By: tealady on 2/16/09
Does it seem strange to anyone else but me that the children still will not visit with their parents??

By: Clark.Griswold on 2/16/09
It's not strange at all.

Let a couple of people brainwash YOU from 1st & 2nd grade age to your late 20s. Then let's see if you follow your training or go for the Kodak moment America wants to see.

This ain't a movie of the week; the Evil committed upon the Baskins and their children by the Maples is incalculable.

What's in your tea anyways, sis?

By: kck615 on 2/16/09
I think it is strange that he has family members- maybe Debbie's sister- supporting him and paying the bond to get him out. Has she known all these years where they had been living-hiding? Would that make them guilty to be charged with aiding a criminal? How could the family help them stay hidden and ruin the lives of the Baskins?

By: attagirl on 2/16/09
Absolutely, of other family members knew where he was and supported his kidnapping without reporting it, they should be charged with aiding and abetting.

This old coot deserves to rot in jail. It's a shame they can't dig up the grandmother and punish her, too.

Evil, evil, evil. Unforgiveable.

By: mboroan on 2/16/09
Not like this guy's a known flight risk or anything...wonder where he'll turn up next? Mexican Riviera maybe, or south of France? I'm guessing he won't hang around the 'boro very long!

By: devolver on 2/16/09
I've heard allegations of child abuse on the parts of the parents. Granted, this is hearsay, but if there is any merit to it, then why would you want to go see your abusers?

It will be interesting what details end up coming out of this. I just feel bad for the "kids". They didn't ask to be a part of any og this. They should be allowed to live their lives without the media invading their privacy.

By: eagle50 on 2/16/09
Devolver-you must be new to the post. The parents were living in KY while Mark was in school. The parents left the two older kids with grandparents while they found housing and jobs in KY. They kept their 5 year old child with them. The Maples didn't claim abuse happened until the Baskins wanted their children back. They never claimed that the 5 year old was abused, just Christie and Bobby.
From previous articles, the abuse was neglect, then sexual abuse, then "Satan" worshiping. Then the Maples claimed the social worker, the attorney, and everyone else abused the kids. I don't think the kids will "turn" on gramps. Probably the reason the family had to get him out of jail was so they could get their stories straights. However, he hasn't done like Perry March. The more he talked, he couldn't remember the lies he told and that's how they caught him. It would be interesting to see how his statement today compares to the statement 20 years ago.

If the truth had been there, the story would have never changed. Someone else stated why did they leave Michael behind?? The kids should live their life. However, they need to return to their names of Christie and Bobby Baskin and use the real social security numbers they were assigned many years before being kidnapped. They need to come out of hiding also.

By: Boro70 on 2/16/09
I lived in Bakersfield, California, Kern County, where the infamous McMartin Pre-school case took place. Those people were put through two years of trial hades on charges that they abused the pre-schoolers without one shred of physical evidence solidly supporting the multiple claims. Eventually it was discovered that the original "Counselor", who had misrepresented her background and credentials,had used technics with the children that lead them to believe they actually had been molested when they were not. They described elaborate tunnels and chains and passageways, none of which existed. The ruse finally ended when some of the children accused the prosecutors and investigators, months and months into the trial, of molesting them while they were being interviewed. They did not realize the interview areas were taped and had one-way mirrors monitoring every interview and visitation session. Having clearly established that the investigators and the prosecutors were not molesting the children, but that it was the made-up story of the children, the trial and prosecution quickly ended and the McMartins were freed with their lives ruined forever. Even John Stosell (sp) ran an experiment with his son on Dateline or 60 Minutes or whatever program he did and does only to find that his own son believed the false information that he had caught his finger in a mousetrap. evem describing in great detail the circumstances and surroundings of the event that never happened. When later told that it was made up as a test, he refused to believe it and maintained that his finger really was caught in the mousetrap. The Baskin children may never accept the truth of their situation and the love which their parents had and have for them, but the charges that there was abuse were a ruse at the time and not one credible shred of material support for such charges or allegations existed. Some would say that Mr. and Mrs. Maples botched the raising of their own set of kids, but had one daughter who bailed out, worked to live a straight and proper life, and had the audacity to marry and go her own way outside of their control and influence, only to be punished by the theft of her children and denial of the right and priviledge to raise her own son and daughter with her husband. What Maple did was evil at it's most base level. It is doubtful that the kidnapped children will ever be able to deal with it. The repetition of allegations against the Baskins is evil and continues to have no foundation other than the fiction created by Marvin and Sandra Maple to steal the children from Sandra's daughter and her husband to live a new fantasy with new children. Having grown up in Murfreesboro and having since traveled and/or worked in 37 countries and 47 states, I do not grant one shred of truth to what Marvin Maple claims. As sad as it is, may he rot in prison for the rest of his life for what he has done to his own family and the community. This appears to be a case where negotiations and plea bargains should be kept to a minimum and sever punishment imposed regardless of his age.

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/17/09
You guys are unbelievable. IF SOMEONE EVEN HINTED THAT MY CHILDREN WERE BEING SEXUALLY ABUSED YOU BETTER BELIEVE THAT I WOULD TAKE THAT ACCUSATION VERY SERIOUSLY. THERE IS SOME TRUTH BEHIND EVERY RUMOR.
Child abuse is EXTREMELY hard to prove unless you find some porn or catch them in the act. All you have left are testimonys--and it's really difficult to get convictions with just that. It is amazing how easily you all are convinced that nothing happened to those kids. It is amazing how you think that these kids were "brainwashed" for "selfish" reasons. Again, this makes me seriously wonder if you all might be involved in similar evils. I'm sorry but when it comes to child abuse, you can never be too careful. And these kids have turned out to be very sucessful and happy adults who love their grandparents very much. It's sickening to see how some people rip this entire story apart, reaching for whatever bit of crap they can find in order to prove what is a WEAK arguement for the Baskins. You want the Maples to have "done the right thing", yet you want to toss a serious allegation aside because you are 250% sure that is never happened? Is that doing the right thing? And for those of you who have absolutely no respect for the fact that Sandra Maples passed away--shame on you.

By: attagirl on 2/17/09
Child abuse is not hard to prove if it's really happening. Kids show symptoms. There was a trial in this case 20 years ago and the Maples failed to prove the abuse claims. When that didn't work, they alleged satan worship. And the fact that they never alleged abuse until the Baskins wanted their kids back is evidence of their "motivation."

The Maples are evil people. It's a shame the old woman is dead - they should dig her up and punish her some more. You ask for "respect" for her? For what? For taking her daughter's children away and ruining their minds? She deserves death (or worse). There is no punishment severe enough for what they took away from that family.

Can you imagine the mind control they had to lay on those kids to make them forget they had parents, and to convince them that their grandparents were really their parents?

Evil, evil, evil. He should rot in prison.

By: RonB on 2/17/09
Come on Attagirl, don't hold back. Tell us how you REALLY feel! Ha, ha. I happen to agree with you 110%. This old SOB should rot in jail!

By: BlessedBeyondMeasure on 2/17/09
SouthSide, I'm not sure how old you are but my life experience has shown me that behind a rumor is not necessarily any truth- sometimes it's malice and vindictiveness that's behind a rumor.

You also have to take into account how large the allegations of abuse got. It was not limited to one person, but a lot of people - even government agents.

We have laws in the country that need to be allowed to govern. We all just can't pick up children and leave if *we* feel there's a chance there may be abuse. Yes, we should step in and do what we can to make sure they aren't being abused. But if we all were allowed to take children we think there is a inkling may be being abused, then most parents would have their children taken away - simply because we all have our definition of what constitutes abuse. Some believe taking baths with children is abuse, others innocently do that. Some think spanking is abuse, others feel it an acceptable form of discipline. Some think leaving a 10 or 12 yo home to take care of younger siblings is OK, others think that's neglectful. Some think working outside the home constitutes neglect, others do it willingly without a second thought. (BTW, I'm not stating I believe in any of those positions. Just stating some possible scenerios.)

You see, we just can't take the law into our own hands. We would then live in an anarchy and that would be very destructive for our society.

Who knows what Mr. Maples originally thought. The fact is he took children that he was not legally entitled to take instead of allowing the justice system to work.

And ftr, I am a huge child advocate! This case was investigated by many agencies and found to be unfounded. Of course, there are so many facets to this case, but the main thing is that Christi and Bobby get the help they need. No matter what the "real" story is, they will need help dealing with it all.

By: eagle50 on 2/17/09
Southsideca, the local law enforcement did take the accusations seriously. That's why it was investigated by more than one person and found that the children were just "repeating" what the grandparents told them to say. It was serious 20 years ago and it is serious today. Someone said it took over 6 months to prove that the kids were not abused, and this is "hearsay" but it was Marvin and Sandra that accused the other Baskin Grandfather (Mark's dad) of abuse along with the attorney, social workers, etc.

I believe this is correct, however it was 20 years ago,the Baskins appeared in court and was awarded custody of their children. The only problem, their children had been kidnapped. The grandparents were the ones that didn't show up to return the children to the parents. I think they thought they could do a "better" job and wanted to be "parents" again. The only problem, they had to steal their two grandkids to accomplish their plan. For those who believe Marvin and Sandra did nothing wrong, I have a question for you. If you had your children or grandchildren kidnapped from you, you would accept that and never want them back? After being proven in court that you were wrongly accused of abuse, you still think it was "ok" that Sandra and Marvin took the kids illegally? I guess you also think it is ok to drive and drink and kill someone, or rob a bank, or murder someone??? He kidnapped children. He is guilty of kidnapping and he should be held accountable.

By: Bay888 on 2/17/09
Does anyone know who the other daughter of Maples that lives in Murfreesboro that was quoted by News Channel 5 as saying that she supported her father but did not want to be on camera? You can't tell me that this daughter and other family members did not attend the funeral or know about the death of her mother. Anybody thought about this angle? They are all guilty of knowing about this and keeping it hidden.

By: eagle50 on 2/17/09
The Maples have three daughters. The oldest is Debbie, the middle one was married and has three girls and I don't know the youngest, but the rumor was she came home from college and realized her parents had left.

I don't know if the youngest was away at college or attended the local university in Murfreesboro. Everyone has thought someone has had contact with them all these years, but no proof has been released from the police. Maybe that will come out now, we'll all wait and see.

By: SocEtTuem on 2/17/09
Bay888, You make an excellent point. Should there be any credible evidence that Maple's other daughters knew of his whereabouts and that of the kidnapped children, they should indeed be held to account. There is no excuse for aiding and abetting kidnappers.

By: vdanr on 2/17/09
Hey, I made a comment on here this morning and it has mysteriously been deleted. Hey Bay888, I tried to make that point when they first "found" him, but I got blasted by a couple of other posters on this blog. I do believe that some other family members have known their whereabouts all these years but have not said anything. They should be held accountable if they did know.

By: BlessedBeyondMeasure on 2/17/09
No, tealady, not odd at all. If my dad told me that he wasn't my father (or even if I knew he wasn't but he had raised me and I loved him) I would support the man who raised me. You wouldn't remember your parents well, if at all. Memories are established and retained by reviewing the past through discussion and pictures and videos. I'm sure those children were not reminded of their parents at all over the years. The memories would be very limited if not erased and fictional ones put in their place.

By: SanJose_Charlie on 2/17/09
The bond was reduced on Friday afternoon, that was pretty convenient. I do agree with other posters, who feel that it was an imperative to get Marvin out so they could help him work on his story. I know that if I had helped him in anyway I would want him out and I would want to talk to Marvin about it. It is ironic, 20 years a go Marvin and his wife coached Bobbie and Christi on what stories to tell (stories that could not hold up after almost a year of coaching by the Maples). Now an elderly Marvin is being coached what to say.

By: aliceinwonderland on 2/17/09
This story is so fascinating that I registered. Some background: I heard this story in the news, don't know anyone involved personally, live in the Midwest, and English is not my first language, although I've lived in this country for nearly 18 years. I have a husband and two sons (20 and 13). So I'm a total stranger here. I don't know why I keep wanting to know more, but I do.

My impression based on the news and opinions on various boards: I feel really sorry for the Baskins and really want to see the grandfather punished for what he did. I don't feel sorry for the grown-up kids. I think they made their choice when they sided with their grandparents. They did, and let the grandparents take them away. At that age kids understand a lot and often make choices that they think are good for them. They are somewhat egoistic. On one side, there were parents who were perhaps a little strict, too busy with school and work, and who spend more time with the kid who needed more attention. On the other side, there were loving grandparents who had plenty of free time and could afford to buy more expensive toys. That's what grandparents are for: to spoil their grandchildren. And I think it's great. Unless the grandparents want to keep the kids to themselves and try to destroy the family.

It looks like the mother (Mrs. Baskin) didn't feel like confronting her parents and let it go too far. If I were her, I would take my kids at first signs of the problem. But things deteriorated to the point when family members had to take sides. There are so many families around the world in which siblings fight over pitiful things, inheritances that are not worth it, or parents' love. Her younger sisters could have their reasons to hate the older sister. Maybe she was prettier, or got a better husband, or whatever. I don't know. But I've seen families like this. My own great grandmother made sure that her two daughters wouldn't talk until they died.

Anyway, what I want to say is that the kids probably know deep in their hearts that they betrayed their parents. Yes, I understand, it's much more complicated. The kids lived with the grandparents for more than a year before they were abducted. So they bonded with grandparents and viewed the parents as strangers. But they still know they betrayed their parents and the little brother. I think shame plays a role in their not wanting to see their family. Plus, the brainwashing and the long separation that made them total strangers. I hope they will overcome their feeling of guilt and find the courage to meet with their parents and brothers. I think this family deserves to become complete.

By: SanJose_Charlie on 2/17/09
Clark, actually the kids were under the heavy influence of the grandparents for at least a year and a half before they were taken. The children were occasionally visited by the Baskins during this time. So in reality were talking about heavy influence starting around the age of 5 and 6.

Boro70, that is an excellent point about the McMartin pre-school case. When the kids started to fabricate stories about the prosecutor and investigators, the case fell apart. A similar thing happened during the Salem witch trials. People believed the young women, when they were accusing low ranking members of society. When they eventually got around to accusing prominent members of society, that's when the stories were no longer believed.

By: attagirl on 2/17/09
alice, I understand your fascination. This story has gotten to me, too (my last post is pretty viscious). I work in the justice system, and cases typically don't get to me like this. Maybe it's because I'm a parent. I can't imagine what it would be like to have my own parents kidnap my kids and get away with it.

I could forgive this man easier if he had just killed them. To know that they were alive and well, living out their lives, 1500 miles away, while their parents had no idea if they were alive or dead or where they were or anything. It has got to be just the cruelest thing imaginable.

The kids need time to adjust. They are dealing with a lot. I realize they are adults, but everything they have ever known has been turned upside down. They'll need professional help to re-establish a relationship with the parents they never knew they had.

If any other family members knew about this, they should be prosecuted as well. Surely they attended evil grandmother's funeral. If so, they are just as culpable.

By: mboroan on 2/18/09
"It is amazing how easily you all are convinced that nothing happened to those kids. It is amazing how you think that these kids were "brainwashed" for "selfish" reasons. Again, this makes me seriously wonder if you all might be involved in similar evils."

Oh how I love a good conspiracy theorist! Of course you'd take the Maples' side in this, they hatched a juicy plot with parents, grandparents, social workers, investigators and attorneys all conspiring to abuse those kids. Sheesh, you really are ridiculous.

By the way, you'd best stay over there in Californy, honey chil' -- you wouldn't wanna be around all us evil child-abusing one-toothed redneck imbecilic hillbillies over here. Puhleeeezzzzz...such know-it-alls out there on the left coast.

By: eagle50 on 2/18/09
"And these kids have turned out to be very sucessful and happy adults who love their grandparents very much. It's sickening to see how some people rip this entire story apart, reaching for whatever bit of crap they can find in order to prove what is a WEAK arguement for the Baskins." Per Southside CA-- I suppose since the kids have turned out to be sucessful and happy adults, then you are confirming that the abuse never happened??? Because most children that are abused, never turn out to be "happy" adults. Has anyone thought about that???? Just wondering??

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/18/09
What if you guys are wrong? Have you thought about that?

By: attagirl on 2/18/09
Wrong about what? About the fact that this man kidnapped these two children, changed their names, and erased all memories of their parents from their minds?

No, we're not wrong about that. Those facts are not in dispute.

As far as whether abuse occurred or not, there was a trial and Maples lost. You do know, don't you, that when the abuse allegations against the parents failed, that they then alleged that the social workers and attorneys were abusing the kids? Do you think we're wrong to say that is hogwash?

And no matter, even if abuse did occur, the grandparents committed a heinous crime and should be punished accordingly. So should all family members who knew their whereabouts and didn't report them.

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/18/09
"And no matter, even if abuse did occur, the grandparents committed a heinous crime and should be punished accordingly. So should all family members who knew their whereabouts and didn't report them."

Are you serious? No matter even if abuse did occur? Did you really just say that?
You must be a Baskin, especially since you keep on emphasizing how the "rest of the family should be in trouble too." That is the only explanation I can see would fit why anyone would say that. Like child abuse isn't the worst heinous crime there is. A sexually abused chile is robbed of something they will never, ever, be able to get back. There is no punishment severe enough for that.
After that comment, I am done.

By: SocEtTuem on 2/18/09
SOUTHSIDECA says on 2/18/09
"What if you guys are wrong? Have you thought about that?"

Yes, I have thought about it. Then I looked at the FACT that there was a lengthly investigation into the allegations of abuse made by the Maples. It is also FACT this investigation was conducted by both social and law enforcement agencies. Going further still, it is a FACT those investigations were subject to judicial review. When it became clear they were not to prevail it is also FACT the Maples expanded their allegations to the point of absurdity by including social workers and criminal investigators as part of a satanic plot.

There being no evidence to support those wild claims, it became abundantly clear to the cognizant judicial authority they were false. To assume all these people were somehow part of an evil satanic plot would be to believe that a conspiracy of unprecedented proportions involving several agencies was hatched to protect the satanic Baskins and thwart the efforts of the saintly Maples.

Now if you are willing to believe that, I have some ocean front property here in Tennessee you might be interested in.

By: eagle50 on 2/18/09
SouthsideCA-- as we say in the south, you're beating a dead horse! If the truth had been there 20 years ago, the story would have never changed. Have you thought about that??? And no, I'm not kin to either side but I'm like other people, the Maples were WRONG to kidnap the kids and he must be charged for his wrong doing. I'm also like SOCETTUEM--we can sell you some ocean front property here in TN. The majority of kids that are abused, don't turn into "happy" adults. You're the one who said they were happy adults. By your reasoning, that proves all of our points that they were never abused.

By: SocEtTuem on 2/18/09
SOUTHSIDECA says on 2/17/09
" Again, this makes me seriously wonder if you all might be involved in similar evils."

I wondered when this declaration would finally show up in print. You bet, we are all part of an evil satanic plot - even though most of us have never met or spoken before. We are all, according to SOUTHSIDECA, servants in a great plot of Beelzebub to discredit poor Grandfather Maple.

What an utterly absurd, inane, insulting and irrational assertion. You are beyond contempt with such ignorant, self-righteous libel.

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/18/09
Just because I said someone was happy it is not proof that they were never abused. And your posts are becoming completely rediculous...you are completely distorting things I have said and still attacking me. Socetteum, I appreciate the fact that you can write well, however I don't appreciate that you feel it's necessary to attack me.

By: SocEtTuem on 2/18/09
SOUTHSIDECA,
When you, in effect, accuse us all of being "involved in similar evil" you can hardly expect hearts and flowers as a response.

It would seem to me at least, you feel as though you are free to make whatever accusations you like, no matter how outrageous then play the part of the offended victim when someone bites back.

Another metaphor for you: If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

That is to say, if you intend on making such opprobrious, obnoxious comments with impunity, perhaps you should refrain from posting.

By: mboroan on 2/18/09
"After that comment, I am done."

I knew better, SouthsideCA, you just can't stop.

By: eagle50 on 2/18/09
"And your posts are becoming completely rediculous...you are completely distorting things I have said and still attacking me. Socetteum, I appreciate the fact that you can write well, however I don't appreciate that you feel it's necessary to attack me." southsideca
I don't think any of us attacked you, but we posted our opinion and "repeated" the facts that are 20 years old. We can't help it if you don't wish to believe those facts. And you thought we were redicluous??? That's to funny. My question again to you, didn't you wonder why the 5 year old child was never included in the abuse charge? If the maples claimed it happened in a motel in TN, then why wasn't his name included? TN has authority over the investigation because it happened in TN. It wasn't that he lived in another state, it was they just wanted Bobby and Christie.

Again, 20 years ago, there was a LONG investigation and it proved the parents did nothing wrong. But, before going back to court, the maples took the matter into their hands and left TN.

By: attagirl on 2/18/09
Yes, southside, I did say that even if there was abuse, the Maples' were wrong. Since when does one crime justify another? Our laws don't work that way.

You seem to not be in touch with reality. There is NO defense for stealing someone's children and robbing them of their rightful childhood and rightful family. It doesn't matter that they turned into successful adults. That doesn't make the crime okay.

By: SocEtTuem on 2/18/09
Attagirl writes Re: SOUTHSIDE CA "You seem to not be in touch with reality."

I think that sums it up in a single sentence as well as any of us could have in a paragraph. You have hit the nail on it's proverbial head.

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/19/09
First of all get your story correct before you keep on with it. Second of all, I am still not convinced. I never said one crime justifys another. And I won't say that the legal system always works properly because we all know it doesn't. LEt's put it in another light then. Let's say your child was sexually molested by your husbands father. It was more than just once and he told your child that he would kill him if he told anyone. Do you think your child would run and tell everyone about it? Or possibly just you and then be afraid to say anymore to anyone? Your innocent young child that has been VIOLATED by an adult and then THREATENED by that adult. You honestly believe that your child would be able to tell stangers what happened to them? Just because "professionals" diagnosed your child as not an abused one means you will accept that? So you are saying if a professional says your child wasn't molested but your child told you he was that your child is lying? I think I am plenty in touch with reality. I don't care how many professionals examine my child, if my child says someone touched them where they shouldn't then I would believe my child. And once I knew about it, it would not happen again...over my dead body. How about you? What would you do in that situation? Say that your child was BRAINWASHED and conclude that he is lying because someone taught him to say that he was touched by an adult in places he knows he should not be touched? Would you believe that someone brainwashed your child to believe that they were molested? I don't care how long the investigation was, I am behind my child no matter what. You can say they were bribed, brainwashed, whatever but if it was my child or my grandchild I would not be willing to take that chance. I'm sorry but if it was me it would not matter what the court, the professionals, etc decided. I would still protect my child from the person accused FOREVER. If you touched my child do you think I would care how our laws work? Would you if I touched yours? Would you really conclude that your child was wrong because THE COURTS SAID SO?
And robbing them of their rightful childhood? It is the abuser and the violater who did that. The baskins should be grateful for the way their kids turned out. I never said the crime was okay...I am saying I understand why one would sacrifice their own life to protect a child from sexual abuse. I'm saying when you put your theories of selfishness, control, and whatever else you have determind are the Maples motives on one side of the scale and sexually abusing a child on the other, that one side weighs MUCH MORE HEAVILY THAN THE OTHER.

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/19/09
I'm sure that there are THOUSANDS of children out there who have been violated by an adult in this manner and have never told a soul. They are embarrassed, or scared, or ashamed, or confused, terrified, or maybe they are not sure that it was wrong because the adult they trust told them it was okay.
Knowing this I don't believe a child would make this accusation so easily were it not true just because someone told them to.

By: Nellie on 2/19/09
Child abuse is evil - I think we're all agreed on that. But so is making false allegations of abuse in order to steal another family's children. It is difficult to think of anything that could be more abusive to a child than stealing that child's family, that child's siblings, that child's true identity - and there's no amount of excuses, of rationalisation, that can ever justify such wickedness.
No - the people who have abused and violated these children are the ones who saw fit to set themselves up as prosecutor, judge and jury - ignoring the careful investigations carried out at the time the Maples made their allegations of abuse. The abusers are those who systematically indoctinated the minds of very young children, making them fearful of their own parents; those who deprived those children of their identities, of the right to know and grow up in their own family; those who cared so little for their own daughter that they let her suffer all these years without any knowledge of where her beloved children were - or if indeed they were still alive.
Those who support the Maples should not seek to glorify their crime by suggesting that these dreadful people are martyrs; the sort who would "sacrifice their own life to protect a child from sexual abuse". That is not only repellent - given the well-established facts about this case, it is also nonsensical! The Maples simply wanted to keep these children for themselves and thought that the law didn't matter. Cruel by any standards.

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/19/09
I don't think we have all of the facts.
On the other hand, if that is true like you say, then please tell us why the Maples wanted to keep the kids for themselves and went to the extreme they did in order to do so? What did they want them for? And why would they trade the daughter and the rest of their family for the 2 grandkids? What do you suppose motivated them to live a life running from the law, not being able to establish other relationships in fear of being discovered? What is the motivation?
And there are ZERO well established facts in this case because it hasn't even been presented in the court in that manner yet. Right now everything is speculation and opinion. NO ONE really knows what happened because we have not heard from the children yet. The only people who have spoken up in this case so far are the Baskins. There is still another side of this story yet to be told.

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/19/09
And on another topic, I would still like to find out if there was a reward for turning the Maple's in and how much it was. So far half of the people say there was and the other half say no. Can anyone verify this?

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/19/09
http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/newsroom/fact-sheets/child-sexual-abuse.html

By: Nellie on 2/19/09
"..Why did the Maples want to keep the kids for themselves?.." Why - for that very reason! They wanted to keep the kids for themselves - just that! Whether it was because that old biological clock was ticking away and the Maples' urge to rear children was still very strong - or whether it was, as has frequently been suggested, because Sandra Maple was a control freak who had everyone, including her husband and daughters, twisted around her little finger and catering to her every whim - well, who can say?
Whatever their motivation for this kidnapping, their absonding with the children of their daughter and son-in-law was - and remains - a despicable crime. A massive ego probably played a not inconsiderable part in choosing to live a life running from the law; built on lies, deceit and smug self-righteousness. Mmmm - nice people!

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/19/09
I highly recommend that everyone read these well established facts...

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume10/j10_2.htm

I'm sorry but if a court rules that my child was not abused that does not mean I would find that answer acceptable. Absolutley not.

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/19/09
That is what you base your conclusion on? I'm putting all my money on the grandpa...

By: SocEtTuem on 2/19/09
Boro70 says "What Maple did was evil at it's most base level. It is doubtful that the kidnapped children will ever be able to deal with it. The repetition of allegations against the Baskins is evil and continues to have no foundation other than the fiction created by Marvin and Sandra Maple to steal the children from Sandra's daughter and her husband to live a new fantasy with new children."

I think the District Attorney should use that statement in his closing argument. It sums up as eloquently and truthfully as possible the henious crime committed against the Baskins and their children.

By: Nellie on 2/19/09
"...I'm putting all my money on the grandpa..." Oh - let's make this a matter for a small bet, eh? Trivialising this issue doesn't make your views any less silly than they already are. It seems that, with you, it's a case of "my mind's made up - don't confuse me with the facts!"
Let's introduce a new law, why not?! Something along the lines of - oh let's see: ..if careful and painstaking investigation shows that a child has not been abused - "if a court rules that my child was not abused" - then I'm perfectly at liberty to ignore that investigation, that court ruling - and just make off with that child becuase "that does not mean I would find that answer acceptable".
Not a good way to run society - disregarding just about any old law that we don't happen to like too much. Personally, I'm none too keen on paying my tax bill, even though the law says I must - I think I pay way too much! So perhaps I should just decide to ignore this requirement..oh, and any other law that displeases me...

By: eagle50 on 2/19/09
Nellie, attagirl, Socettuem and I have already figured out that southsideca is not going to change his mind and he's sitting in Marvin's corner. We all know that Sandra and Marvin wanted to be parents to Bobby and Christie. This is "hearsay" but someone close to the family said they only wanted to babysit Bobby and Christie.

I feel sorry for Bobby and Christie. But I don't feel sorry for Marvin. I'm with attagirl, he should rot under the jail.

Southsideca I think you have forgotten that sexual abuse leaves evidence. I can't remember but I beleive it was reported that a doctor examined the kids and found no EVIDENCE of abuse. Again, that was 20 years ago. Neglect was ruled out because the kids weren't living in rags and going withoug food. Afterall, Marvin and Sandra were the "perfect" parents to these kids. Satanic Worshipping was just so far out there and when they included the attorney and everyone else involed in the "plot", well everyone knew it was one big fat LIE!

As we used to say, put that in your pipe and smoke it!!

By: eagle50 on 2/19/09
"The effects of sexual abuse extend far beyond childhood. Sexual abuse robs children of their childhood and creates a loss of trust, feelings of guilt and self-abusive behavior. It can lead to antisocial behavior, depression, identity confusion, loss of selfesteem and other serious emotional problems. It can also lead to difficulty with intimate relationships later in life. The sexual victimization of children is ethically and morally wrong."
from the site southsideca noted in one post

"these kids have turned out to be very sucessful and happy adults who love their grandparents very much" per southsideca

Again, kids that are sexually abused have a life-time of problems.

By: Boro70 on 2/19/09
My Dad had an appropriate phrase for those arguing that some abuse took place. Nothing anywhere, aside from the last ditch desperate accusations of some overly attached sick grandparents, found any, repeat, any, evidence of the abuse alleged. Nevertheless, the item to remember is this: "When arguing with a fool, be certain that he is not similarly engaged!" Give it up southsideca. They don't call California the land of fruits and nuts for nothing. May Maple rot in his remaining years, hopefully in prison, and may the kids somehow come to terms with the lies under which they lived and if one of the other Maple daughters knew where they were, may her prison term be just as long.

By: honestyinboro on 2/19/09
The Maples other daughters did not know where their mother and father were. They have been hurt in this too. Many of you speak without knowing any facts. Leave these people alone.

By: Sameera on 2/20/09
I certainly hope the other Maple daughters didn't know where their parents were...

By: SocEtTuem on 2/20/09
honestyinboro says on 2/19/09 "The Maples other daughters did not know where their mother and father were."

I certainly hope you are right about that. It would be both tragic and criminal if they knew. Having said that, it is incumbent on the District Attorney to assure they did not and take appropriate action if they did.

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/20/09
Well it's obvious how many of the Baskin's relatives have been posting their opinions here......

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/20/09
And kids that are abused do not always have a lifetime of problems. You are so wrong about that. My brother and my sister were abused, thank god that man went to prison (he should have never been let out). My brother has some issues but my sister graduated highschool with a 4.0 grade average and got a FULL 4 year scholarship to one of the BEST colleges in the country. So don't use that as an arguement because it's as you guys like to say "hogwash." Now, unless someone very close to you has been abused like this I think you should re-think ALOT of your opinions because I don't see how you could possibly understand the realitys of the situation when this is done to an innocent child. If you would have read the link I put up earlier maybe you would gain a clearer perspective of the child's point of view when it comes to telling people what happened to them. My brother and sister are in their 20's and they have just as equally a hard time now as they did then. They DON'T want to talk about it with me and WON'T talk about it to anyone else. So unless you have experience in dealing with this personally I suggest that maybe you have some compassion for the kids and not the parents in this matter. All I hear is "the poor baskins" when really it should be about the kids. From what I understand they are the one's who claimed the abuse, not the grandparents who were the voices that they could not be to the adults. It sounds more like a family fued on this board than anything else. If you really cared about the children you would be more inclined to see that they are well than you would be to punish the grandparents who did what they did because they loved the children. Isn't that the real issue here, the children? Quit being so hateful and try being grateful that they ARE ALIVE AND WELL, thanks to grandma and grandpa.

By: eagle50 on 2/20/09
NO, the REAL issue is that the grandparents kidnapped the grandkids and changed their identity and lived a lie the last 20 years. Again, I'm not related to either side of these families.

We're trying to get you to see the truth. Did Christie and Bobby TELL you that they were abused? If not, your're dealing with just one-side of the story. The side that began the allegations of abuse, the Maples. I have posted that Marvin and Sandra took two children over their own daughters and other grandchildren. That's called favoritism. Don't you think the other daughters felt abandoned and neglected by their own parents? Who caused that--Marvin and Sandra--that's who.

I don't care how you paint the picture. Marvin and Sandra kidnapped two kids and destroyed their own daughters lives, their other grandchildren and now that the truth has been told, it may destroy Bobby and Christie. That is ABUSE plain and simple. Maybe Marvin should have been charged with abuse 20 years ago.

"My brother and sister are in their 20's and they have just as equally a hard time now as they did then. They DON'T want to talk about it with me and WON'T talk about it to anyone else." per southsideca
"these kids have turned out to be very sucessful and happy adults who love their grandparents very much" per southsideca

Again, kids that are sexually abused have a life-time of problems. Again, you just proved my point. Maybe you should put the shovel down. I think the hole your in is deep enough. As the preacher said one Sunday, "when you've dug yourself into a hole, stop digging!!"

Marvin and Sandra made a choice. To give up being parents to three daughters, to give up being grandparents to 5 or 6 grandkids; just to become "parents" to a son and daughter.

By: Nellie on 2/20/09
Southside, accusing thoughtful and sensible posters - people who have been familiar with this case for many years, and certainly for far longer than the time you have known Marvin Maple - of being members of the Baskin family merely hilights the paucity of your argument.
As has been stated many times, child abuse is evil and it is a great sadness that your siblings were abused so cruelly. But it is simply wrong to believe that, bacause of your personal experience of family members having been treated in this disgraceful way, we must therefore - uncritically and unquestioningly - believe every single allegation of child abuse that is made. Just as it would be wrong to insist that child abuse never takes place
Such allegations must be investigated, of course. And in the Baskins' case, this was done and the allegations were shown to be withut substance.
I know neither the Baskins nor the Maples. However, as well as having children and grandchildren of my own, I have worked for many years with children, their parents and other family members. And no - I'm neither a social worker nor a children's attorney. I am a retired teacher and my husband and I have also fostered many children over the years.
Children are extremely suggestible. They pick up very quickly on what the adults who are most closely involved with them want to hear. They are eager to please those adults - after all, they love them, they trust them, they want to earn their approval. This is fine - in general.
But it can pull a child's emotional wellbeing to bits if these adults start fighting for that child's affections by badmouthing each other. I know - I've seen it too many times. Usually it is warring parents - but there are many occasions when it's the grandparents who indulge in this unpleasant practice. Sadly, it's usually the grandmother, mostly because she cannot or will not accept that her child is now an independent adult. Often the grandparents takes a dislike to the partners of their sons or daughters - for no good reason other than the fact that the grandparents are no longer the center of those adult children's universe.
The Maples' conduct has gone much further than that of most grandparents, but it is merely an extreme example of this syndrome. They systematiclly abused the trust placed in them by their daughter and son-in-law by indoctrination over many years.
Parental alienation is cruel, of course, to the parents who are the targets if this form of abuse. But it is crueler by far to the child who is being indoctrinated to believe that his parents are wicked people who only want to harm him - because that child will inevitably come to believe that he must really be the wicked one if his parents cannot love him.

By: SocEtTuem on 2/20/09
SOUTHSIDECA says on 2/20/09
"Well it's obvious how many of the Baskin's relatives have been posting their opinions here......"

Why is it "obvious"? Have you any proof any of us are related to the Baskin family or is that simply another wild assumption? Here is an incontrovertible (and very likely inconvenient) truth for you: I am not related in any way to the Baskin family. Indeed, I have never met them or any member of their extended family. What part of "I am not related" do you not understand? Why do you continue to make "the Baskin's relatives" assertions that are patently false? Is it your argument that the rational posters in this thread who have accepted the historical facts in this case are all part of a pro-Baskin conspiracy? Are we to simply acquiesce to your summary judgment the Baskin's are guilty in spite of all the documented evidence to the contrary? Can you tell us, in plain terms, specifically what definitive evidence you have to establish the validity of your insistence the Baskin's are guilty of either child abuse or satanic conspiracy? I submit if you are unable to provide any such evidence, your claims are to dismissed as nothing more than what they are; agenda driven rants. This is not Salem. We do not engage in witch hunts. Our standard is guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Baskins had their day in court and were exonerated of any and all wrong doing. So too will Maple have his day in court. You should pray he is not given the same kind of "justice" you are ready to serve upon the Baskins.

By: chubbers on 2/20/09
Southside,
Tell us a bit about your friendship with Marvin Maple please. Did you ever meet Bobby or Christy in person? Did Marvin refer to them as "my children" or "my grandkids"? What did Marvin tell you about the abuse that Christy and Bobby sufferred?

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/21/09
No, No, No and no.

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/21/09
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume10/j10_2.htm

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/21/09
If you really cared about the children you would be more inclined to see that they are well than you would be to punish the grandparents who did what they did because they loved the children. Isn't that the real issue here, the children? Quit being so hateful and try being grateful that they ARE ALIVE AND WELL, thanks to grandma and grandpa.

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/21/09
Eagle should re-read my post because I think you missed half of it.

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/21/09
Are you guys trying to BRAINWASH me?

By: SanJose_Charlie on 2/21/09
No... their trying to TRUTH-WASH you.

By: Nellie on 2/21/09
Southsea, the Maples kidnapped these children - not out of love but out of covetousness. And if you're talking about love, they showed precious little love for their own daughter - the daughter who for 20 years has been pining for her lost children. Just think about that! It takes a sick, warped and vicious mindset to inflict such grief upon one's own flesh and blood.
Yes, the issue is very much the children - alive and PHYSICALLY well. But this trauma - which is not one of their own making - will be making them pay a heavy price. Their brainwashing will probably have started the moment they moved in with the Maples. No - there are NO thanks to be extended to "grandma and grandpa".
Even if we are in conscious denial of any wrong we may have done, even if we try to justify such actions to others and to ourselves - we cannot escape our own thoughts! No wonder Marvin Maple refused to see his daughter after he was apprehended. He won't admit it, but the shame of what he did to her - and to her children - will be there in his innermost thoughts for the rest of his life.

By: Nellie on 2/21/09
Sorry - should have written 'Southside'! Ooops!

By: chubbers on 2/21/09
Southside,
Why won't you reveal what you know? You had stated, in a previous post, that Marvin Maple was your friend and a fine man. I am trying to understand your point of view. What evidence do you know of that proves that abuse did indeed occur?

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/21/09
I don't have any evidence nor do I need any. John "Marvin" is a person who always offers to help out or do something nice for people when there is nothing to be gained from his actions. He is someone who displays self control and considers others more important than self. He is a good friend, a good listener and someone who displays integrity, dignity, and accountability towards self and towards others. This person does not bad mouth but rather stands up for someone. This is someone who would lay down his life for others not as a doormat, but as a true friend. This is all I need to know. He has NEVER displayed any behaviors other than these. I know many people that will say the same.

By: chubbers on 2/21/09
Thanks for your reply Southside.

It's understandable that you would stand by your friend based upon your own observations of his character. Since you believe Marvin to be such a fine fellow, it is unconscionable for you to believe that he took those children for a selfish reason.

I can also see how supporters of the Baskin family are standing by them based upon their own character observations. I've also heard nothing but good things about the Baskins.

Obviously someone is lying. Who could it be? The Maples or the Baskins? God knows, and the whole truth will be played out in living color and hi-fi sound at the Great White Throne Judgment.

I wouldn't want to trade places with the true offender on that day for all the tea in China.

By: Boro70 on 2/21/09
Again, "When arguing with a fool, be certain that he/she is not similarly engaged." How long have you known the Maples Southsideca? Your "transferance" of evil to everyone merits some immediate need for counseling to address your paranoid accusations. Get help!

By: SocEtTuem on 2/21/09
SOUTHSIDECA says on 2/21/09
"I don't have any evidence nor do I need any."

Well now, I think that speaks directly to your point of view and your motivation. You do not care about the evidence, neither do you feel proof is required to support your accusations. Only your "opinion" matters. That is in fact all you have, your opinion and a lot of links that are absolutely irrelevant to the truth in this case. Your own comments make the impotence of your argument even more glaring. No one here is trying to brainwash you. The absoulte opposite is true. Your arguments, which are just so much bilge water are designed to divert attention from the real issue which is the crime of kidnapping.

By: Nellie on 2/21/09
Oh for pity's sake, Southside! Marvin Maple is an individual whose whole personna for the past 20 years has been one of fraud and fake! He's a con artist par excellence - well skilled at putting on a public face that "displays integrity, dignity, and accountability towards self and towards others".
Nice people - the sort who "would lay down his life for others not as a doormat, but as a true friend" - do not steal other people's children.
Geddit? That is all you need to know.

By: eagle50 on 2/21/09

Per southside ca: "Marvin Maple is my friend and a fine example of a human being"

If you believe a kidnapper, liar, and thief is a fine example of a human being, you need better friends. You must also believe Packman Jones did nothing wrong. This is too funny!!!

The case against Marvin Maples is KIDNAPPING!! The police may have other charges, I don't know and neither do you. But it is a proven fact, he kidnapped two kids. And you won't even admit that is a fact.

Then you are trying to discredit us by claiming we are all Baskins. We keep telling you that we aren't and you don't believe that. Murfreesboro, TN population is about 100,000 people now and not everyone is a Baskin! No wonder you don't believe facts regarding something that happened 20 years ago. You don't believe nothing. You need to go back to the bar and drink your troubles away and find some "new" friends that are fine-upstanding citizens.

Southside, in case you missed this on another article, I wanted to make sure you saw this!

By: Smurf-from-Murf on 2/21/09
I've been reading this hogwash since day one. I too, find it funny that the kids obviously want nothing to do with their maternal parents. I also think it is kind of retarted that most of the people posting in these blogs, think the justice system in Murfreesboro isn't with-out flaws.

I visited the site that SouthsideCa posted about child abuse, and under the "Proving Child Abuse"
It reads:
"Child sexual abuse cases can be very difficult to prove largely because cases where definitive, objective evidence exists are the exception rather than the rule. The first indicators of sexual abuse may not be physical, but rather behavioral changes or abnormalities. Unfortunately, because it can be so difficult to accept that sexual abuse may be occurring,the adult may misinterpret the signals and feel that the child is merely being disobedient or insolent.

The reaction to the disclosure of abuse then becomes disbelief and rejection of the child’s statements."

So even though the case could'nt be proven in court, it still may have happened.
I think we all need to wait until the Kids tell their side of the story.

I've heard enough of that goofy looking preacher's side of it, and all of these posters. lets wait for the Kids to come forward. Nothing else matters.

By: SoSide on 2/21/09
Chubbers: "Obviously someone is lying. Who could it be? The Maples or the Baskins?" It is quite possible that they are both lying, isn't it? Maybe the allegation of abuse and neglect are true but then nobody would listen and the Maples coached the kids to make it sound worse than it was to be sure that the children got protection. Thus the progression of worsening accusations...And maybe the Baskins are lying about abuse that may have occured with the children not by them but by Mark's father? Isn't that what the accusations were to begin with? Maybe this is a situation that just went haywire, where nobody would listen and the children needed immediate protection. Not necessarily from a satanic cult but from SOMETHING.

I stand with you SouthsideCa on your opinion of John Bunting. And I do agree that you are one tough nut. ;o) The John Bunting I knew was everything you have described. If all of that is a con, he got us good. Marvin Maple? I guess I never knew him.

By: aliceinwonderland on 2/21/09
Wow, it looks like SOUTHSIDECA created a couple more identities to make sure she is not alone on this board!

It's very interesting to read the comments on this site. One one hand, I see very reasoned, logical, factual, and calm explanations of why it is wrong to take away kids from loving parents; and on the other hand, I see irrational, baseless, and even maniacal rants of one Marvin Maple's supporter. And here I am, a foreigner from Iowa, unrelated to anyone in this story, and waiting impatiently to find out more on March 17. Fascinating...

By: chubbers on 2/21/09
SoSide,
Sure, it's possible both lied. It's possible that the allegations of sexual abuse are completely untrue as well.

I have an elderly relative who was good friends with Mac Baskin, Mark's father. My relative knew both the Baskin family (from church)and the Maple family, who traded at his place of business. My relative said that both the Baskin's (Mark and Debbie) and the Maple family (Marvin and Sandra) were very odd people.

Anyhow, it all supposedly started when Mac had the children out on his farm for a visit. He was riding them on his tractor and was a long way off from the house. He stopped to take a leak, like any farmer does in the field when they are not near a toilet, and Debbie later claimed that he had "exposed" himself to the children.

My relative says that this (and the children's disappearance) was what killed Mac. He never got over it according to my relative.

My relative says that evidently (and this is just him telling this to me) Marvin and Sandra got so worked up over it that things just went (as you said) "haywire" from there. That's when the allegations of sexual abuse on the part of Mark and Debbie began by the Maple's.

Not sure what else to say. Maybe my relative's recollection of the story is true and maybe not. He did say that both parties (Mark/Debbie and Marvin/Sandra) were just as "nutty as a pecan pie," so I don't think he has a favorite "side" to take in this matter.

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/21/09
Please allow me to apologize in advance for any more imprudent posters such as Alice in Wonderland. I mean IOWA.

By: SoSide on 2/21/09
Thanks Chubbers for the background on Mac. I wondered about that. I assure you that I am not what Alice thinks I am but there's no way to prove that I suppose. I've been reading this and other comments on other articles and kept quiet but just couldn't not say anything anymore. There are just so many ways this could go as far as what the truth really is. Sadly, we may never know the truth. I do know that John Bunting didn't seem odd until the last two weeks before his arrest. He seemed kind of sad, depressed really. And tired. He was also a bit grumpy too which he wasn't prone to being very often. He was also apparently confessing to people out of anger after seeing that Unsolved Mysteries was re-running his story and there was an anniversary article being written about the story after 20 years. It's just so sad for everyone. Everybody's been hurt by it. Nobody wins. So far, it seems to me that nobody is going to come out of this any happier.

By: SocEtTuem on 2/21/09
aliceinwonderland says on 2/21/09
"Wow, it looks like SOUTHSIDECA created a couple more identities to make sure she is not alone on this board!"

That's very possilbe. Pay attention to the grammar and syntax. It can be very revealing.

By: SoSide on 2/21/09
You guys are goofy. I'm not SouthsideCa!!!!!

By: BlessedBeyondMeasure on 2/21/09
Smurf-from-Murf, why do you find it odd they don't want to see their parents? They have probably been told all these years that they were abused or that Marvin and Sandra were their parents. They've been adults for 10 yrs now and have not sought out the Baskins. Why would they now jump at a chance to meet them? They don't know them! It has been 20 yrs since they have seen them. That's a super long time for a child! Long enough for memories to fade and others to take their place. Marvin and Sandra are who they remember. That's not odd that they feel loyal to Marvin over their parents after all these years even if there was no abuse. He raised them.

As far as waiting to hear the children's side, I don't think hearing them will bring closure to anything. They only know what they've been told. If they were abused they'll say they were. If they weren't abused, they'll more than likely still say they were because they have been led to believe they were. Hearing their side will probably be one-sided...loyalty to the man who raised them.

By: stuart on 2/21/09
Chubbers, was your relative clear on the precise level of Debbies accusation? Was it a formal accusation registerd by Debbie with some agency? Or was it an innocent comment at a card game that Sandra then falsely promoted to the world as "Debbies accusation"?

Was Debbie a chip off the old Sandra block and trying to isolate the kids from the paternal grandparents? Or to isolate Mark from his parents? It would be a funny twist of irony if that was the case and Debbies intrigues backfired against her.

By: Undecided on 2/21/09
eagle50 said, "Nice people - the sort who "would lay down his life for others not as a doormat, but as a true friend" - do not steal other people's children."

That's normally true. However, if (and I'm not saying that I believe abuse did or did not happen, I'm just putting out the option) the kids were being abused, then a "nice person" could kidnap the children to protect them when they felt that the courts were about to give the children back to the abusers.

By: SoSide on 2/21/09
Thank you, Undecided!

By: SoSide on 2/21/09
Nice people can also make very terrible mistakes. A person doesn't have to be "evil" in order to make a mistake in doing something they think is the right thing to do. I'm just saying...I really think John must have thought he was really doing the right thing. Even though it was unlawful, I think he truly believed it was the best option. Unless the person I know has totally conned me into thinking his character is something that it isn't, the person I knew truly wouldn't have done it without good cause.
By the way, I am a good standing citizen and a good friend. Kind of a low blow, Eagle50.
And John usually drank a juice mix. Just because he hung out at the Southside Cafe doesn't make him a drunk. The neighborhood bar has recently coined the drink, "The Marvin Maple". It's pineapple, OJ, and Cranberry.

By: SoSide on 2/22/09
AliceInWonderland and SocEtTuem, you are so quick to accuse SouthsideCa of being me? I see the accusatory style comes easily. I hope John gets a more neutral jury if he goes to trial. One that looks at facts and searches for truth rather than jumps to conclusions so quickly.

By: stuart on 2/22/09
A study was done years ago on one of the big molestation cases that was later disproven. Researchers compared the medical records of the mothers of the "victims" to medical records of the general population. Many of the medical records of mothers of "molestation victims" contained HUGE AND NUMEROUS LIES.

Lies such as "Yes doctor, Oh yes!! My mother DID die of pancreatic cancer! Please do exploratory surgery on my child to check for that, since you have exausted all other tests to find his ailment". Of course when investigators dug deeper the parents and grandparents hadn't even died at all. It was just a mother manipulating a doctor for attention and living out her soap opera life at her childs expense. Time and time again.

I would love for the psychological report of Sandra to be revealed at the trial.

By: Sameera on 2/22/09
Dear Chubbers,

What exactly does your relative mean when he says that Debbie and her mother "were as nutty as pecan pie"? Can he be more specific?

By: SoSide on 2/22/09
stuart, I think what you are describing is called Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy. Where a mother feigns or creates symptoms in a child in order for her (the mom) to get attention from doctors and others who will sympathize with a mother who has a sick child.

By: Nellie on 2/22/09
It is perfectly understandable that those people who knew, or thought they knew, Marvin Maple during the past few years should now leap to his defense. For the man they thought they knew has been shown to be a con - and this effectively makes those who knew him as John Bunting the unwitting victims of a fraudster.
Perhaps they feel that their ability to judge character has also been found wanting. I should think that most of us, at some time in out lives, have been fooled by someone with a smooth line in patter - perhaps fallen for a sob story, or been convinced by a set of credentials that were later shown to be false. And when that happens, we can feel defensive, a bit stupid maybe - and ultimately we can feel betrayed by someone we thought we knew.
I repeat what I stated in an earlier post: Nice people - the sort who "would lay down his life for others not as a doormat, but as a true friend" - do not steal other people's children. Now, we could all argue until the cows come home about who is telling which lie, which set of truths, and whether or not the systems we have in place are ultimately capable of detecting whether or not a child has been abused. The fact remains that the Maples were - and still are - criminals. Whatever their motives for hatching their wicked plan, for continuing their evil charade during all these years - nothing gave them the right to steal their daughter's children and poison their young minds against their own parents.
It is hardly surprising that the adult children are not yet in communication with their parents. They've been fed stuff about their mother and father by the Maples for such a long time that they may never be able to accept any other perspective on what really did or did not happen. And THAT is child abuse of the most disgusting sort.
To discover that you are not who you thought you were, to realize that for most of your lives you have been the unwitting victim of someone else's squalid charade, to have you whole sense of your place in the grand scheme of things turned upon its head - would put most of us in deep shock and distress.
Those who seek to justify the actions of these cruel criminals, just because Marvin Maple came across as a good guy, should try walking in the shoes of the parents whose children were stolen from them.

By: Smurf-from-Murf on 2/22/09
BlessedBeyondMeasure, I believe if the "Kids" wanted to find their parents, as highly educated as they are, in this computer age, they could of looked everywhere. I also think that at age 7 & 8 they know more than many of you are giving them credit for.

Nellie, remember, the Baskins may turn out to be child abusers, and if so, I'll never wish to walk in their shoes for any length of time. I still think the Kids side will be what says it all. But I don't think many of you would listen to them at this point.

But I for one, can't wait to hear their side!

And for all you that says "The Maples still broke a law", many laws have been broken over time, when the laws weren't doing justice. It was illegal for people to assist the underground railroad, but many hero's took that chance.

So will the Maple's be the bad ones or the Baskins? Only the kids can tell.

By: SanJose_Charlie on 2/22/09
Another poster out there talked about seeing films of Mark and Debbie Baskin, having a blast playing with their kids before the kidnapping. The poster noted that the kids seemed perfectly happy and normal. If you could post a link to that clip, it would be appreciated. Thanks.

By: SanJose_Charlie on 2/22/09
Well part of this conversation is going on here at page 36. http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=240362&page=36

I think the truth is coming out now. Sandra Maple from the Kookendales is a major class liar. If a letter I read is true, then Sandra has other paranoid daughters out there... who are from the same tradition, a bunch of paranoid, Church of Christ church ladies who post lies. Yeah, paranoid I said it, Sandra could not even keep in contact with her own flesh and blood daughters... or did she? They believed Sandra's lies, if the postings I read are actually from them! Debbie had said she was close to her mother before the Maples tried to take custody, so I don't know if the speculations at the other site are true? That Debbie was a chip off the old maternal block, and her allegations against Mac Baskin backfired on her, when her own mom used those allegations to buy time so she could take the kids. I don't know!

Mac Baskin, was most likely a not overly religious farmer. The type of guy that should have taken a leak farther away from his grand kids. The type of guy that might kill a pesky raccoon, shoot a crow, or even kill a pesky feral "cat". Next thing you know... the allegations are Satan worship and sexual abuse.

I read about a supposed detective who said, that the abuse was the most clear cut case of abuse she had ever seen, then the evidence was gone? Come on!!! Either the kids reported abuse or not, if the allegations were this serious, Mac would have been prosecuted, you don't just drop cases like this. Most sexual abuse cases, don't have a blue dress laying around, like in the case of Billy Clinton.

Sandra Maple not only stole these grandkids, she killed Mac Baskin, and so did Marvin. The kids were not going to live with Mac Baskin anyway.

Yeah, kids... it's called Evil.

And I agree with Alice, kids can tell where their getting a better deal at. They know when they have a sweet deal, with a nice home environment, lots of toys, and less strict guardians... etc. The Maples had those kids for about a year and nine months. So they were under Maple control at 5 and 6 years of age. The first charges made were neglect. What does that mean, their parents did not have much money and were living in small living quarters?

Imagine that, Marvin got depressed when this thing was still in the news 20 years later?

By: SanJose_Charlie on 2/22/09
One more thing, in regards to the supposed letter written by Sandra Maples other daughter, concerning the support from earlier therapists, who believed Sandra Maples bizarre allegations of weirdness. Twenty years a go... a whole bunch of therapists and counselors were on the Satanic ritual abuse/repressed memories band wagon. I know one of them, and they got sued for it. So that means nothing.

By: chubbers on 2/22/09
Stuart: my relative said that a formal charge was filed against Mac by Debbie and Mark. My relative didn't think that Mark really wanted to file charges against his own father (since the whole incident of alleged "exposure" seemed innocent enough), but my relative believes that Debbie pushed Mark until he agreed to file against his own father.

Anyone who grew up in the country or has spent time with family in the woods camping/hunting knows that family members often relieve their bladders outdoors when other family members are nearby or in close proximity. No "reasonable" or sane person would claim alleged "sexual exposure" abuse from such an incident.

It appears that Debbie was either crazy or had some other agenda for wanting to file a formal charge against Mac, as stuart alluded to in a previous post. Most people would be hurt and shocked if their own son and daughter-in-law filed a formal charge against them over something like this. It would destroy the relationship. It killed Mac according to my relative.

Sameera: what my relative means by "nutty as a pecan pie" (in reference to both Debbie and Sandra) is this: both were neurotic women who could not control their emotions. We all know the type; bossy women who are constantly in everyone else's business, stirring up controversy. My relative went to church with Debbie and he said that she was "just crazy". I can only conclude that what my relative means by "crazy" is what I have written previously. My relative knew both Marvin and Sandra, who patronized his place of business, and my relative's opinion of Sandra was the same as that of Debbie. It would appear that both Sandra and Debbie were "two peas in a pod".

Now being neurotic doesn't make one guilty of sexual abuse. All of us are slightly somewhat neurotic. It is my opinion that no sexual abuse ever occurred at all, but rather, two crazy women created an impossible situation that went horribly wrong.

As a result of Debbie/Mark filing a charge against Mac, Sandra most likely began to actually believe that the children were in danger, convincing Marvin in the process. And though Sandra was probably wrong in her belief about abuse actually occuring to the children, things just went "haywire" from there onward.

On a different note: the Baskin's should have kept all of their children with them when they moved to seminary. That is my opinion. Of course, if you can't trust family, who can you trust? But, again, the children were Mark and Debbie's responsibility, not the grandparents. My wife and I don't do babysitters or day-care for this reason. You just can't be too careful with children.

Has anyone reading these boards considered the following? Sex perverts normally do not reform. They continue to abuse. So if the Baskins indeed did sexually molest their children (as Sandra and Marvn Maple claimed) then it would follow that they would also have continued to abuse the two children they currently parent. Neither of the two boys they currently parent has ever claimed such abuse because it never happened, and it is my opinion that no abuse ever happened to Christy or Bobby either.

Sex perverts don't get on national television and plead to re-establish a relationship with their own flesh and blood. No, they lay low and try to avoid the police and media scrutiny. That is my opinion.

Grandparents that are truly trying to save grandchildren that are being abused don't fail to also protect the other autistic child either. If they can seek advice from an underground child protection movement in order to create false identities and disappear for 20 years, then they could have hired someone to abduct the autistic grandchild if they were truly trying to protect all the children. The fact that they did not do this is the one thing that is preventing me from believing that the Maple's did the "right" thing.

Again, laws were broken, whether the perpetrators felt that they had a good reason to do so or not. The law demands payment when broken. The law is unforgiving. Lives were destroyed, though Bobby and Christy seemed to have turned out okay.

I have tried to put myself in the shoes of both the Baskins and the Maples. I can see both sides, but frankly, I lean toward the Baskin side for the reason I listed previously. I believe, as does SoSide, although Marvin and Sandra probably thought they were doing the right thing, they were most likely gravely mistaken.

If my parents suddenly claimed that my wife and I were sexually abusing our two children, causing them to be taken from us, I would be hurt and fighting mad. If I was innocent of those allegations, yet my own parents continued to raise these allegations, even resorting to allegations of Satanic worship, the relationship would be beyond repair.

If my parents absconded with my children and disappeared without a trace, my life would be destroyed. Remember, in this faux scenario, I am completely innocent. I never abused my children, but because someone "said" that I did, I have now lost my precious children, perhaps forever. Put yourself in that mindset and see how you would feel. That's what the Baskins feel.

The whole situation is tragic and beyond repair. If concrete and demonstrable evidence (not "he said, she said") is brought forth at the trial that proves that sexual abuse did indeed occur, then I will recant on this message board and apologize to Southside for being wrong. This is no way exonerates the Maple's from kidnapping, even if some think that this was a good enough reason to do so.

If the story told to my relative by Mac Baskin himself is truthful (and I believe that it is) then Bobby and Christy were robbed of a relationship with their parents. Mark and Debbie were robbed of their own children, and the Maples committed a crime that they didn't have to commit. All because of two neurotic women who couldn't keep their mouths shut.

By: SocEtTuem on 2/22/09
SoSide on says 2/22/09
"AliceInWonderland and SocEtTuem, you are so quick to accuse SouthsideCa of being me?"

That is a lie. I made no such accusation. Where in this post do I accuse you, or specifically anyone else of anything? I quote: "That's very possilbe. Pay attention to the grammar and syntax. It can be very revealing." I responded to an observation made by Alice, nothing more.

By: SoSide on 2/22/09
One thing I'd like to clarify. It is my understanding that John never accused Debbie and Mark of sexually abusing the children. He accused them of allowing the abuse to happen by Mac. I think it's the press that may have stated things differently. Anybody know about this?

By: chubbers on 2/22/09
Does anyone believe that what Mac did constitutes sexual abuse?

By: eagle50 on 2/22/09
SoSide, I believe they accused the parents of the abuse, from the report 20 years ago in the paper.

And chubbers, I don't believe what Mac did constitutes abuse. I grew up on a farm and there were several times the "outside" was the bathroom. And I don't remember it coming out in the paper 20 years ago that Mac was "claimed" to be the abuser.

Again, none of this may come out at trial. He may plead guilty and that will be the end. So don't be disappointed if none of this comes out in court. Remember, he's charged with kidnapping and it has been proven he did it, the "reason" may not be disclosed.

I've had a sick child and that child had two heart surgeries before the age 2. I can tell you it's not much "fun" and the "attention" is not worth the pain and lack of sleep, but it amazes me when I hear about "mothers" who make their child sick just so they are the "good moms". I've lived it and it can be a "nightmare". Enjoy well kids. Do things that are fun because those memories will be much better than memories of sleeping on the floor at Vandy.

By: Nellie on 2/22/09
Smurf-from-Murf, it had been established over 20 years ago that the Baskins were not abusing their children. Sadly, after all this time, it seems unlikely that the now-adult children will really know what to believe. They have been systematically indoctrinated over so many years to believe that they were harmed by their parents.
Children who are suddenly taken away from everything and everyone that is dear and familar to them suffer tremendous feelings of loss and insecurity. They will deperately cling to anything - and anyone - that remains from the lives they have known. Hardly surprising then, that the Maples, being the only things remaining from their former lives, should become so important to these children. Fertile ground indeed for sowing fasle notions about their parents.
The idea that truth will out when the case comes before the court is in danger of turning this whole sad saga into a spectacle for the prurient. To put such a burden on two young adults who were used as pawns by unscrupulous adults - and who had no means of preventing their abduction - is unfair and mean.
If laws are bad, then it is our democratic right and duty to do all we can to expose and change them by due process. But if we condone taking the law into our own hands whenever we don't agree with it, for whatever reason, then we are in danger of turning society into one ruled by the philosophy of the vigilante. Do we want that?

By: Undecided on 2/22/09
Nellie, the situation isn't as black and white as you make it sound. You said, " But if we condone taking the law into our own hands whenever we don't agree with it, for whatever reason, then we are in danger of turning society into one ruled by the philosophy of the vigilante." Well the answer to that is that in many states the law ALREADY includes exceptions that ALLOWS parents to escape prosecution for kidnapping children when they are in danger (or believe that they are in danger). Often, it's called the "necessity defense."

Maple is NOT yet a convicted criminal. He's a man who is going to go to court to hear the evidence against him, present his defense, and then wait till the jury decides whether or not he's guilty under the law. We who are standing outside of the situation without all the facts cannot jump to conclusions.

By: Nellie on 2/22/09
No way can the Maples' actions be excused by claiming the necessity defense. The Baskins had already been investigated and found not to have abused their children. The fact that the Maples didn't happen to like that verdict did not give them the green light to do a runner with the children.
Marvin Maple still took those children from their parents without their permission. He and his wife appropriated those children when they had no right to do so. They let the parents suffer the almost unimagineable agony of not knowing where those children were, or whether they were still alive, for all those years. Not even an anonymous letter or a phone-call - just to let the Baskins know their children were alive, wherever in the world they might have been. Nothing. They showed their own flesh and blood not one iota of mercy.
Whatever 'facts' Marvin Maple may present to the court in his defense, they can never justify the cruelty he exhibited towards his own child. And he didn't even have the guts to see her once he was apprehended. Shame on him!

By: stuart on 2/22/09
Chubbers, I doubt it. Up to the 1930 many rural areas didn't even have indoor plumbing. I think that the link below has a more likely explaination of what is going on here.


http://www.bullyonline.org/related/family.htm

http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/attent.htm

By: Smurf-from-Murf on 2/22/09
Fact: The Maples did have custody of the Children for over a year and half, closer to two years. The Maples didn't take them from the Baskins, Baskins gave them to the Maples when they left out of state with the other "special needs" youngest kid named Micheal.

Fact: The Baskins were not prosecuted for the abuse charges, but that didn't mean it didn't happen.

Fact: The Maples failed to appear for a court hearing, were custody would of been passed to the Baskins. so I say, try Marvin on "Failure to appear in Court" and give him time served as a sentence. let him go back to San Jose with his Kids.

By the way, a news article in 1989 says a book deal and a possible movie was in the works with the Baskins, did the producers find something not just right too?

..and in answering to someone else above: I feel Mac passed away feeling guilty of what he did.

By: chubbers on 2/22/09
Smurf,
I was speaking of the incident of micturating in the field. I haven't heard of a Vaseline allegation before. What are the details of those allegations? An old remedy for constipation or something more sinister? Where did you hear of this and why do you believe it to be true, if you believe it to be true?

By: SoSide on 2/22/09
Thanks for clarifying SocEtTuem.

By: stuart on 2/22/09
Chubbers, I think that IF there was any "investigation" into the nonsence about peeing in the field, then perhaps the "investigators" "lost" "the records" because they felt so stupid for being reduced to following such stupid leads from a bunch of attention wh#@res.

I will say it again. All these people are Drama Queens. Including Smurfs second from last post.
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/attent.htm

By: SocEtTuem on 2/22/09
Smurf-from-Murf writes on 2/22/09
"Fact: The Baskins were not prosecuted for the abuse charges, but that didn't mean it didn't happen."

Fact: It doesn't mean it did either.
Fact: As no charges were brought after an investigation was conduted and it was concluded nothing had happen, it is extremely unlikely anything did.

Fact: Kidnapping charges have been made by the Guardian Ad Litum and filed by the District Attorney General.

Fact: the Maples' unlawfully took the children, fled across state lines (thereby making the crime a federal offense), changed their identity and made a deliberate effort to conceal the crime.

Fact: Maple is not charged with failure to appear, He is charged with kidnapping.

By: Undecided on 2/22/09
Nellie, no matter what you personally feel about the case, the court sees things differently. So, yes, the "necessity defense" could easily play a part if he believed that the kids were in danger.

Certainly, there had been an investigation. BUT, he could have firmly believed that the result of the investigation was wrong. I've certainly seen many social workers come to conclusions that were not accurate. If that were the case, then the necessity defense would be something that his attorney could use. Then, it will be up to the jury (not to us) to determine his fate.

By: SanJose_Charlie on 2/23/09
One thing I have noticed, Maple supporters don't pull punches, they go for the throat. If they have any weapon or "fact" to use, they will use it in the most aggressive vulgar way possible. As someone posted, a vague allegation of vaseline was mentioned on the closed thread at the sitcom site. That poster never answered questions when contacted concerning the matter. Isn't that convenient, let peoples imaginations run "wild," when perhaps were talking about advice given to deal with constipation. I tend to think if the explanation was more sinister, Maple supporters would surely give as much info as possible and it would be as graphic and destructive as possible, not vague reports. At least when you read the Murfreesboro Post, about an alleged sex crime, they give a generic description (3 counts of this or that...etc.) of what crime took place. Are you telling me that the Maple supporters show more restraint then the media in general out there? I don't thinks so.

If Mac Baskin relieved himself in the field, there is a huge difference between doing that directly in front of a little girl or having him walk twenty feet away and turning his back. My bet is that if it was the worst case scenario, it would have been reported that way. That is how these accusers are, everybody knows it.

The reports are just too vague concerning these sex abuse allegations. In my opinion they are reporting non-events, say a few key words like vaseline, sexual abuse... then they stand back and let peoples imaginations run wild, it's devilish assuming I am right. The (old-time) Maple supporters are just not credible. If they had the brick to throw, they would have used it.

By: SanJose_Charlie on 2/23/09
Think about it, we are still in the dark about these so called allegations. How is that possible?

It sounds like the stories the Baskin kids gave authorities before their kidnapping, were becoming more and more fanciful and bizarre. Somebody was feeding them this bizarre rubbish.

Like I said before, the kids were not going to be living with Mac anyway. Marvin, committed a horrible crime. Not even a card... to tell his daughter the children were alive!

By: SoSide on 2/23/09
Some of my posts have disappeared. Is this typical for this site or was it something I said?

By: SanJose_Charlie on 2/23/09
It has happened to me a few times also.

By: Nellie on 2/23/09
The necessity defense as a ruse that Marvin Maple might succeed in employing to get himself off the hook? I don't think so! The small matter of the Maples overlooking the youngest child - presumably equally 'at risk' from this alleged abuse - when they kidnapped the older children would suggest that this will be a non-starter!
The action that the Maples took, whatever justificaton they considered they had, was criminal. They could have given the Baskins some crumbs of comfort by letting them know that their children were alive and well, even if they had waited until they reached adulthood before doing so. But no! They couldn't bring themselves to do even that small thing for the daughter they presumably once cared about. I hope the jury considers that particular act of cruelty.
It is truly setting a dangerous precendent - to allow unproven allegations to be grounds for exonerating wrongdoing, for no better reason than the wrongdoer's stating that he 'sincerely believed' that his version of events was the only true version.
After so many years of having had their family stolen from them, and their heads filled with rubbish, it is now sadly unlikely that the children will ever be in any position to discern the truth.
How abusive is that!

By: stuart on 2/23/09
A few of mine dissappeared as well. All of our posts concerning the discussion about someones possible slanderous statement dissappeared. I suppose it the site lawyer removing stuff.

By: SoSide on 2/23/09
Okay, fair enough.

By: Undecided on 2/23/09
Nelie, no matter how much you might not like the "necessity defense," it is ALREADY an established part of the law. The precedent has been set via many cases in many states.

By: chubbers on 2/23/09
San Jose Charlie,
Good last post. The brick most likely does not exist and never did. They must have contracted lockjaw.

I saw an article where Mark was being interviewed after the children had been located. He was quoted as saying that he hoped everyone would pray for his family as well as the Maple family who had believed many things that were not true regarding this case.

This impressed me very much. The Maple supporters would say that Mark was just putting on a show to look good, but I have not seen any Maple family member or relative on television asking others to pray for the Baskin family and to pray that the Baskin family would come to know the real truth.

One can often tell a lot about the character of others by what they DON'T say.

By: Nellie on 2/23/09
Necessity defense may well be an established part of the law. That's not the point. I just don't see Marvin Maple being able to get away with using that as a mitigating factor for his breaking the law and kidnapping his daughter's children.
If I were to hide my old mother in an underground chamber, shut away from all contact with the outside world, because I sincerely believed that she might be in danger of being mistreated in an old folk's home, even though her doctor recommended this as being in her best interests - could I claim necessity defense when I was called to account for such an action? I think not.

By: SocEtTuem on 2/23/09
SoSide writes on 2/23/09
Some of my posts have disappeared. Is this typical for this site or was it something I said?

Who knows. Censorship is arbitrary and at the discretion of the M'boro Post. Mine have disappeared from time to time as well.

By: SocEtTuem on 2/23/09
Nellie writes on 2/23/09
"Necessity defense may well be an established part of the law. That's not the point. I just don't see Marvin Maple being able to get away with using that as a mitigating factor for his breaking the law and kidnapping his daughter's children."

Legally, a necessity defense may be possible I suppose, but since an investigation was conducted at the time of the kidnapping that concluded there was NO EVIDENCE of abuse, satanism or anything else of the sort, it's not too likely it will hold a lot of water. What you are going to need here for any kind of defense to succeed is jury nullification. That might work in California, but I strongly believe that kins of nonsense won't fly in Tennessee. Just the facts.

By: motherof4 on 2/23/09
Truth is that no matter what anyone says nothing's gonna change the minds of the maple supporters or the baskin supporters. I feel sorry for what the kids are going through. That includes not only the baskin children but also the grown daughters of marvin maple. If they truely didn't know the where-a-bouts of their parents then they have just found out that their mother is dead. Am I the only one that thinks leaving your children and disappearing for 20 years and not informing them of their mothers death could be interpreted as cruelty to children? I think they all need praying for.

By: BlessedBeyondMeasure on 2/23/09
Smurf from Murf, That was my point. I don't see why it is so surprising the kids have not spoken to their parents. If they had wanted to, they would have done so by now due to easily finding them online. It's obvious they are loyal to their grandparents which makes logical sense, they are emotionally bound to them over their parents.....as anyone would be. If I hadn't seen my parents in 20 years and had been raised by someone else, my attachment would be with the one who raised me.

And you say the Baskins may turn out to be child abusers. I think you have forgotten that they were cleared of those charges.

Also, memories can fade over the years. I don't remember much of when I was 7/8 yo and of those things I do remember it's because of reinforcement I've had over the years by seeing those same people over and over. I have a few other sketchy memories, but nothing indepth.

Have you ever had a conversation with someone you experienced something with years later? I have and it's funny to me how the way it is remembered from individual to individual is totally different.

Also, there was a special one time that had the news reporter planting a false memory into his son. Later, after the father had replayed this incident to his son and told him it really happened, the child believed it. He could even retell the story as if it was vivid in his mind. When the father told him it didn't really happen, the boy insisted it did, that he remembered it himself. Our brains are fascinating and very prone to the power of suggestion.

By: SocEtTuem on 2/23/09
motherof4 writes on 2/23/09
"Am I the only one that thinks leaving your children and disappearing for 20 years and not informing them of their mothers death could be interpreted as cruelty to children?"

Excellent point! I don't think the idea ever entered the Maples' minds. That assumes of course, that the eldest and youngest of the Maple's daughters did not know the whereabouts of the "Buntings'" (aka Maples'). The evidence is pretty clear the Maples' had their own agenda. Only time and evidence will show if they had any contact with other family members. For the sake of their other two daughters, I hope they did not.

By: Undecided on 2/23/09
Certainly, Nellie. You can use any defense you please, including the necessity defense. It's then up to the jury to decide whether it was a valid reason or not.

By: stuart on 2/23/09
It's not arbitrary censorship. Sometimes it's obvious the reasons why posts are removed. (not always). You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. Likewise, you can't try to whip everyone up into a pogrom (lynch mob or witch-hunt)nagainst Blacks or Jews or whatever. Well, maybe you can if you get your own web site, but you cannot parasite on someone elses web-site to achive ones own sinister objectives.

I have noticed before a few posters on this topic at other sites who got the site closed down, and another where everyone quit posting.

Believe me, if they didn't edit some stuff out everyone here would abandon this site and post on a site that did censor more stuff out. The schizophrenics take over otherwise and nothing makes sense.

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/23/09
Stuart-please do tell us what the Maple's "agenda" was?? This ought to be interesting...

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/23/09
Oh and one more thing, my grandparents NEVER exposed themselves to us. Who thinks that that is acceptable? Because I'm sorry-- I don't. As a matter of fact NONE of my relatives EVER did that.

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/23/09
And the only remedies I know of for constipation are not consumed by the exit but rather the entrance. So any allegations involving the use of vaseline in that area as far as I know only constitute one thing--and with regards to this topic--that makes me sick to even hear of that possibility. Vaseline as a remedy for constipation? Are you kidding me? What will you guys think of next?

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/23/09
Here I have a little prayer I would like to say since you all believe that that is what makes the Baskins such great folks, here goes....
Please God, please don't allow Hollywood to make people like the Baskin's rich. And also please don't let the person who snitched be rewarded for not minding their own business. And most importantly, please make sure anyone who violates another person's entire life by their sick and selfish actions be punished accordingly.
Please help Jenny and Jonathon (or Christy and Bobby) get through this as easily as possible without any other permanent damage, they are good people-raised by their grandparents-and don't deserve it. Amen

By: BlessedBeyondMeasure on 2/23/09
SouthSide-
Check out this link.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/123315/prevention_and_treatment_of_constipation.html?cat=5

FTR, if my parents/in laws exposed themselves to my children while urinating, I would be very upset. But I would not file abuse charges against them. I would just not leave my children with them again....ever. Sure, using the bathroom in front of your grandchildren would be a poor choice, but could be an innocent one not linked to anything other than using the bathroom.

By: Sameera on 2/23/09
We don't know how much truth there is in all these stories circulating about the Baskins, if any. Myself, I've reached the stage where I not only disbelieve them but I find them tiresome. And I don't bother entering debates with Maple supporters anymore.

As for this story from Chubbers' relative, I really don't know what to think.

I shall be looking forward to 17 March where we may finally hear some facts and evidence which will finally clear these stories up, so I do have an idea of what to think!

By: Sameera on 2/23/09
I don't know why Marvin Maple refused to see Debbie in San Jose, but it certainly left him wide open to allegations of cowardice and not having the guts to face his daughter.

All eyes will definitely be on him to see if he can meet Debbie in the eye on 17 March. Whether he does or not is going to make big impressions on the court and general public, and influence how well his side of things goes down.

Regrettably, I can't make it there to see in person, but I will be eagerly reading the reports and viewing the online videos.

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/23/09
John Bunting (Marvin)is not a coward. Maybe he doesn't want to talk to her because she is GUILTY. Duh!

By: BlessedBeyondMeasure on 2/23/09
Southside - I never said I'd use it as a defense. *You* said you'd never heard of that remedy. I was linking you so you could see that it is in actuality a remedy. And if you care to investigate a little farther before spewing ugliness, you'd know there are many other sites that recommend it as a way to relieve the effects of constipation so a child can "go" easier.

By: SoSide on 2/23/09
SouthsideCa, as a friend of John's, I am embarrassed that you are posting with such hate. If you are hoping to help John by defending him, it isn't going to be very helpful to do it with your highly emotional one sided rants. Nobody has all the facts yet. I admire your loyalty and appreciate that you have been angered and hurt by the accusations against John but you aren't going to help anything by representing Marvin Maple supporters with unfounded accusations and words like "evil" and "duh". I miss John too. But we don't really KNOW much about the FACTS. Keep searching and speculating but as a loyal friend to John, try to represent him with some dignity.

By: Nellie on 2/24/09
SocEtTuem succinctly makes the point I had been trying to put across "..Legally, a necessity defense may be possible I suppose, but since an investigation was conducted at the time of the kidnapping that concluded there was NO EVIDENCE of abuse, satanism or anything else of the sort, it's not too likely it will hold a lot of water.."
I would hope that, when this case comes before the court, it is not turned into a media spectacle. This is a family tragedy - not a spectator sport to be played out in front of the world and its mate. Nobody should be hoping to make money from it by turning this into a Hollywood saga.
As for Southside's reasoning for Marvin Maple's unwillingness to see his daughter being "..that Marvin Maple doesn't want to talk to her because she is GUILTY.." - this is as spiteful and silly as most of his/her posts on this topic. If Mrs Baskin really had been guilty of abusing her children, then the LAST person she would want to face up to would be her accuser!
Perhaps Southside is quite young - perhaps not having had much - if any - experience of raising or even being with children. How else are we to account for that ridiculous diatribe relating to vaseline as a remedy for constipation? Although there are now more modern remedies for relieving constipation, it is not that many years ago that enemas were an approved method of treating this condition - and mothers would use this method as a matter of course.
On that basis, Southside would probably have them all categorised as abusers!
However, I do agree with this declaration from Southside - "..And most importantly, please make sure anyone who violates another person's entire life by their sick and selfish actions be punished accordingly.." Yes indeed!

By: SanJose_Charlie on 2/24/09
Southside, your acting like Sandra Maple. Calm down, Geesh!

By: SanJose_Charlie on 2/24/09
Southside, had posted the entire constipation article, it's deleted now. The point is, advice could have been given on the subject in just one quick sentence, not like that. It's a little uncouth, yes... but kidnapping justified?

The kids were not going to live with Mac. I am sure Debbie would have been a great watchdog in the future. NO DOUBT!, in my mind.

This was a crime of selfishness. Sandra Maple got attached to the kids and wanted them. She would use any tiny thing to take them... and she did, along with Marvin.

Not a hero!

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/24/09
If you were going to delete my post because of the content then maybe you should have also deleted the link above that helped me discover it. I was just trying to point out that I find the article to be very strange and could not see any doctor recommending this method described in the article. Maybe it's just me but it doesn't sound sanitary in the least. Which is why IMO it's a horrible way to explain an accusation or rumor of "vaseline." I would NEVER tell a child, or an adult for that matter, to use that method. I find that you would even post this link pretty vulgar. But hey, we have alot of people making comments here with little concern for child abuse, because they are experts on the subject you know.
And Soside, you could have emailed me instead of embarrasing me in front of all of the people who are making personal attacks at me for my opinions. They don't need any help in putting me down for they are doing a great job of it. If only I cared......

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/24/09
I would like for San Jose Charlie to explain what "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$" means.

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/24/09
Also, please note that I have not called anyone a hillbilly, a drunk, an idiot, a fool, paranoid, or that you are acting like Sandra Maple who you said was crazy. But it seems that it's okay when you guys want to label me. However, I did imply that in my opinion sexual abusers are Perverts (because they are) and I did wonder why some people think they know for a fact that no abuse occurred (when they don't) and I did say that I HOPE that those who were taking that issue so lightly were not involved in anything similar. I think it is safe for one to assume that could be a reason that the abuse is dismissed so easily. Unless someone here has a transcript of those hearings--maybe they should get them before attacking someone who prefers to protect victims of child sexual abuse. I am not convinced that it never happened and I have not heard a valid reason that supports these claims. "The court said so" is not good enough. I've seen how people who do things like that can get away with it. I mean, again, without hard factual evidence how can one be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt?

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/24/09
I'll say it one more time....in our justice system you have to be proven guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Doubt is defined as certainty and without hesitation. The jury's verdict is not a guarantee of innocence. There is no warranty on their decision. Who are you going to listen to, the jury or your kids? Are you calling your kid a liar? Do you think a child wants to put himself out there like that subjecting himself to countless embarassments? The court can say whatever they want but I would not take any chances with my children, would you?

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/24/09
What is the real issue here, the kidnapping or the well-being of the children?

By: SoSide on 2/24/09
I really do hope that Marvin and Sandra ARE heros. That would be the only happy ending to this story, in my opinion. Soside, sorry I embarrassed you.

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/24/09
it's ok

By: Mitch on 2/24/09
Tring to find a happy ending to this "life is stranger that fiction" story may not be possible. Your posted opinions on this family's sad circumstances show to some degree that you care. What do all of you think about offering some advise to the Baskins, Maples and these now adult children on finding peace? I look forward to hearing what you can offer.

By: eagle50 on 2/24/09
Mitch,

First, Marvin Maples should tell the kids that it is 'OK' to contact their parents.

Second, the parents should not discuss the events of 20 years ago, unless the kids bring it up in question form.

Third, they should not play "she said, he said" or degrade the others.

Fourth, there should be a "group" meeting of Marvin, the kids, Debbie and Mark and that's all the people that should be in the room unless a therapist should be there to help heal the wounds. Group therapy would probably do them all alot of GOOD.

By: aliceinwonderland on 2/24/09
If my advice were asked, I would suggest that Marvin Maple pleads guilty and gets minimal punishment on condition that (1) he apologizes to the Baskins, and (2) him, Baskins, and all 4 kids go through group therapy until they sort it out and come to terms. Can the judge order something like this?

By: Nellie on 2/24/09
Good to see some of the sensible suggestions offered - it clearly shows that people care. I don't think the judge would want to order group therapy, as the children are now adult - and they may feel that the manner in which they have lived their lives has been ordered by others for far too long.
However, it would be good if some truly neutral person - a mediator who would not take sides, who would have no vested interest other than the wellbeing of the Baskin children - could bring about some sort of closure by helping these children to come to terms with what has happened to them, their brothers, parents and other family members, because of the events of the past 20 years.
That is the least this family deserves. However, it cannot be forced upon the children. They have much with which they now need to come to terms. Some kind and friendly advice - offered freely, not forced upon them, might help them in these troubled days.

By: stuart on 2/24/09
Quote By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/24/09: "I am not convinced that it never happened and I have not heard a valid reason that supports these claims. "The court said so" is not good enough."

It is impossible to PROVE something DIDN'T happen. It is only possible to prove that something DID happen. It's like an athiest trying to accumulate evidence to PROVE that there IS NO God.

So there is noothing to be gained tring to convince someone who must have "proof that something didn't happen."

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/24/09
Marvin Maple, who is 73 years old, should get nothing more than probabtion if these charges stick. Let the children who are now adults make up their own minds on whether or not they want to speak to their parents and/or their little brother, also an adult. Stop showing the children's pictures to the public so that they can eventually resume a normal lifestyle and not one of an unwarranted celebrity. Focus on people taking things like allegations of abuse more seriously and focus on the how and the why most children dissapear and more efficient ways to find them nationally. Prosecute child molestors to the full extent of the law and give them longer sentences than drug users get. If you want to let them out, put them on probabtion for the rest of their life. That is only fair since they stole a part of someone else's, right? REPORT ANY AND ALL abuse as soon as possible. Never let it continue. Educate all children on what constitutes abuse and how to report it if it happens to them. I can think of at least 2 times when I was a kid where an adult crossed that line but I was either too scared to report it or wanted to pretend it didn't happen. Lucky for me, it wasn't as bad as it could have been but definetely improper behavior from an adult.
Pay attention to your children and develop a strong relationship so they will come to you in times of trouble. Don't have 14 children you cannot afford, nor have the attention span for. Okay, I know, but I had to say it.

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/24/09
Stuart, I did not say anything about having to have proof it did not happen. You are misconstruing my words. What I mean is that I will believe my child when it comes to such a heinous accusation until I, for myself, am satisfied with the answers. A court's opinion where evidence is hardly available is not going to prove to me that my child is now safe. I hope that makes sense.

By: SocEtTuem on 2/24/09
SOUTHSIDECA WRITES: "I'll say it one more time....in our justice system you have to be proven guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT."

You meant, of course, except in the case of the Baskin's who you have unilaterally proclaimed are guilty in spite of the fact they have not been proven to be ANYTHING remotely close to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. At least that is what you have been preaching to us all along - that the Baskin's are guilty evil-doers - despite the finding they were innocent. Indeed, they have been exonerated using that VERY standard. I suspect you and your self-righteous indignation are as phony as the proverbial three dollar bill.

By: aliceinwonderland on 2/24/09
On one thing I agree with Southsideca. Sexual abusers should receive real punishment. In general, I believe punishment for crimes against children should be more severe than that for crimes against adults. I'm for a death penalty for those who rape, torture, and kill children.

Now, what surprises me is that Southsideca, while speaking so passionately about punishing sexual abusers, wants to go really easy on child kidnappers. At least on those who happen to be her friends. She is finding all kinds of excuses to get one of them off the hook: he is 73 years old, he meant well, the children had good life, grew normal adults after all, etc. She doesn't need any proof that Marvin Maple really wanted to save the children from sexual abuse. His word is good enough. His intentions are not questioned.

A totally different approach is reserved for the Baskins. The are guilty beyond doubt, and it's them who must prove that they didn't sexually abuse their children.

It looks like double standards to me.

I want to clarify my suggestions for resolving the situation. If I were the judge, I would give Marvin Maple a choice: (1) pay for your crime according to the law (get real prison term, etc). Or, (2) get probation on following conditions (a) apologize publicly to the Baskins, and (b) agree to group counseling with the Baskins and all 4 children.

Of course, the children will have to agree to it, too. If they love their grandfather and want to help him avoid jail term, they will.

By: Sameera on 2/24/09
If I understand this necessity defence thing correctly, Marvin needs to establish he had a genuine concern that the children were being abused, and was not motivated by malice or selfishness. Whether the children really were being abused or not is beside the point. The question is: were Marvin's motives sincere and motivated by what he believed was a true necessity?

At least, that's how I think it works.

By: stuart on 2/24/09
SOUTHSIDECA, IF it turns out that Sandra was a Munchausen bPS and IF it turns out that Marvin is a Hero wannabe (like the firemen who set fires to play the hero), THEN would you call their behavior abuse, and THEN would you damand the punishment deserved for child abusers? OR would you just minimize the abuse as if it never happened, and continue suggesting only probation.

By: SoSide on 2/24/09
Mitch, where did you come from? Have you been sitting in the peanut gallery all this time and decided we all need some "closure"? No offense, but tell me you are NOT a therapist. :oP

By: SoSide on 2/24/09
Oh and Mitch, if you ARE a therapist. Give us YOUR two cents on what to offer as advice to both sides. Please?

By: SoSide on 2/25/09
I think that in either case, whether Marvin Maple ends up right or wrong about things, he should share with everyone how he and three others stayed hidden for 20 years. That's some major skills. He's no dummy, you gotta give him that.

By: Undecided on 2/25/09
SoSide, it's easy to be anonymous. All they needed was some false ID, and that's easily bought on the street. In addition to the availability of ID in many places, the most common theory is that he got it from a lady who runs an underground railroad that helps hide parental kidnappers.

After that, what "skill" would it require, other than all four of them keeping quiet? In order to prevent slip-ups when the kids were young, they homeschooled them. Simple solution.

By: Undecided on 2/25/09
SOUTHSIDECA, I agree with your statement, "I will believe my child when it comes to such a heinous accusation until I, for myself, am satisfied with the answers. A court's opinion where evidence is hardly available is not going to prove to me that my child is now safe."

By: Nellie on 2/25/09
I realize that I am repeating myself here - but it is worth saying this again. Young cildren are extremely suggestible. Of course we must listen to what a child says - and act on it. However, we also need to ensure that we separate fact from fiction.
Most of us will recall times in our own early childhoods when an actual event became altered in our own minds - sometimes out of all proportion to reality. This was not because we were little liars. It was because our inexperience of life, our immaturity, and a child's tendency to take everything he hears or sees quite literally - led us to misunderstanding something said or done.
So yes- let's make sure that we listen to our children. But let's also make sure that we - or someone else - are not inadvertently putting false notions into their heads, simply because something we understand to mean ONE thing can be misinterpreted by a child to mean something else.
Child abuse does take place - and anyone who shuts his eyes to this ugly fact is a fool. Abusers need to be prevented from indulging in their disgusting perversion. We all need to be watchful. But witch hunts of the sort we have seen in the past, such as those which took place at the time of the satanic abuse hysteria, where innocent families had their lives torn apart, are not the way to deal with this.
What I find disturbing about this particular case is something that SoSide mentions. Two children disappeared for 20 years - to all intents and purposes, they vanished from the face of the earth. We should all be concerned at the comparative ease with which children can vanish - in the blink of an eye. For the moment let's leave aside any of the reasons why people run off with children and hide - and focus instead on how easy it is to acquire false ID and go to ground. Because, if people who believe they are protecting a child from abuse can conceal that child's whereabouts for years, if not forever - then it doesn't take too wild a leap of the imagination to figure that so can pedophiles. This is an issue which the authorities need to address.

By: Campbellite on 2/25/09
Greetings from teh peanut gallery!

So old Marvin should get probation should he? Gee that's convenient. Hell, maybe we should all chip in and buy him a medal since he is such a "hero"!

Let me also offer up a prayer..."Dear Lord, thank you for the snitches that ratted old Marvin out"!

I have a hunch that SOUTHSIDECA and SoSide are none other than Bobby and Christy Baskin themselves!

By: SoSide on 2/25/09
Hey Campbell. Don't make me come over there! :oP

By: Undecided on 2/25/09
Nellie, I have a sneaking suspicion that law enforcement is already aware that false ID is an issue that they need to address.

By: aliceinwonderland on 2/25/09
makes a lot of sense to me, especially the second one:

Advice to Jennifer Bunting, Jonathan Bunting and Marvin Maple
http://underwatch.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/advice-to-jennifer-bunting-jonathan-bunting-and-marvin-maple/


More Advice for Jennifer Bunting, Jonathan Bunting, Marvin Maple
http://underwatch.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/more-advice-for-jennifer-bunting-jonathan-bunting-marvin-maple/

By: eagle50 on 2/25/09
On one thing I agree with Southsideca. Sexual abusers should receive real punishment. In general, I believe punishment for crimes against children should be more severe than that for crimes against adults. I'm for a death penalty for those who rape, torture, and kill children.

Per Alice "Now, what surprises me is that Southsideca, while speaking so passionately about punishing sexual abusers, wants to go really easy on child kidnappers. At least on those who happen to be her friends."

I'm seeing a pattern for Southside. We call it "talking out of both sides of your mouth". She has based her opinion on "hearsay", but won't admit it; but blast us for our opinon based on "hearsay"; she wants abusers punished, but not marvin.

I guess she is missing her "boyfriend"!!!

By: Nellie on 2/25/09
"...Nellie, I have a sneaking suspicion that law enforcement is already aware that false ID is an issue that they need to address.." Undecided, I guess you feel entitled to be somewhat sarcastic - that's OK! Of course law enforcement is well aware of the issue of false ID. The point I'm making is that more needs to be done by law enforcement to ensure that it is much more difficult for a child to disappear. No child should simply be allowed to slip under the radar, as it were, for whatever reason - leaving the family desolated and feeling very much alone in its search for that child.
The Amber Alert system is already making a great deal of difference in a very positive way. But organisations such as today's underground railroad trouble me. There should be no turning a blind eye to the illegal acquisition of false ID - however justifiable it might seem to supporters of the person who wants to disappear with a child.

By: chubbers on 2/25/09
I am wondering why Bobby or Christy has not yet contacted their little brother. Maybe they don't remember him.

If, as some on this board claim, Bobby and Christy don't want to contact their parents because they remember suffering alleged abuse, then that is all the more reason for them to be concerned with their little brother.

What are other's thoughts on this?

By: Sameera on 2/25/09
To Chubbers,

I haven't heard any more about how Bobby and Christie are coping. Also, they may have been advised to make no pre-trial comments, public statements or even to contact their parents in case it is prejudical. If so, I guess we will have to wait until 17 March.

By: BlessedBeyondMeasure on 2/25/09
Nellie, I think getting a new ID years ago was much easier than now. 20 years ago, it'd probably have been fairly easy to go unnoticed and get a new ID at a time when SS were not required at birth. And I'm sure different parts of the country have different forms of "birth certificates" especially years ago. I would think it'd be easy to create a birth certificate from another state and pass it off in another state as authentic. I mean recently it was easy to order your own notary republic seal (may still be able to?). Create a BC, stamp it yourself, pass it off as real to get a SS #. Now that things like this are taken care of through the hospital, it would be more difficult to accomplish now, I would think.

chubbers, I would think that it would not look good legally for Marvin if Christi and Bobby contacted their family. Not only that, they may feel they need to support Marvin by not contacting them.

By: eagle50 on 2/25/09
"20 years ago, it'd probably have been fairly easy to go unnoticed and get a new ID at a time when SS were not required at birth." Blessedbeyondmeasure

20 years ago the hospital filed the birth certificate and filed for the SSN. I don't know when that began, but I know they were the ones that requested my son's SSN and he'll be 20 this year. My brother, a former cop, said that 20 years ago it was alot easier to get fake id's. I don't know the process to do that, but someone probably told the Maples how to do it and they may have had help.

By: eagle50 on 2/25/09
..."Dear Lord, thank you for the snitches that ratted old Marvin out"! AMEN

By: BlessedBeyondMeasure on 2/25/09
eagle50, you might be right on that. I was thinking the Baskin children were my age (kidding myself...I'm a bit older) and I know when I was born they did not assign a SS#. Also, the children were born almost 30 years ago, not 20. Wonder if 30 years ago SS#'s were issued?

By: Mitch on 2/26/09
Dear SoSide,

My name is Mitch. It is not an anonymous sign on. And no I have not been sitting in the peanut gallery I've been sitting on the pumpkin wagon. Does that make you happy? I hope so. My point in joining your little conversation is simple. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. It's your choice. Now choose.

By: SoSide on 2/26/09
Okay Mitch. Well thanks for joining in. I think to take any side unilaterally would be a mistake at this point. So it would be difficult to know which choices are part of the solution or part of the problem. There just isn't enough information for anyone to wholeheartedly believe without a shadow of a doubt that any one version is the truth. (Though some have an incredible capacity for blind faith about the truth of the matter, I'm learning...) As far as my advice goes to anyone involved in this mess, I think Mark and Debbie are doing the right things as far as not pushing their kids to meet them and letting them have control over how that, or if that, transpires. I think the kids should do what they feel is the right thing for them and try not to listen to what anyone else is going to recommend for them. (Especially if this becomes a bigger circus than it already is, they should keep listening to themselves as the authority on what's best for themselves.) And for John/Marvin, I think he should take a hard look at his choices and the consequences of those choices and plead innocent or guilty based on his own convictions about the matter. If he really feels he's done the right thing, he should stand by himself on it. And if he's now looked again at this after 20 years and feels differently, he shouldn't be stubborn about it and admirably step up to the truth. He should just admit that he made a terrible mistake and work with everyone involved to help bring some version of unification back to the family.

A word about the "snitch or snitches" that turned him in. If they are actually friends with John, it must have been really difficult to turn him in. Knowing John the way I do, I think it would be difficult to know if turning him in was the right thing or not. I wonder if the snitch or snitches (that some are praying for) are struggling with their decision to have actually turned him in. My guess is that they are. And given the hateful veracity with which Maple supporters are rallying around his cause, the anonymous tipster should probably continue to remain anonymous.

Oh and Mitch. This isn't some "little conversation". I personally, just found out that a dear old friend of mine was a fugitive all these years and I visit these boards to try to sort the mess in my own mind. It's kind of a bigger deal to me than throwing some verbiage out into cyberspace. And I can guess that for all the Baskins and Maples, this subject matter isn't being tossed about with irreverence.

What's the metaphor for pumpkin wagon? And why would that make me happy?

By: SocEtTuem on 2/26/09
SoSide writes: "I think to take any side unilaterally would be a mistake at this point. So it would be difficult to know which choices are part of the solution or part of the problem. There just isn't enough information for anyone to wholeheartedly believe without a shadow of a doubt that any one version is the truth."

Well, thanks for those words of wisdom. Might I inquire as to who gave you exclusive authority to judge whether or not folks should have opinions?

Frankly, I believe there is plenty of information available to reach a conclusion using the very standards, like the unilateral pronunciations regarding the guilt of the Baskin family some of Maple's most rabid supporters have asserted.

You wouldn't be the first to be duped by a criminal. How many times have we heard "gee, he was such a nice guy" about some mope who has gone postal? Maple had to live and perpetuate his lie to avoid being caught. To the person or persons who turned him in - you did the right thing. The only moral thing you could have done.

There is absolutely no question that the Maples' took these kids, took them illegally, fled, hid and lived a lie. Those facts are indisputable. All Maple has is allegations that were investigated and proven to be false.

Indeed, I think the truth in this case is pretty clear, but agree Maple is entitled to his day in court, something he didn;t believe his own daughter rated. Fortunatley, he won't be able to deny the principle charge against him. He can only try and nullify it through mitigation.

By: SoSide on 2/26/09
Well, in my humble opinion SocEtTuem, I think that to have an opinion at this point, without all the facts, would be choosing to be part of the problem.

By: Undecided on 2/26/09
I heartily agree that "There just isn't enough information for anyone to wholeheartedly believe without a shadow of a doubt that any one version is the truth." In fact, there is very likely bits of truth and bits of error on both sides. We observers certainly have not heard all of the evidence!!! We have heard rumors and read parts of stories. That's all. We have no way of knowing what the principle players did or did not do.

The jurors will hear more of it, but even then they will probably not ever get all of the evidence due to a courtroom's capricious rules about what is admissible and what is not. All we can do is observe and guess. And, not one of us will actually guess right on all of the issues.

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 2/26/09
We'll see.

By: Nellie on 2/27/09
Regardless of the outcome of any court case, regardless of any claims and counterclaims made by each and every person involved in this saga - there are two young people who are having to come to terms with the sort of upheaval to their lives that would send most of us into a spiral of disbelief and despair.
The other day, I was reading a blogger's opinions on this case. He expressed his impatience with the reluctance of the Baskin children to communicate with their parents, declaring that they were selfish, immature - and needed to get real. Fortunately the responses to this view were unanimously condemnatory - regardless of people's differing opinions on the rights and wrongs of the issue.
Mitch suggests that it would be far more constructive to suggest ways in which the whole family can begin to heal the pain of this tragedy. For starters, maybe it's time for the more personal details of all those involved to cease being a matter for public probing and intrusion. It is to be hoped that such matters will be for the court to take into account.
As far as making contact with one another after so many years apart - I wonder if it would help initially to write, rather than talk - either face to face or on the telephone. It is often easier - both for the writer and the recipient - to put things down in writing. When so much hurt has been felt and emotions are running high, being able to express feelings, to explain why things happened, in a letter can give the opportunity to set things in some sort of context. It could possibly open the door to further contact at some future time.
None of us, as outside observers, can know the whole story - that is not our business. But it is surely the right of the Baskin children to be given the truth - and then it must be their choice as to where they take it afer that.

By: chubbers on 2/27/09
Sameera,
I believe that the March 17th date is the preliminary hearing only. The prosecution will just call a few witnesses to the stand that day to determine probable cause. Then it will be bound over to jury trial, which could take many months. So I don't think we will know anymore after the 17th. It will take time to find unbiased jurors as well.

By: Sameera on 2/28/09
Dear Chubbers,

You're probably right. I wonder who will be among those who will be called to the stand? I'd say that Detectives Sharp, McGowan and Flagg are top contenders. Karen Hornsby, Debbie (let's see if Marvin and the estranged relatives can look her in the eye) and Mark are definites. The social workers and mental health care workers will probably be called as well. Another possibility is Michael Baskin.

By: SoSide on 2/28/09
Do you think we will ever find out who the tipster/tipsters are? Will they be called to testify? If so, how does that work as far as their anonymity goes? Will we get to find out who they are?

By: Sameera on 2/28/09
Dear SoSide,

It depends on how crucial their evidence is, I suppose. I don't think it'll be that important since it is motive, not identification, that is the key point in this case.

By: SOUTHSIDECA on 3/1/09
Yes, it is the motive that is so important here! Finally you get it!

By: SocEtTuem on 3/1/09
Motive? What motive? The "motive" based on allegations that were investigated and proven false? Maple cheerleaders seem to forget one glaring fact in this case: The stated motive in this kidnapping has been shown to be just so much bilge water. Why is it you would so happily accept some ruling of innocence on the part of the kidnappers, but refuse to accept a similar ruling after an exhaustive investigation that concluded the Baskin's were innocent?
Could it be because you simply don't want to believe Maple is guilty, or might it be you have some new evidence the Baskin's are? I am personally inclined to believe the former rather than the latter.

By: Nellie on 3/1/09
Motive? How about this? The tipster, having seen 'missing' posters and heard 'John Bunting' talking about the matter, realized that it was very likely that this was actually Marvin Maple, one of two people wanted in connection with the 20-year-old unsolved kidnapping of two children - and considered it high time to put an end to that wicked charade.
A good Samaritan.

By: stuart on 3/1/09
I think they would consider motive. In some cases I have read about the mother thought her children were possessed by satan and she heard voices that told her to kill them. Since that is what she really believed, they took motive into account and only sent her to a mental hospital instead ot prison. So if Marvins version of reality is so much different from the courts and society 20 years ago, his lawyer could use an insanity defence

By: Sameera on 3/1/09
Insanity defence? I imagine the lawyer will refer Marvin for a psychiatric report; that's probably routine. There has been great discussion of several types of syndrome which may or may not be a huge factor here. If they do, they could make a difference. But I don't think Marvin is crazy and needs to be put in a psychiatric ward; it's not that kind of insanity.

There is been discussion that the lawyer will argue the necessity defence ie Marvin had a genuine belief that the children were being abused and he was kidnapping them for their own protection. The issue is not whether the children were actually being abused but whether Marvin genuinely thought they were. However, if the prosecutor can prove that the Maples' motives were borne out of malice or selfishness, then the necessity defence is sunk. And there is the ongoing sticking point which is the prosecutor's biggest weapon: if Marvin really did believe the parents were child abusers, why didn't he and his wife do anything to remove the third child, Michael? Why did they leave Michael behind in the hands of his alleged abusers?

By: SoSide on 3/2/09
I think you hit it on the head Sameera. Anyone who knows the character of John/Marvin will tell you that he is a good citizen and was a great parent to the kids. He truly believes he did the right thing. I think it will be very difficult to prove that there was even a hint of malice in his decision making process. Sure, he could have been wrong about it. But I'm pretty certain he didn't make it up and he didn't do it out of malice. (I know all the facts aren't out but I'm just stating my gut here.)

By: stuart on 3/2/09
I remember a story about 30 years ago where a non-relative wanted a kid and kidnapped a 5y/o boy. When he was found as a teenager the papers said he was in public school and apparently lived a nomal life. I think Marvin and Sandra were more like that, only they happened to be related, and they happened to hate Debbie, and they happened to try to drum up a scenario to fit into their new cognative schema.

By: SocEtTuem on 3/2/09
State kidnapping statutes specify that any unlawful detention or physical movement of a child, other than that performed by a parent or guardian, constitutes kidnapping. But, don't take my word for it, look it up.

Any insanity defense will have to show Maple did not know the difference from right and wrong at the time he and his wife kidnapped the children. Feel free to look that up too. Maple knew full well what he was doing was wrong - and that can be clearly established and easily demonstrated by his living an elaborate lie for 20 plus years.

The necessity defense is defined as "a defense asserted by a criminal defendant that he or she had no choice but to break the law."

Almost all common-law and statutory definitions of the necessity defense include the following elements: (1) the defendant acted to avoid a significant risk of harm; (2) no adequate lawful means could have been used to escape the harm; and (3) the harm avoided was greater than that caused by breaking the law.

Concentrate your attention on item number two. A lawful means did exist and the Maples, who were afraid they were not going to prevail in the case opted out of the process by the medium of kidnapping. Good luck with that one. Moreover, a finding that the Maples' charges of abuse, satanism, conspiracy,ad infinitum, ad nauseam were false erases the necessity element. Unless Maple can prove those findings were part of his alleged expansive conspiracy, he's toast.

By: BlessedBeyondMeasure on 3/2/09
Here is the TN jury instructions for necessity defense. Interesting!

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/geninfo/Courts/CriminalInstructions/DOC/40_05.doc

By: SocEtTuem on 3/3/09
Great Link. It says pretty much what the general standard says. The key here is that the Defense must introduce evidence of necessity: "If evidence is introduced supporting the defense of necessity" the state must prove otherwise. I don't think Maple has any such evidence other than his panoply of wild claims which have already been vetted and dismissed.

I wouldn't want to trade places with him and have to rely on that.

By: SoSide on 3/3/09
What about the claims by the children? Is that considered evidence? (Sorry if that's a dumb question...I don't speak much legalese.)

By: Sameera on 3/3/09
Dear SoSide,

In the first place, we don't yet know what the claims made by the children will be.

In the second place, if they do make claims of abuse, there is the question of how reliable their statements will be. In the original investigation the children gave the impression they were being coached (whether it was the grandparents or incompetent/overzealous questioners we don't know), and they were saying things that grew more and more unbelievable. This could be used to rule any statements they make regarding abuse as too contaminated and unreliable to be inadmissible.

In the Kelly McMichaels case (a day centre satanic ritual hysteria case), when Kelly's appeal was upheld, a hearing had to be held to determine whether the children's statements were reliable enough to be used in a retrial or were too contaminated. The hearing decided on the latter, so no retrial and Kelly was released.

By: jvschicago on 3/4/09
The key here is that the Defense must introduce evidence of necessity: "If evidence is introduced supporting the defense of necessity" the state must prove otherwise

SocET,

No, the key words here are "immediately necessary" and "imminent harm".

The instructions go on to define "imminent" as meaning "near at hand; on the point of happening."

For Mr. Maple to use this defense, his attorney would have to prove that the alleged sexual abuse was right on the edge of happening, and that if he hadn't acted, the child would have been immediately sexually abused--within the next few SECONDS!

Defense by "necessity" corrolates directly with claiming "self-defense." The difference between the 2 is that a defendant who acted in "self-defense" was protecting themself, while a defendant who acted out of "necessity," was protecting another person.

Regardless, for either one to be a legally valid defense, the danger must be "immediate" and "imminent."

In other words, if someone is about to kill you, and you defend yourself by killing them first, even though it's illegal to kill someone, your actions are legally justified because you acted out of necessity in "self-defense."

However, if someone tries to kill you and fails, and you hunt them down afterwards and kill them, then you've committed cold-blooded murder--even if you reasonably believed that person still had every intention of killing you and believed your life was still in danger. The danger wasn't "immediate" or "imminent", and you had the time and opportunity to pursue other legal means of protecting yourself.

The same applies to protecting another person. Committing an illegal act to protect them is only justified if their safety is in "immediate" and "imminent" danger--not because you believed they might be harmed at some future date. Not even if your belief was reasonably justified.

By: Nellie on 3/4/09
Here are two shameful instances – both in the UK - which show what happened when common sense went out the window and zealots were given free rein to push their particular agendas re child abuse.
It certainly seems that, both in the UK and in the United States, the system which should be advocating the welfare of the child as its guiding principle sometimes allows itself to be manipulated in order to remove children from perfectly good parents, by those who are unscrupulous, malicious – or who have a pet theory about child abuse and who manage to persuade the court that their ‘expertise’ is not to be questioned.
In the UK the Family Courts are shrouded in secrecy. Journalists are not usually permitted to attend the hearings. If on rare occasions they do - they are not allowed to report the cases. They – and the parents - are expressly forbidden to discuss the hearings with anyone – on pain of fines or imprisonment if they break their enforced silence. This is supposed to safeguard the ‘best interests of the child’ by protecting it from publicity – but all too often it simply gives certain social workers and pediatricians the freedom to peddle their particular beliefs as facts – without anyone being allowed to expose them to scrutiny and contradict them.
This has resulted in some hideous miscarriages of justice over the years. The cases described amply demonstrate the consequences of allowing zealots to peddle their trashy theories without checks and balances.
I don’t know how widely the Cleveland child abuse scandal in the late 1980s was reported in the United States. This case involved a pediatrician who got it into her head that most children in Cleveland (an area in Northeast England) were being systematically sexually abused by their fathers, or by other men in their families. She adopted a diagnostic technique known as reflex anal dilatation, to which she subjected all children who were referred to her by family doctors, regardless of the ailment from which they might have been suffering. Funnily enough, ALL the children she examined showed signs, according to her, of sexual abuse – as well as their healthy siblings, who were forcibly obliged to undergo the same anal examination. Her justification for presenting her theory as incontrovertible fact was that she had put her own children through this test and - getting a negative result - had come to the conclusion that any positive result had to mean that the child had been abused, despite her control group being far too small to offer any real proof that this was so.
The mind boggles! Nevertheless, she persuaded another pediatrician and a bevy of social workers that she was right – and to their eternal shame, not one of them had the guts to question her diagnoses. A kind of illogical herd mentality – a collective madness – seemed to have permeated the mindset of all those who were tasked with child welfare in the borough. Nobody thought to question the ridiculous assertion that not only was child abuse being practised on a massive scale previously unheard of in Cleveland, but also that the alleged abusers, from all social classes and all walks of life and who – prior to this case - did not even know one another, were molesting their children in AN IDENTICAL MANNER!
So many children were wrenched from their homes and placed in either children’s homes or foster care, with a view to eventual adoption. They were allowed no contact at all with their families and were subjected to interrogation techniques of which the Spanish Inquisition would have been proud. Their parents were threatened with all sorts of punishment if they should make any attempts to contact their children – or dare to talk about their situation to anyone.
However, despite such threats, many of those wronged parents went to their local member of parliament and told him what was happening. At first he could scarcely believe what he was being told. Then he got mad! And acted! He went public with the story and drew media attention to it. His own left-wing political party called him a traitor and threatened to throw him out – but he persisted. Good for him!
Now here’s where it gets really crazy! This same pediatrician carried on examining these children after they had been placed in foster homes – and then accused the foster parents of abusing these children as well. They too were arrested and investigated….
A public enquiry was eventually held into the matter – and the pediatrician shown to be dangerously misguided in her conduct.
The children were eventually returned to their homes – scarred forever by their experiences. And even today, there are parents who are terrified of taking their children to the doctor if they are ill, for fear that some other nutcase will decide that their children must be removed.

By: Nellie on 3/4/09
Then some years later, in 1991, we had the Orkney Satanic Ritual abuse cases – where one early morning, a number of dawn raids were made on homes in the Orkney Islands, north of mainland Scotland, and children forcibly removed and put on airplanes to be flown to children’s homes in Glasgow. This was because a little boy of five or six had drawn some pictures at school – which a teacher then decided were showing scenes of some perverted ritual. A social worker then got in on the act – you can guess the rest!
This time it was the parents themselves who protested publicly and loudly, despite the usual threats of fines etc if they went public. So many children had been taken in those dawn raids - and these articulate parents were not prepared to be intimidated into enforced silence. An inquiry was held. It was discovered that someone in the childcare services had this theory about satanic rituals being carried out all over the world, with children being sacrificed. Wacky or what?! But again, nobody used any common sense and questioned such theories. They just rushed in and took the children away. Fortunately the children were soon returned to their parents – but ALL were ordered – parents and children alike - not to talk about it. In 2006, BBC television broadcast a documentary about the Orkney satanic abuse case. The children are now all adults. Their anger at being treated in such a revolting manner was all too palpable. They were all emphatic, as were the Cleveland children, that they had never been abused by their parents. They were all equally insistent that the only abuse they had suffered was at the hands of those social workers who had taken them away and questioned them ceaselessly about the so-called abuse they had experienced at home. And if they didn’t give the answers the social workers wanted, they were questioned and bullied until they did.
One of the (at that time) older children described the tactics employed by the social workers. Each child was placed in a room with only the social worker there, shown ‘anatomically-correct’ dolls, told to produce drawings of the satanic abuse they had supposedly endured – and were asked leading questions which were repeated endlessly if the responses were not those that the social worker wanted. This child, by now an articulate and intelligent adult, described it as a kind of torture. The relentless, repeated questioning got to the stage where he became exhausted, just wanting the questioning to cease so that he could go to sleep. He was assured that, once he acknowledged that he – and other children – had been abused, he would be allowed to leave the room. He even began to wonder if perhaps something wicked really had happened to him and he’d somehow overlooked it! But always, he resisted the temptation to please the social worker – because he knew very well that neither he nor his younger sister had ever been abused – in any way – by his parents or any other adult on the Orkneys. What is truly shameful is that, in the TV documentary, the social worker at the forefront of this madness was still insistent that she was right! And that the, by now, adult children were merely in denial! Her arrogance is breathtaking. And so dangerous.

The vital point which both these dreadful cases demonstrates is this: The children who were taken away from their homes were subjected to a sustained and bullying campaign of questioning by ‘experts’ who simply repeated their questions, over and over again, in their efforts to wear those children down and force them to declare they had been abused. But the children remained adamant that no abuse had taken place. Fortunately, because of the public outcry, they were then rescued from the clutches of those ‘experts’ and returned to their homes - before the mindbenders had enough time to indoctrinate them. But if those children had been kept away from their parents and their homes for very much longer, we can only surmise how long they would have been able to resist the indoctrination that they were already experiencing at the hands of those who were determined to bend the facts to fit their wild theories.
This should give us all pause for thought.

By: SoSide on 3/4/09
Wow. I am learning so much here. Thanks to everyone for their input. I'm speechless.

By: chubbers on 3/4/09
Nellie,
What you wrote reminds me also of the Kniffen case in California back in 1982. Google it. The Kniffen's two children were coerced to claim that sexual abuse had occurred by their parents including wild tales of chains and hooks. No evidence was ever found, but because the children were basically "forced" by social workers/prosecutors to admit that abuse had occurred, the parents spent 14 years in prison! The two children were bounced around in foster homes for years, deprived of their loving parents. When they reached adulthood they both testified that no abuse ever occurred.

One has to wonder if Sandra Maple was like these nutty social workers. Pretty soon Marvin was believing Sandra's psycho-babble, if indeed it was psycho-babble. Most likely it was, but we'll never know.

By: stuart on 3/4/09
People just won't get it into their heads. Although social workers, police etc. might truly believe the statements and "confessions" they manage to coerce, they still do have mental illnesses. They are narcissistic bullies and they might not even know it. Ironically, it is they who are possibly "possessed", and not the people they are accusing. Possessed as in trying to create a world reality that is not of God, a reality that is based on the lies of Satan. Like Soviet Russia or something.

By: Nellie on 3/5/09
chubbers, thank you. I hadn’t heard of the Kniffen case before. When I Googled it, I found myself reading more and more – until the wee small hours of the morning. Heartbreaking – and oh yes! It made me very angry! So many phrases from the many articles that I read on that case stand out – but these two stay in my mind. They encapsulate the sick mindset of zealots for whom the ‘proving’ of their wild theories takes precedence over the welfare of those children and parents who have the misfortune to be caught up in the hysteria of their obsession.

From an article written in 1996 “…questioned the Kniffen children repeatedly, suggestively, and coercively. The children were told the truth was already known and they were wrong unless they confirmed the guilt of their parents. When questioned separately, each boy was falsely told his sibling had said they both had been abused a sex ring that included their parents. Authorities suggested the children could go home to their parents if they testified according to the wishes of the prosecutors…”

And this
“..The ongoing incarceration of the McCuans and Kniffens on the basis of totally spurious charges is a monstrous injustice that debases and delegitimizes the justice system in both California and the United States. The justice system in the United States can only move to restore its creditability when all four of these persons are freed from prison…”

I could weep for the children who, in so many cases, were bullied into making false allegations and who, all these years later, are still living with such huge feelings of guilt and remorse, believing that they had betrayed their parents. But it never was and never will be their fault that they did so. They were the innocent victims of bullies whose minds – to use chubber’s excellent term – were filled with psycho-babble. Child abuse of the most cruel and obscene kind.

Stuart Bell, the politician who exposed the scandal of the Cleveland child abuse case wrote a book about it: ‘When Salem Came to the Boro: True Story of the Cleveland Child Abuse Case’. If you can get hold of a copy, it’s well worth reading. Chilling stuff.

By: SocEtTuem on 3/5/09
jvschicago writes "SocET,

No, the key words here are "immediately necessary" and "imminent harm".

The instructions go on to define "imminent" as meaning "near at hand; on the point of happening."

Thanks for pointing that out. You are of course, completely correct.

By: stuart on 3/6/09
I think that if anyone wants a quick overview of how brainwashing works on small children, the movie to watch is "The Interrogation of Michael Crowe". This true story movie is informative because the victims were teenagers rather than small children. I don't necesarily think they all were brainwashed though. The basic story was that the evil police tapped into the teenagers deductive abilities. "Your Mom saw you enter the crime scene, Jane saw you leave the scene, Calvin says he loaned you his dagger, and Kevin says you wanted to kill, and Police ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH".
"Oh gosh, if that is true then I MUST HAVE DONE IT !!!"

Of course there was the food and sleep deprivation, and the police lied about all the clues.

Good cop, bad cop too.
"You parents told me they hate you now, but they will accept you back if you confess the crime, and then we will let you go home."

By: jvschicago on 3/7/09

"Thanks for pointing that out. You are of course, completely correct."

SocEt,

I can't even figure out his basis for entering a plea of "innocence", because I don't see what legal defense he could possibly have!

However, I've also looked up the statutes in Tennessee, and I'm afraid that the penalties for what the Maples did aren't anywhere steep enough.

By: motherof4 on 3/8/09
I haven't read any new news articles regarding mr. Maples lately. Does anyone know how he's holding up? Have the kids came from ca to tn to visit with him? How are the kids? And have they even communicated with their parents at all? This has got to be just torture for them. They live all these years not knowing whether their kids were alive or dead and now they find them but aren't able to get to know and enjoy each other. But, who knows what they were taught about their parents. It's really a sad and pathetic situation? Will the kids be called to testify? What kind of hearing is on march 17th? I don't agree with how the maples handled all of this. I love all of my children with all my heart and would do anything for them and my grandchildren. But, I would not kidnap my grandchildren if faced with the same situation. They surely had other options. How could the maples just abandon their other children? Is this really a good thing for them to teach jennifer and her brother, that when faced with a situation you run away instead of trying to work as a family and solve the problem? It appears to me that the maples didn't have that special love for their daughter that parents are suppose to have the minute that their daughter was placed in their arms.

By: Sameera on 3/8/09
To motherof4,

Nothing new as far as I know. I guess we will just have to wait for 17 March, which will probably be a preliminary hearing - unless something happens before then.

By: beenthere on 3/12/09
SOUTHSIDECA - I side with you. I am absolutely horrified by how judgmental people (strangers, if we want to get the facts straight) can get, when they have literally little to base their "verdict" on other than the filtered information through the media/infotainment. I don't know anyone involved in this case but I do know people who were sexually abused by family members in real life. People who haven't been in such shoes have no clue what trauma they go through. I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE A REASONABLE JUDGMENT BEYOND DOUBT, SO TO BE [BOLD]RESPONSIBLE[bold] I AM GOING TO LEAVE THINGS TO THE COURT.

By: Sameera on 3/14/09
Not far to go now until the preliminary hearing. I shall be looking forward to reading the Murfreesboro Post report and feedback.

By: reservingjudgment on 3/15/09
What is clear from the majority of posts on this site is that people find it difficult if not impossible to be objective about this case. It pushes buttons. If this goes to jury, I hope/pray that the jurors haven't already formed an opinion concerning guilt/innocence.

I've already indicated in prior posts, that I'm a journalist by background and have extensive experience in reporting on child abuse -- including child sexual abuse. I have spoken to dozens of adult survivors of child sexual abuse and have read extensively on this topic.

The bottom line is that child sexual abuse is most often not reported. When it is reported, it is very difficult to prove. Many, many cases leave no physical evidence. The crimes are done in secret. The investigations are secret due to privacy concerns for the parties involved. There is much fear and shame involved for the victims and incentive to keep the secret. Sure, there are the false cases some of the posters here have pointed out, but those are the exceptions.

Most of us can't fathom child sexual abuse. We don't want to believe it because it is so heinous. It is too ugly to look at.

It's highly unlikely anyone on this board knows the truth in this case. The parties who do know the truth may have distorted memories and/or cannot tell the truth because it would be self-incriminating.

I would like to hear from the principals in this case -- Christie/Jen, Bobby/Jon, Marvin and the Baskins. It may be an imperfect record of what happened, but it is more than we know now.

By: SocEtTuem on 3/16/09
Were back to the opinion that the Baskin's are guilty and that poor old man Maple is an innocent victim. The Baskin's were investigated and cleared 20+ years ago when it was still very much in vogue to drop the hammer on the accused "child molester" at the mere mention of abuse. Even then they were thoroughly investigated and CLEARED.

Now we have heard from everyone from wannabe journalists to wannabe child abuse "experts" that investigation doesn't matter! Those learned opinions are based purely on opinion and no more than an opinion. Unless you have something substantial - somehting of an evidentiary value, I suggest you drop the continued harping against those who have already been found innocent.

By: stuart on 3/20/09
ReservingJudgement, I think we are all quite objective enough, thank you. It is you who aren't objective. Rather than consider the FACTS of the preceding investigations, you are RESERVINGOPENINGYOURMIND until someone, somewhere will tell you what you want to hear. You just KNOW they will validate your suspicions.

I'm not saying that something won't come out that might alter my opinion, but I am fine forming my opinion via THE FACTS as they stand. And if something comes out that reverses my opinion I will make no apologies for earlier opinions formed without the missing information. The concrete information apparently witheld by Maples supporters, Information it now seems likely only exists in their minds.

By: reservingjudgment on 3/20/09
SocEtTuem: So, given your logic O.J. is innocent because he was "cleared" in a court of law. Investigators never make a mistake because they are perfect. The world is flat if an official investigation deems it so. And when you don't want to consider an alternate opinion, you call the source a "wannabe journalist." My posts are meant to educate about the realities of child sexual abuse. stuart: Judgment has only one "e." I do consider the outcome of the original investigation, but I don't take it as absolute fact -- only a piece of the puzzle.

I'm not condemning the Baskins. I am not saying Maples is innocent. I am, as my screen name suggests, reserving judgment until I have more information.

By: stuart on 3/21/09
The difference with the O.J. case was that there WAS evidence that cast doubt in most peoples minds. (history, Chauffers testimony, etc.) It wasn't just that there MIGHT BE evidence that is out there that we haven't uncovered yet.
If we always used your "logic" then the McMartins, Ramseys, and all those people released from death row on DNA evidence would still be under more suspicion.

By: SocEtTuem on 3/24/09
reservingjudgment writes "So, given your logic O.J. is innocent because he was "cleared" in a court of law."
No. OJ was cleared by jury nullification at a trial in which the evidence clearly demonstrated his guilt. Even you should be able to figure that out. If not, there is not room enough here to explain.

As for the flat earth anology, since we have empirical evidence that the world is round, the flat earth argument holds no water and becomes irrelevant. Any argument, official or otherwise can be easily refuted. Should you want to disregard the existing evidence and insist the earth is flat, the problem then lies with you and your obviously flawed claim. This is in essence what you are doing in regard to old man Maple. Incontrovertible evidence exists he and his late wife committed the crime of kidnapping. Moreover, evidence of specific deceit on the part of the Maple's is equally as clear. No evidence exists that the Baskins are guilty of anything. Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to draw a conclusion here. You obviously have an agenda, one that requires we disregard all evidence and accept your inane theory that multiple agencies were either grossly incompetent or part of a conspiracy to protect the Baskins. You have offered nothing with a capital N in terms of evidence to support your claims. You have offered opinion, nothing more.

Your posts educate no one. The claims you make are not based on fact, evidence or any level of officcial investigation past or present. Neither are they based on any hard science but rely solely on opinion. The posts do however reflect your personal agenda and prejudices.

Now if you would like to go back and reread some of your non-judgmental posts (thank you so much for pointing out the typo, we can only aspire to your level of perfection) you may want to reconsider your last assertion.

By: Nellie on 3/25/09
Hmm! When posting to forum threads, most of us type quickly - and in my case, being a two-finger typist, typos are an all too frequent occurrence! Unfortunate, of course. However, pointing out other posters' typos does rather suggest a lack of anything germane to contribute to the topic being discussed.

While we are all stating opinions here, many of us are also stating established facts about this case. I would add that some of us have had a great deal of professional as well as personal experience in dealing with children and their families. We are well aware of the fact that abuse takes place - and that abusers can be skilled liars, adept at presenting an acceptable and convincing public face.

We also know that false allegations of abuse, as a means of shutting one or both parents out of a child's life, is a device which is increasingly being used by the unscrupulous. It is indeed cruel to rob parents of their children by such deceits. But it is wicked beyond belief to rob children of their parents, their siblings, their extended families, their true identities - above all, their inalienable right to know and grow up in their own families simply because of covetousness.

That is why the majority of posters rightly condemn Marvin Marple and his late wife. The allegations of abuse were thoroughly investigated and found to be without merit. That didn’t fit in with the Maples' selfish desires to keep the Baskins' children. so they went on the run with them. They stole the birthright of their daughter's children when they kidnapped them. Nothing can excuse that.

By: Sameera on 3/25/09
The perpetual sticking point against Marvin and the late Sandra Maple is: if they genuinely believed the parents were child abusers, why did thy make no moves to remove the third child from their care? Why was the third child left behind, so to speak, to the mercies of his alleged abusers? It has been said that this was because the parents were out of state at the time, but I don't buy that for one moment - especially when the parents moved back to state for the custody battle.

By: stuart on 3/26/09
Sameera, maybe the Baskins just made up the story about the "learning disability" of the youngest child to protect him from being kidnapped by the grandparents.

If the grandmother was a Borderline Personnality Disorder sufferer, then she would not have wanted anything to do with a handicapped child. In her mind it's all about her, all about appearances. The children being just props in the staging of her lifes drama. Certainly she could talk her way out of these inconvenient indiscrepancies, no matter how lame the explainations are. Again, it's all about HER. (and/or Marvin)

By: Sameera on 4/7/09
Dear Stuart,

Thanks for your theory, but I think the learning disability is genuine enough.