debbie's story that Marvin told her to take him home sounds true but the question is what state of mind was Marvin truly in on that very day. It didn't sound to me as if Marvin knew what he was going on. My own grandmother was once in the same state as Marvin (including being placed in a wheelchair in full view of the nurses' station as they do for many dementia patients who may cause issues) and she would have told anyone to take her home, including her worst enemies. I believe Jon has mentioned that at that point, Marvin didn't even know who he was, so how could he even know who Debbie was?

Finally, I must give kudos to Jon for deciding to come and tell his side of the story. I certainly understand Jennifer's reluctance, but Jon also did a huge deed and told the world that the Maples did the right thing, despite what it cost them, including some of Marvin's freedom.

Well said! I completely agree.

Also people keep bringing up why was Michael left behind and Jon has addressed why repeatedly. He was in another county at the time plus he did have some issues that would have made it hard to be able to keep him in hiding. So it's either save 2 of your 3 grandchildren or allow all three of them to be continually abused. What would YOUR choice have been? Marvin and Sandra felt terrible for not rescuing Michael but it just wasn't possible at the time. I think they also hoped that with the attention that would be now focused even more on Mark and Debbie that the abuse towards Michael would stop.

[James T]

I am no fan of the Baskins religious bs, however no physical or sexual abuse signs of damage were seen on the children. The lad talks about his memory of a broken ankle-surely there would have been evidence of this via hospital records, others seeing the state he was in etc, it isn't something that you can really hide. Also he alleges that they were abused during their visitation rights-how would that be possible? They would surely have been under strict supervision? Just sounds like implanted memories.

[hostedbyrobertstack]

Originally Posted by James T

I am no fan of the Baskins religious bs, however no physical or sexual abuse signs of damage were seen on the children. The lad talks about his memory of a broken ankle-surely there would have been evidence of this via hospital records, others seeing the state he was in etc, it isn't something that you can really hide. Also he alleges that they were abused during their visitation rights-how would that be possible? They would surely have been under strict supervision? Just sounds like implanted memories.

From what I heard on the interview, and maybe I'm wrong, but I think people are taking the "broken ankle" out of context. I feel like he was saying he remembers the abuse vividly and painfully, much like he remembers when he had a broken ankle, where that pain was real and vivid. I think he was just comparing the two, but I could be wrong.

[NDAlum2003]

Originally Posted by hostedbyrobertstack

From what I heard on the interview, and maybe I'm wrong, but I think people are taking the "broken ankle" out of context. I feel like he was saying he remembers the abuse vividly and painfully, much like he remembers when he had a broken ankle, where that pain was real and vivid. I think he was just comparing the two, but I could be wrong.

I second the comment on the broken ankle. Also, a kid with a broken ankle and a plausible story for the hospital employees to me would not generally raise a presumption of child abuse.

As to the abuse after the children began to reside with the Maples in Tennessee, I believe this is what happened:

1. Baskins place children at Maples' home.
2. Sandra and Debbie fight, and the Baskins are no longer welcome to stay at the Maple home while visiting the children.
3. This is when the abuse was continuing - when the Baskins visited the children, but stayed in a motel. (I believe this is the period of "visitation" that is at issue in the case).
4. The Maples then discover the abuse, go to a judge and are given custody of the children. Supervised visitations begin.
5. I am presuming that supervised visitations make it impossible for the abuse to continue, but maybe I am wrong?
6. The Maples fail to show with the children for the final hearing, and the children and the Maples are now officially missing.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by crystaldawn

Also people keep bringing up why was Michael left behind and Jon has addressed why repeatedly. He was in another county at the time plus he did have some issues that would have made it hard to be able to keep him in hiding. So it's either save 2 of your 3 grandchildren or allow all three of them to be continually abused. What would YOUR choice have been? Marvin and Sandra felt terrible for not rescuing Michael but it just wasn't possible at the time. I think they also hoped that with the attention that would be now focused even more on Mark and Debbie that the abuse towards Michael would stop.

For me personally I would've done everything in my power to save all 3 and have Mark and Debbie put in jail. I would've been screaming it from the mountaintops to anyone who would listen, called CPS, police, etc. until someone opened another investigation into the allegations and took them seriously. This wasn't just Maples vs. Baskins. Allegedly, other people on Debbie's side supported the Maples. Why didn't they too come forward to support the allegations being made, or try to help Michael at some point? The Maples were gone, but Debbie's sisters were not on the run. I wouldn't have taken 2 and ran for 20 years, just crossing my fingers that the third child would be okay after the publicity of the case gained traction.

[NDAlum2003]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

For me personally I would've done everything in my power to save all 3 and have Mark and Debbie put in jail. I would've been screaming it from the mountaintops to anyone who would listen, called CPS, police, etc. until someone opened another investigation into the allegations and took them seriously. This wasn't just Maples vs. Baskins. Allegedly, other people on Debbie's side supported the Maples. Why didn't they too come forward to support the allegations being made, or try to help Michael at some point? The Maples were gone, but Debbie's sisters were not on the run. I wouldn't have taken 2 and ran for 20 years, just crossing my fingers that the third child would be okay after the publicity of the case gained traction.

The systems have their limitations. There are people throwing fits about issues such as these all the time, but the authorities have their own set of rules (and often their own agendas). Anyone remember the allegations that Beverly Noe had "embarrasing information" on various officials in Oklahoma? (Just an example).

I believe the Maples did everything they reasonably knew they could to get the children away from the abuse, but they knew the limitations of the system. In fact, I wonder if the children had been given back to the Baskins, that the Baskins might have then moved to another state and cut off contact with the Maples which would open the door to the abuse to continue.

As to Debbie's sisters, I think many of us are still eager to know that whole story. We have heard from Jon, so it would be nice to hear from another person connected to what was going on. However right now we should all take a deep breath for a bit and digest this whole thing (and that includes me).

[James T]

Quite amazing that the consensus on the story has suddenly gone from sick grandparents kidnapped kids having filled their heads with nonsense & threatening to kill them rather than return them, despite there having been zero evidence of abuse from investigations & a judge ruling in the parents favour, to the parents abused the children mentally, physically & sexually.

Is it the Baskins line in piety that has caused this, or the unsubstantiated word of somebody showing all the signs of implanted false memories? No evidence of physical or sexual abuse was ever found on them, nor it seems the other child & no accusations from him, there are no reports of anything untoward about them from anywhere else which if they were kiddie diddlers you would expect to find.

[SertumAEnigmA]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

Bingo.

I do think there was some abuse that went on, but it was by a different family member. I wonder if it's possible that the kids have some sort of "Mandela effect" going on where they are misremembering who abused them, and are blaming the parents.

It's possible. Growing up my mother was a pretty intense person. Never any verbal or physical abuse, however, if she said no phone calls after 10pm and the phone rang three minutes after, we'd be up until 3am hearing about it. The whole house. These days I understand why.

A cousin of mine grew up with me after he turned three years old. Initially placed by DCFS, his mother got him back for about two or three years over about sixteen years when she cleaned her act up but it was short lived. The abuse was pretty wicked, at one point his face was crushed by a phone receiver and required some surgery. Every couple of months she'd end up grabbing him from school or he'd keep running away and we'd catch him with his mom scoring drugs or whatever. Seriously sometimes he'd be gone a day or two and be pretty beat up. It was always allegedly her boyfriend at the time or some neighborhood boys. Then when he was about fifteen and I was sixteen, she stabbed him in the face and chest after he'd been gone a couple weeks and my mom couldn't find him. I was with him that evening. I was only a year older than him and we were pretty close. Typically he'd runaway, I'd know where he was and go hang out with them. The trade off is she'd get us booze and dope and let us use her car(even as young as twelve or thirteen) and I thought at least I could lookout for him. That's my grandma's thinking and influence on me.

She goes to prison and once he's eighteen he runs up prison at least two or three times a month. In fact, when she got out, she moved in with him and ended up violating her parole.

Despite witnesses, his mother admitting abuse or whatever, he to this day will not even hold his mom responsible. It was her boyfriend, ex-husband or again some drug dealer. Never mama. I remember her giving this junky a rock to beat him up for what she felt was disrespect. Then when it was done, they would all be fine. Looking back it was pretty sick.

My sister on the other hand, she's another story. Everything that has happened to that boy, is her story. My sister has accused dozens of men of men of abuse, rape and whatever. Seriously, you tell a story, two weeks later she tells it as her own. When she was about eight or nine years old, she's up in the school claiming some strange man living in our house had beat her up. Of course, the school knew who we were as did DCFS, simply because they were at our house weekly. Now, administrators are reluctant to believe her as her story was my mom has a strange man living in the basement and he beat her and mom up with a claw hammer. Yes, a claw hammer. Not a mark on her. They are a bit suspicious that this is some kind of cry for help. All wild fantasy. She can look you right in the face and lie. Some stories she tells, is something out of a movie currently in theaters. Teachers would find notes with elaborate details of my mom getting beat, I was in prison and my cousin was on the run. She reported being raped at school, gave intimate details when she was eleven years old. Fortunately, the school and DCFS was aware of our situation and so up in our business, they knew what was going on. Yet, it has still caused issues in the family.

Just imagine has she said these things with the school or DCFS and they were not aware? Especially during that era.

Anyway, I move on with my life as it's no longer my concern. Then I remember one session when we were all in therapy.

Therapist says to my mother and father, for an abused child, he/she don't know it. That's normal for them. A child doesn't know abuse. You tell him abuse, he looks at you crazy. Of course you are. It's all he knows. You give him this safe place, but it's foreign. He's looking for his normalcy. He's feels the best way to control his life, is to cater to his mother and appease her in a state of constant abuse.

Now for my sister, she sees my parents always in a state of chaos doing everything in their power helping their nephew. She's crying for help. The abuse isn't normal, she hears these stories and then has dreams and this is all very traumatic for her. She hears the abuse and witnesses the end product. There is this constant state of intensity in my house. Because what happened to the abused one is not normal. She knows very traumatic things cause you to give your full and undivided attention and respond. What is worse, is my sister was extremely anxious and nervous. She was always on the brink. Still is, twenty years later. All this stuff, she will tell you is real. It happened.

I haven't spoke to her in a couple of years due to all the chaos and drama she caused. But now thinking back, that's what my house was. There was always was this heightened state of alertness. Due to the element my aunt associated with and her actions, we were always constantly wondering if she was gonna come kill us or end up killing my cousin. I remember being sixteen, having to walk her to school armed. There were nights police watched our house.

I won't even get into all the counselors and social workers in and out. This all was probably very traumatic. Perhaps perception alters processing and interpreting of events. It may feel very real to her.

Honestly until today I haven't given my situation much thought as it was just too much drama. I always felt my parents did the right thing. Reality is, our entire household, family events, hell day to day activities centered around my cousin and his mother. While bad things happened, often. I think the constant state of just knowing something is about to happen, was just as bad.

I guess that partially is probably what gravitates my attention to stories like these. To be fair, my cousin wasn't the only family member we had to harbor. For a summer we had another aunt and my cousins for a summer. Sort of due to the same type of circumstances, but not quite.

My wife works with abused women and children, I'm not going into specifics on that, but she can tell you majority is horrible and disgusting. There are people abusing the service though. Kids sadly are used as weapons. It's not uncommon.

The first thing that troubles me with this case is the lack of specifics. Abuse is a very broad term. Even to say you were physically abused. Imagination could fill a massive gap. I mean someone could jump up and get in your face or you may feel cornered, this occurs once and you call it abuse.

A child doesn't know abuse. Whether it hurts or not. It only becomes abuse when you convey situations to someone who in turn decides to "define it".

Which I think is why, abuse victims often protect abusers. It's not so much they are in denial or even too scared. It's because they don't know what it is.

Social worker comes in and hands you a doll. Asks if momma touches you?

Of course she does. Pats me on the head. Hugs and kiss me.

But how? Does she pat your head like this or like what? Show me?

That's another thing that troubles me with this case. I know how social workers/therapists and shrinks operate. There is a lack of specifics. I think there is a reason. Specifics would result in evidence. You say you were raped? A child would show physical trauma. You were beat? Pictures. Documentation. Medical professionals. Teachers. Neighbors.

None of it exists.

Listen. If I'm kidnapping a child because I truly believe there is actual abuse, you damn well better believe I'd have pictures and medical records galore. At my mothers house there is a box of my cousins legal and medical records. Hundreds of pictures, letters and documents. Not to mention, friends and family who have witnessed the abuse.

What bothers me the most though- is the contradictions.

On one hand, here is a father going to school far away. He's away from a child for months. Yet, when there is a supervised visitation occurs, he's a sexual deviant and his abusive urges are so uncontrollable he abuses the children during a supervised visitation?

Okay so what occurred?

Well he physically and sexually abused the children?

What happened?

He abused the children.

Doing what?

Things, I won't go into specifics.

Okay, so in front of a social worker during a court ordered supervised visit, the children were sexually and physically abused?

Okay did he punch his son and kick his daughter? Did you take the child to a doctor? Did you photograph bruises? Did you report the social worker for allowing it to occur?

Here's the thing. While I appreciate the narrative and this sad story, it's just not real. Maybe some forgot, some not old enough to remember or simply choose to ignore is that kidnapping fear and "Satanic Ritual Abuse"(SRA) was in full swing during that era. Social services and Child Protective Services were amplified and their budgets skyrocketed. Children were getting ripped out of homes not due to actual abuse, but retaliation. Foster homes were getting packed and states were looking for people to step up. In fact, the FBI was getting briefed about these cults daily. Yet, it simply wasn't true. It didn't exist. Despite no evidence of such activity, states put laws in place that required children to be ripped out of homes for 72 hours if sexual abuse was mentioned, even from anonymous sources.

Children were giving vivid details of abuse.

I suggest people who don't understand this, look into McMartin Preschool Trial. The Bronx Five. Little Rascals. Children were elaborating on abuse, claiming there were dungeons and tunnels under the school. These kids gave vivid details. Psychologists were making careers of this hysteria. Suddenly people were thirty years-old remembering abuse at schools, churches, rest stops, etc.. Talks shows ran segments night and day. Doctors wrote books, cult experts armed with PhDs were charging two-hundred bucks an hour to provide testimony based on junk science. Legislation flew out of state houses. Kids in the 80s were asked if they were molested by everyone. You'd get grilled at school, at home and on TV.

Only problem is... it just simply isn't true. What's worse? Some innocent men and women went to prison. Most, however, went bankrupt attempting to protect their name to no avail. Imagine police storming your child's daycare and digging up the lawn and the police handing out every client a letter stating they are investigating the daycare for sexual abuse of children? Gonna send your kid there even if they are cleared?

What it boils down to is when these children realized abuse was abuse. Again, there are broad accusations and lack of specifics. Lack of corroboration and substantiation.

The narrative and pattern follows like every other story about "Satanic Ritual Abuse".

I know the current narrative is that only the Baskins made the claim, however, Mr. Maple made the accusation. It also seems the moment anyone comes out in support of the Baskins, they are immediately discredited as nutcase or "handicapped" or suffers from dementia.

Anyone who is in support of the Maples, some distant Aunt or whatever, simply offers "We knew something was up?" suddenly that is just more proof?

Seriously? I followed many cases like these. Same damn pattern. Lots of hysterics and broad accusations. Then they throw on the "well if it was your kids and you had no choice but to run, would you do it to save your kids"?

My mother and father stood there time and time again in court, and we had my cousin. As I said before my aunt would get him here and there the few times she committed herself to the programs and stipulations which at times took years. But it was a major fight, but there was substantial proof. I can assure you to this day, the court always believed that my aunt just happened to have a poor choice in men and put my cousin bad situations where he was abused. It was her. You would never hear him say it, even today.

Anyway, it's an intense subject. I've discussed this on other boards over the years. Often it gets pretty heated and I'm glad it's remained civil as it should.

I think its pretty obvious I'm suspicious of the narrative. Child abuse and abuse of women really burns me to the core.

Jon, I thought it was important to put something personal out there. It's gotta be tough to see people discuss you and your situation and only get a brief idea from reading an article or watching an hour program. One thing you said is your a survivor and you're right. That's all that matters. I guess everyone has a story and there is a reason they have certain perspectives.

As much as I like reading discussions and doing my best to just get one more piece of information, I think this is one of the first times a board discussion seriously made me look at my situation. Been angry at my sister for years and haven't spoke in sometime. Thinking back with all the drama, she was kinda on the side and perhaps she wanted to heard and acknowledged, but some drama always was more important than what was going on in her world. She's reached out a few times, I shut her down. Now, I'm gonna call her and for the first time, if she opts to talk about it, I'm gonna listen. If she doesn't, then we can turn the page. Reality is, we both endured some drama and survived.

One thing everyone has learned from you and your sister, is that you can survive no matter how rough the road is. Everyone has a story and hardships, but I can only imagine what you endured. All too often these UMs end tragically, but this is one I think touches the soul.

[Corkys-Place]

All these years later I'm still not sure what REALLY went down with this mob.

[Todd Mueller]

Originally Posted by James T

Quite amazing that the consensus on the story has suddenly gone from sick grandparents kidnapped kids having filled their heads with nonsense & threatening to kill them rather than return them, despite there having been zero evidence of abuse from investigations & a judge ruling in the parents favour, to the parents abused the children mentally, physically & sexually.

I think many of us have evolved our thinking for several reasons:

1) When most of us originally viewed these stories, we were much younger, probably not as mature, and we believed what UM presented was the total and complete truth. Now we know there may be more to the story... (This is not a rip on UM, but more of a mature look at how stories on TV are presented.)

2) This case is infinitely more complicated than it first appeared. Hearing Jon Bunting on TV and on this forum really made me re-think this case from the perspective of him and his sister. I'm not saying I totally switched my thinking, but it has definitely made me question my original beliefs.

3) One person's parenting is another person's abuse. Living in Minnesota, I was appalled (as were many others) when Adrian Peterson beat his son with a switch. Most of us thought he was a monster. He thought he was just being a good parent. Many others jumped to his defense, saying "I was raised that way."

So let's suppose for a second that the Baskins were ultra-religious and strict in their parenting. They may have been raising their kids with methods that others see as abuse. (I would never lay a finger on my kids but others don't think twice about smacking their own kids on the butt for being naughty.) I can especially see Debbie's parents having very different views than Mark, as the father. Mark and Debbie may believe they did nothing wrong, while Jon and Jennifer may really believe they were abused -- and they could both be right! I think this may come down to what people's view is on what is acceptable.

As I stated earlier, I haven't changed from "poor Mark and Debbie" to "hang Mark and Debbie!" but I have realized this is probably way more complex than when I was in high school and first saw it on UM.

I should also add, this is just my thoughts and I could still be WAY OFF on this. I am sensitive to the feelings of all involved. This is a really sad story no matter how you look at it. Again, I just really hope they can all find their own version of peace through this ordeal.