By: Onthehill on 3/16/09
If this grandfather did this to save their life or keep them from further harm...I don't blame him. It seem to me, that seeing that the two, now being grown adults, don't want to meet the parents, speaks volumes to me. They seem to have flourished and have not suffered at the hands of the grandfather. The only thing that I wonder about, is if he did take them to protect them..it seems that they would come to his defense, but have not seen this happen yet. This is an interesting case.

By: Sameera on 3/16/09
Now that preliminary hearing didn't take long....

By: Nellie on 3/17/09
It is hardly surprising that the adult children don't - at this time - want to meet their parents. After all, they've been led to believe, for more than 20 years, that the Maples have been the only ones who had sacrificed themselves in order to save them from harm at the hand of their parents.
The only thing that this matter 'speaks volumes' of is 20 years of continued brainwashing! Maybe the coming weeks will at last bring to these young adults a clearer picture of what this was really all about - a couple who had a problem with observing the law when it didn't give them what they wanted. Namely, their own daughter's children to keep for themselves.

By: Bosda on 3/17/09
The parents were cleared of all abuse charges years ago, by the authorities.
Onthehill--do you have an agenda, for saying otherwise? Are you related to Maples or his late wife?

By: motherof4 on 3/17/09
Have the kids had any contact with their grandfather? Knowing the legal system it could take years before this case goes to court? Mr. Maples could be dead before he has his day in court.

By: raspberry on 3/19/09
What happened at the March 17 hearing?

By: raspberry on 3/19/09
What!!!!!!! Postponing again? I can't believe this! He needs some punishment and it needs to be more than house arrest!!!

By: stuart on 3/20/09
The children have believed for 20 years that Marvin sacrificed everything for them. It's hard for them to now believe the opposite, that all the herculanian sacrifice by the grandparents was actually pure selfisheness, and only for show to boost their pathetically weak egos.

By: stuart on 3/20/09
In other words "Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy"

By: Nellie on 3/20/09
The pity of it is that, as well as the Baskin children having been brainwashed by that unlovely pair of kidnappers, it seems that the Maples' other daughters have been persuaded - or have kidded themselves by rationalizing their parents' disappearance - that the senior Maples were motivated by pure, unselfish and noble intentions.
These women may also be having difficulty in accepting the far more sordid truth; that their parents, in a fit of pique at not getting what they desired from the law, decided that stealing their own daughter's children and hiding them away mattered more to them than the happiness and peace of mind of their other daughters.
There is speculation that these women aided and abetted the Maples during their years on the run. Could this be the reason for their hostility to their own sister - or does the venom they are directing at Debbie Baskin spring from blaming her for losing their parents?
Sometimes it is hard to have the scales removed from our eyes - to see people we know and love for what they really are. Not noble, not sacrificial, not pure. Just selfish.

By: reservingjudgment on 3/20/09
Why bother having a court hearing when so many posters on this board have it all figured out. Stuart has even come up with a diagnosis. Perhaps he could be an "expert witness," in the event someone believes a trial is warranted. Are you the same Stuart who indicated on another board that you are "objective" about this case?! When all else fails, by all means attack anyone who has a different opinion. For example, just "assume" Onthehill is a Maples relative.

By: jvschicago on 3/21/09

reserving judgment,

Geez, one more time---the Baskins (the children's REAL parents) were already investigated, and cleared! Not just by the court system, but also by the journalists who investigated and ran their story! Don't you think "Unsolved Mysteries" and "America's Most Wanted" investigates before they broadcast a story to the world? If they, or anyone else, could have dug up any "dirt" on the Baskins, don't you think they would have reported it?

What do you think would make for a better story? The kidnapping of grandchildren, or a cult of satan worshippers who sexually abuse their own children? Gee, if I was a reporter, and I even thought the satan worshipping/sexual abuse angle could possibly be true, that's the story I'd go for! And I don't have any doubt that more than 1 journalist was intelligent enough to have come up with the idea of placing the Baskins placed under surveillance for a while, or going undercover to try and "catch" them at one of these imaginary "satanic cult" meetings--so they could report it!

No one ever reported anything of the kind though, did they? You know why that is? Because it was nothing more than a great big lie perpetrated by the kidnappers!

Getting a continuance? I've no doubt it's an intentional legal strategy--after all, the longer he can "stall" the trial, the longer Maple gets to retain his freedom! Crafty move on the part of Maple's lawyer!

By: Undecided on 3/22/09
jvschicago, you consider getting a continuance as a "crafty move"? More like simple "standard procedure."

I think the "satanic cult" accusation was something that was just kinda thrown out there as a last-ditch desperate effort and not something that anyone pursued for long.

And, in other threads in this newspaper's files, posters have mentioned that the "sexual abuse" might have just been Mark Baskin's dad peeing out in the field (as most farmers would do) when the kids were with him, and then the whole thing getting blown out of proportion with either Debbie or her mom accusing him of "exposing himself." That would be difficult for newspaper reporters to investigate since the kids were sent to live with the Maples. Therefore, they were not around Mr. Baskin, so there would not be a repeat performance in front of them for reporters to observe.

Finally, if you really think that being cleared by social workers or courts means that the charges didn't happen, then you're sadly mistaken. If you read the newspapers much, you'll quickly see that repeat offenders have often been previously found innocent. Then, they strike again.

By: Sameera on 3/22/09
Yes, but is there any evidence of the Baskins doing "repeat offending"? Were any further charges of child abuse made against them after the custody battle? If so, why were they allowed to adopt a fourth child and retain custody of their third child?

By: Undecided on 3/22/09
Well, it's hard to discuss when we really don't know what the original offense was. If it was something that Debbie and Mark did, then maybe they just got more subtle. Thousands of kids are molested by relatives for years on end without anyone ever knowing. The kids are either assured that it's "normal," or they're afraid to talk.

The youngest of Mark and Debbie's sons had a learning disability (here, too, I haven't seen anyone absolutely say what he had), so that might add to the ease of hiding anything going on. And, an adopted child might be so grateful to have parents that he doesn't speak up, either.

I'm just throwing out ideas of possible scenarios because I really don't know. But, any of these are certainly common.

By: stuart on 3/23/09
I think the "learning disability" is just some convoluted story conjured up by some Maples to "explain" in a disturbed way the "reason" for not bothering to kidnap the "imperfect" grandchild. To an insane person with Munchausen Syndrome bP it would all make perfect sense. They would think everyone would accept that explaination, not realizing their own insanity and thinking everyone thinks as they do.

By: Nellie on 3/23/09
While it is undoubtedly true that child abuse does go on - and that abusers can and do get away with their disgusting activities, it is also true that false allegations of abuse are all too often made as a means of one parent obtaining custody of a child - and effectively shutting the other parent out of that child's life. More often than not this happens when parents split up but over the years it has sadly become a device increasingly being used by grandparents - usually after parents separate - either as a means of stopping the non-custodial parent from having any contact with the child, or even in an attempt to reverse a custody decision and grant custody of the child to their own son or daughter instead of their ex son or daughter-in-law.

This case, although unusual in that the Maples kidnapped the children from both their parents, is motivated by by their desire to keep their daughter's children for themselves. The abuse allegations, as has frequently been pointed out, were thoroughly and painstakingly investigated over a long period - during which time the children remained with the Maples. It is significant that they were seemingly not bothered by the fact that the youngest and presumably most vulnerable child was to be left with his allegedly abusive parents.

No - the authorities made their decision and the Maples would not accept it. Just how many bites at the cherry did the Maples and their few supporters think they were entitled to have, in order to get their own way? The havoc they have wreaked, the damage and distress they have caused, is unforgivable.

By: jvschicago on 3/23/09
Undecided,

In calling the continuance a "crafty move", well, that was just my rather feeble attempt at civility as I really consider it as nothing more than a slimy, underhanded legal con job--I don't believe for one second the attorney needed more time to investigate. Maybe for the trial, but not for a preliminary hearing! What a crock! But I have no doubt he'll come up with many more excuses for a whole SLEW of continuances before this case makes it to trial, that is, if Maple lives that long, which I somehow doubt.

I really liked the way you trivalized the "satanic cult" accusations as nothing more than something thrown out there as a "last ditch effort." Oh my GOD! What kind of person makes up that horrific and nasty a lie? Oh wait! That's right, the type of people who believe they're entitled to say and do anything they want, up to, and including, KIDNAPPING other people's children! So lets see, you feel the Maples lied about the "satanic cult" BS, but were telling the truth about molestation? Real credible!

I'll give you props for getting one thing right there, yep, it's pretty much accepted that pedophiles don't stop! If they're free, they continue molesting children, over and and over again.

So if Mark Baskin actually did sexually molest his own child, surely over the course of the past 20 years, there'd have to be others, right? So where are they? In 20 years, not a single one has come forward? Even as adults, they're still ALL too afraid of the Baskins, huh? Real plausible!

The Baskin's younger son, Micheal? Yeah, he may have a learning disability, but he also has his own "facebook" page, enjoys team sports and on-line gaming, and gee, "Monk" is one of my favorite TV shows too! He can read you know, so if you have any more insulting insuations about him, you may want to keep them to yourself!

As far as their adopted son, Paul, being "so grateful to have parents..." WHAT?? He was a 5 week old BABY when the Baskins were lucky enough to have been entrusted with his care! They also had to undergo yet another exhausting investigation before receiving adoption approval, so it's not Paul who's "grateful" to have the Baskins as parents--it's the other way around!

And Paul is 16 years old, and a rather nice looking young man to boot! If you've read these forums then you should know he's also posted here, so again, maybe you should give a little consideration to his feelings before posting anymore of your uninformed speculative accusations.

By: Rascal on 3/23/09
jvschicago said "
I really liked the way you trivalized the "satanic cult" accusations as nothing more than something thrown out there as a "last ditch effort." Oh my GOD! What kind of person makes up that horrific and nasty a lie? Oh wait! That's right, the type of people who believe they're entitled to say and do anything they want, up to, and including, KIDNAPPING other people's children! So lets see, you feel the Maples lied about the "satanic cult" BS, but were telling the truth about molestation? Real credible! "

In my opinion, the satanic cult accusations come from people who are receiving advice from Faye Yager founder of Children of the Underground who it is documented that the Maples' had contact with before they fled. Under her advice these allegations are used as a last-ditch effort in child custody cases.

"The Baskin's younger son, Micheal? Yeah, he may have a learning disability, but he also has his own "facebook" page, enjoys team sports and on-line gaming, and gee, "Monk" is one of my favorite TV shows too! He can read you know, so if you have any more insulting insuations about him, you may want to keep them to yourself!"

Michael also attends college, so you can see that the Baskin's have done a good job with this young man who has had some learning challenges.

By: Undecided on 3/23/09
Actually, stuart, the "learning disability" has been mentioned in many places by the Baskins, not something imagined by the Maples.

jvschicago, I hate continuances as much as you, but I do recognize that they are a STANDARD part of trials. And, as Rascal rightly noted, Faye Yager, who probably helped the Maples get their new ID, etc., often recommended the "satanic cult" accusation. Furthermore, "satanic cult" was the current buzzword in other types of trials at that time. So, it's not a big surprise that the Maples would use it.

You said, "So if Mark Baskin actually did sexually molest his own child, surely over the course of the past 20 years, there'd have to be others, right? So where are they? In 20 years, not a single one has come forward? Even as adults, they're still ALL too afraid of the Baskins, huh? Real plausible!" But, what you said makes no sense. He only had two other children (not "ALL"). And, I've already mentioned why they might not have come forward. Above and beyond that, we don't even know what the original charge was -- was it something Mark did, or was it something his dad did? The news reports have been vague on this topic.

If either of them choose to read these sorts of forums, then they are also choosing to read everyone's speculation. If we were worried about them reading it, then this whole thread should be eliminated. All of it.

By: jvschicago on 3/24/09

Undecided,

Provisions for continuances were not created so attorneys could regard them as a "loophole" to be taken advantage of.
The very fact YOU regard continuances as a "STANDARD part of trials" only proves that there's a good reason attorneys have earned a rather well deserved slimy reputation--it doesn't make it OK! Not anymore than attempting to "shift the blame" for making up dispicable "satanic cult" lies and kidnapping onto Faye Yager, which is pretty much the equivalent of attempting to justify murder by claiming the killers only acted on the "advice" of Charles Manson!

What I said makes no sense? Oh, so it's your contention that pedophiles only molest their OWN children? Oh, yeah, that theory makes so much more sense! Geez! FYI, we DO know what the original "accusation" the Maples made was. The Baskins had agreed to allow their children to remain living with the Maples to finish out the school year, and came to visit about a month before they were to take them home. As they were no longer welcome at the Maples, they got a hotel room. What the Maples alleged is that Mark Baskin molested his son, Bobby, during that 1 night they stayed in that hotel room--right in front of his wife, daughter, and other son? Yeah, right! Oh, and then the Maples waited for over a month before going to the authorities--right before the Baskins came to pick up their children for good. Again, real plausible!

And as far as Paul and Michael reading these forums? Well gee, the Baskins aren't the ones being charged with a crime. They're not on trial here--much less their children! Paul and Michael's interest here would be in seeing justice served to the person who stole their brother and sister from them--not in listening to your dirty, snide insinuations about them! Paul and Michael are the INNOCENT victims in all this, and from what I can see, the one who is engaging in abusing children here is YOU.

By: Undecided on 3/24/09
jvschicago, people here haven't been using sarcastic tones and snippy comments (like your "Again, real plausible!") to you, please refrain from doing it to us.

You're taking what Rascal and I said and twisting it drastically away from what we clearly meant. I stated that I hate continuances, too, but that they're normal. With an insulting capitalized "YOU," you claimed that I thought that was OK. I truly dislike them; but they are a standard part of the process and used by both sides. That's simply a fact of our current court system.

And, by mentioning Faye Yager, we weren't attempting to "shift the blame" so much as just explain where the idea came from. Just provide information by answering the question that you asked, "What kind of person makes up that horrific and nasty a lie?" We were not making judgments as to it being either right or wrong. Merely stating the facts that you had requested.

And, if you'll read carefully, you'll see that I did not say that pedophiles only molest their OWN children? Not anywhere. First, you'll note that I was quoting your own words, "So if Mark Baskin actually did sexually molest his own child, surely over the course of the past 20 years, there'd have to be others, right?" So, I was following up on your own comment about him molesting his own child.

Second, maybe you haven't done a lot of study about molesters, but generally they do follow predictable predilections. For example, often if a child was first molested when he was 12, then when he grows up he'll be most attracted to kids right around the age 12. Or, if he was molested by his own father, he'll molest his own kids, but not kids outside of his family. Of course, that's not true for all, but many do follow this pattern and keep it within the family. So, the fact that someone molested his own child does not make it a given fact that he will molest anyone else's children (though, of course, he might).

Thank you for providing the story about the molestation accusation. Where did you find it? I'd like to read it in its original form.

And, I didn't make "dirty, snide insinuations about them." All I did was answer your questions as to how Mark might have gotten away with further molesting his own children without them saying anything to anyone. I gently said that Michael's learning disability (a well-known fact, not a "dirty insinuation"), might add to the ease of hiding anything going on, as might the fact that an adopted child (also a well-known fact, not a "snide insinuation") might be so grateful to have parents that he doesn't speak up, either. AND, I ended by saying something you seem to be ignoring: "I'm just throwing out ideas of possible scenarios because I really don't know. But, any of these are certainly common."

Certainly these two boys are innocent victims. So, since you yourself seem to know the case well, and could pretty easily predict what answers might be posted when you ask the questions you ask, maybe you should refrain from asking questions that will elicit answers that they might not want to read.

By: Undecided on 3/24/09
jvschicago, why were the Baskins no longer welcome at her mother and father's home?

By: Rascal on 3/24/09
It was asked where to find the story of the molestation accusation, here is one account at
http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3817&Itemid=53

"Police in San Jose, Calif., arrested Marvin Maple on charges he and his wife, Sandra Maple, kidnapped the two siblings during a family dispute that began when Mark Baskin decided to further his education at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.

In an episode of the "Unsolved Mysteries" television show in the 1990s, Mark and Debbie Baskin said they expected money to be tight until they could find jobs, and Debbie's parents offered to take the two older children -- ages 8 and 7 -- into their home in Murfreesboro, Tenn., for the summer, while they headed off to Kentucky with their youngest child, who was 5.

Getting settled took longer than expected, and the children remained with their grandparents until Christmas. During a visit Debbie Baskin had a falling out with her mother and said she wanted to take her children back. The relationship continued to sour to the point that when visiting their children the Baskins were no longer welcome in the Maple home and stayed in a motel.

Christie and Bobby Baskin, now known as Jenny and Jonathan Bunting, were found 20 years after allegedly being abducted by their grandparents.
Following a visit in April 1988, the Maples petitioned for custody of the two children, claiming Bobby had been molested by both of his parents during their last visit. After a court hearing, at which Debbie Baskin claimed both of her parents perjured themselves, a judge gave the grandparents temporary custody pending a police investigation and psychiatric evaluation of both couples."

Also might answer a bit of Undecided's question about why the Baskin's were not longer welcome in the Maple home. Although I don't think the Baskin's have ever quite understood what was going on with her parents.

By: jvschicago on 3/24/09

Undecided,

The kidnapping of these children occurred over 20 years. I live in Chicagoland now, but was living down south at the time and remember the case well.

This case was on the TV show "Unsolved Mysteries" a number of years ago. I recently rewatched it on "Youtube," and it's been on a number of other internet sites, however every time someone posts the TV sement, within a day or so, it gets removed! Undoubtly by Marvin Maple's attorney. John Walsh also discussed this case on "America's Most Wanted."

Basically what happened is that the Baskins had decided to move so Mark could finish up his theology degree at a Southern Baptist seminary in Kentucky. The Baskins didn't have much money so they agreed to allow their children to stay with the Maples for a couple of months while they found jobs and
got settled.

At first the kids were only going to stay with the Maples for the summer, but it took a little longer than expected for the Baskins to get jobs and a suitable place to live with the children, so the kids started school, and when the Baskins tried to retreive their children at Christmas, well, the Maples didn't want to give them back and talked Debbie into allowing her children to remain there until the end of the school year.

But Mrs. Maple kept pressuring Debbie into allowing them to keep the children permanently, and when Debbie wouldn't give in, she got mad, and that's when the Maples announced the Baskins were no longer welcome at their home, and is why they had to stay in a hotel instead when they came to visit their children.

It was roughly 1 week before the Baskins were to return to bring their children home that the Maples went to court to try to convince the judge to give them permanent custody of the children, alleging molestation as a basis. They managed to somehow convince the judge to allow them to retain temporary custody during investigation--when he should have placed them in foster care instead!

The court system took almost another whole year investigating the Baskins, during which time the Maples kept the children. The children underwent psychiatric exam, and the professional opinion rendered was that the children had been "coached" by the Maples, especially since their stories were completely inconsistent, and grew more and more fantastic and unbelievable every time they were examined.

How do I know all this? Because the detectives, social workers and other court officers were interviewed on "Unsolved Mysteries" and flat-out stated it--for the record, on camera!

And again, don't you think the journalists performed an extensive investigation of the facts before airing these shows? After all, if anything said was untrue or slanderous, they'd be exposing themselves to a lawsuit! And if they could have found any "dirt" on the Baskins, don't you think they'd have aired that story instead?

The only "facts" in your allegations are that Paul was adopted and Michael has a learning disability. The "dirty, snide insinuations" you made were in the wild speculations you've been making, in what appears to be a desperate, and rather pathetic attempt to discredit the Baskins! I know what you're doing, and don't think you're fooling anyone else here either.

I know all about molesters and I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your imaginary fantasies. Especially since you obviously haven't even bothered to learn enough about this case before you started throwing out your unfounded and completely uninformed "scenerios."

You might want to do a little research first before coming up with anymore crapola--sorry, but I can't think of any other more suitable words to express the complete nonsense you've been spouting here other than calling it the "crapola" it is.

To do a little more research, you may want to check out the "sitcomsonline.com" board for "Unsolved Mysteries" where there are people who have been closely following this case now for the past 20 years, hoping for some resolution. There's a number of threads there regarding this case, the most recent is now 45 pages long.

By: Rascal on 3/24/09
jvschicago said "This case was on the TV show "Unsolved Mysteries" a number of years ago. I recently rewatched it on "Youtube," and it's been on a number of other internet sites, however every time someone posts the TV sement, within a day or so, it gets removed! Undoubtly by Marvin Maple's attorney. John Walsh also discussed this case on "America's Most Wanted." "

I think that the video gets removed by Cosgrove-Meurer the original producers of "Unsolved Mysteries". That's what has been stated when I've tried watch it and it wouldn't play.

By: Rascal on 3/24/09
Jvschicago said "They managed to somehow convince the judge to allow them to retain temporary custody during investigation--when he should have placed them in foster care instead!"

I so agree with you there. If those kids had been in foster care, this whole kidnapping may not have ever occurred. The children wouldn't have been under the influence of either party and would not have been able to be "coached" any further (if they were being).

By: jvschicago on 3/24/09
"jvschicago, people here haven't been using sarcastic tones and snippy comments (like your "Again, real plausible!") to you, please refrain from doing it to us."

I'm not doing it to "us", just YOU. You are attempting to use the Queen's English" on me, well, you're not the Queen, and you don't speak for everyone on this board, so I have no idea why you feel so entitled.

As far as "sarcastic tones and snippy comments" go? What you call "scenerios", I call flat-out lying. Using a "nice tone" to perpetrate lies in an attempt to "villanize the victims" here I find dispicable. The only "basis" you have for your supposed "scenerios" (ie., lies) is the "word" of a person who illegally abducted 2 children! It would amaze me that anyone could rely on the word of such a person, but I guess as you believe you're entitled to speak for the entire board here, I'm not surprised.

Again, the Baskins were investigated and CLEARED of any wrongdoing. They are not the ones on trial; this is a KIDNAPPING case, and the one on trial is the kidnapper, Marvin Maple. The fact that he and his wife took someone else's children without any legal right to do so is not in dispute.

The only "questions" I "asked" were rhetorical in nature, which should have been pretty obvious, even to you. By definition, rhetorical questions do not require an answer, so I wasn't asking for one. You knew that too, didn't you? And just feel like playing "semantics" with me, right? Oh, again, that was rhetorical, so no need to answer, but you just go right ahead and do it anyway as I doubt you can resist.

Once again, Paul and Michael are INNOCENT victims here who I doubt desire to be exposed to your wild speculations and nasty insinuations. Would you say these things to their face? No, you're saying it while cowering in hiding behind the anonymity of a public board which I find cowardly and unforgivably rude! Even if these 2 children don't read your words, you don't think their friends, relatives and classmates will? Do you even have a clue as to how embarrassing do you think it must be for them to have to go to school or to their friends houses knowing or learning about the nasty gossip you've been generating about them here? Do you have any conscience whatsoever? Again, rhetorical!

I stand by my statement that the only one who is abusing children here is YOU.

By: Rascal on 3/24/09
Another thing about the "Unsolved Mysteries" segment. Apparently at least one of the informants went online and watched the video segment from U.M., and while U.M. may be receiving some of the credit for the Bobby and Christi being found, it is the creators of U.M. who kept removing the video everytime it was posted online. The person who deserves some of the credit is the person who never gave up and kept posting that video over and over again. Ironic.

By: Undecided on 3/24/09
Rascal, thank you for trying to answer a bit of why Debbie’s parents no longer welcomed the Baskins in their home, and for the further explanation that Debbie hasn’t ever quite understood what was going on with her parents.

By: Undecided on 3/24/09
jvschicago, you’re welcome to think that I’m trying to discredit the Baskins, but that’s not the case. I’m just trying to look at both sides of the story and ask questions about either side, or to comment on the questions that others ask (rhetorically or otherwise).

I heartily agree that Paul and Michael are the innocent victims in all of this. The comments I've made in response to your questions about what their father's actions MIGHT have been were based on actual scenarios that are sadly common throughout our society among thousands of families that have been torn apart by child molesters. I clearly stated that this was just a generality and not something specific to their situation: "I'm just throwing out a couple of ideas of possible scenarios because I really don't know."

I cannot figure out why you said that I based my scenarios on the word of Marvin Maple. I haven’t read his words anywhere. Have you? To risk repeating myself (and beating a very dead horse), I based my comments on common situations in abuse cases.

Yes, I’ve been reading the thread at the sitcomsonline.com board for "Unsolved Mysteries" since right after Christi and Bobby were found, and recently asked someone with a name similar to yours (jvsgooch) a question about erroneous “statistics” that were posted there.

You said, “I'm not doing it to "us", just YOU.” Actually, you started on reservingjudgment by snippily saying “Geez, one more time.” Further, you twisted Rascal’s comment in addition to mine. Therefore, I was using “we” correctly since you were insulting more than one person. (By the way, you’re using the “Queen's English," also, since that term just means “standard English.” What you were unsuccessfully trying to accuse me of was using the “royal we,” which is the first-person plural pronoun used by a king or queen to refer to himself or herself in formal settings.)

You are correct that this is a kidnapping case and that the Maples took the kids without legal authority. But, it is inaccurate to say that “the one on trial is the kidnapper, Marvin Maple.” Since he has not finished his trial yet, he has not been declared a “kidnapper” by the court. I look forward to hearing the details of the trial.

By: stuart on 3/24/09
The Baskins maybe felt a need to cite the youngest childs "learning dissability" as an explaination for not including the youngest child to live with the grandparents.(lucky for him).
They owe no explaination or excuses for their decision. In normal families the grandparents or other family members pitch in to give a boost for other family members getting started.
The bullying Maples apparently planted some doubt and guilt onto the Baskins to the point where the Baskins doubted the righteousness of the choice to have the kids live with the grandparents temporarily.
It's really done all the time, having kids spend the summers at Grandparents or cousins house. Especially with divorces and widowhood and health issues. I personally know of all three of those situations right now where there have been those long visits.

By: jvschicago on 3/24/09

Undecided,

I just knew you couldn't resist.

I am jvsgooch on the other board. The reason I used jvschicago here was because if you look at some of the other posts from earlier articles, a number of Maple's relatives were accusing anyone who supported the Baskins of being a relative of the Baskins. I am not a relative, nor have I ever met the Baskins so I felt the need to specify where I live in my user name here to avoid diverting the discussion with those same accusations--not that it's any of your business.

Maybe you'd better go back and read through this thread again because although Rascal has responded to several of my posts, I have not responded to ANY of his or directed a single one of my comments to Rascal on this thread. In case you failed to notice, Rascal and I appear to be in agreement here.

So that brings it down to only 2 posters you're trying to convince me I've insulted here. So, did reservingjudgment give you license to speak for him/her? Power of attorney? Or make you his/her Queen? If not, then what exactly is it that makes you imagine you are entitled to speak for another poster or anyone else? Most adults are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves! Once again, you are not the Queen, and have no right to use the "Queen's English" to speak for anyone other than yourself. Although I have no doubt you imagined you were being quite clever with your fanciful little speech there. Sorry, I'm not impressed.

Second, as far as who's insulting who here? You imagine you can convince me that my statment, "Geez, one more time" was rude and insulting, while discounting and trivializing your incredibly ignorant, nasty, not to mention totally fabricated, abuse speculations regarding the INNOCENT children, Paul and Michael? You think you can just write off your demeaning, insulting, and embarrassing statements about them by pretending you were just speaking in generalities? Well, every slimy, underhanded, low-life gossipmonger I've ever known operates on that exact same double standard, Oh! But I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just speaking in "generalities" too! Pathetic!

Tell me, do you actually believe the things you've been saying, or are you just being intentionally obnoxious? Oh, and as you've also expressed your desire to answer all questions, rhetorical or not, then you shouldn't mind my also asking, how old are you? The reason I ask is because you're playing a semantical word game usually engaged in by teenagers, but once they realize most full-grown adults see right through this type of nonsense and won't put up they grow out of it pretty fast--that is, if they ever want to be taken seriously in the adult world. But I'm bored, so I'll entertain your idiocy anyway.

So you can't figure out why I said you based your "scenerios" (ie., lies) on the word of Marvin Maple? Total mystery to you, huh? Well, the Maples were the only ones who made any abuse allegations against the Baskins, so if you weren't basing your "scenerios" (ie., lies) on Maple's word, then how did you ever manage to dream them up on your own?

Your problem appears to be an inability to understand the use of expressions and "figures of speech" we human beings use to communicate. That the child molestation and abuse allegations were based on nothing more than the "word" of the Maples is a "figure of speech". Now, please go look up the definition of "figure of speech!"

The FACT of the matter is that there has never been any actual physical evidence of abuse found or any other evidence either. The abuse allegations were based on nothing more that than Maple's "word". Oh, and as many families that have been "torn apart by child molesters," well, how many do you think have been completely destroyed by those who make FALSE accusations of the same?

Now, do you understand yet, or do I need to clarify it for you further?


If you are having this much of a problem understanding, then you need to go take some classes on the english language because people are not going to spend their entire lives defining words and expressions just for you!

Next, taking other people's children without any legal authority that don't belong to you is the very definition of "kidnapping". In the "eyes of the law" he may be considered innocent until proven guilty, but first of all, I am not the law and this is not a court of law so I am not required to base my opinion on a jury's decision. Second, as the purpose of THIS forum is to enable people to express their OPINIONS, well, in MY opinion, Marvin Maple is a kidnapper.

Again, by definition, an "opinion" is neither right or wrong, it is an simply an OPINION. So it is your statement that is not only "inaccurate", but flat-out wrong!

If you do not understand what I just said, please look up the definition of the word "opinion" and at least attempt to gain some understanding of the meaning of the word before spouting off again.

You having fun amusing yourself with your little joke of playing word games here on this board?

You so obviously don't care about the effect your words have on anyone, especially not Paul and Michael. You've shown no consideration for their feelings or a single shred of empathy for the pain and suffering of those involved, as your only agenda here appears to be in amusing yourself. How's that working out for you?

You want respect? Well, try demonstrating some in your next post.

By: Undecided on 3/25/09
jvschicago, since you demonstrated that you refuse to understand the difference between the term the "Queen's English" (normal English) and the "royal we," even after a dictionary definition was provided for both ideas, I'm surely not going to bother to wade through all the other inaccuracies in your post.

By: jvschicago on 3/25/09

Undecided,

Being as you seem to be intent on nitpicking at words instead of discussing the actual topic here, your use of the word "ideas" was incorrect, as an "idea" is not a synonym for a literary expression.

Once again, substituting "the Queen's English" for "the royal we" is what is called a "figure of speech." I'm sorry if you don't understand this, but I'm not providing you with any more explanations. This is not an english grammer board, and you seem to be incapable of sticking to the topic at hand--the upcoming trial for a kidnapping case. The only thing your condensending superiority attitude actually indicates, is your lack of maturity.

By: mikewest on 3/25/09
jvschicago, undecided ... stick to the subject.

By: Rascal on 3/25/09
Sounds like a plan, and/or use the private msg. function over at Sitcoms Online to continue this between each other, please. Thanks.

By: Undecided on 3/25/09
Oh, believe me, I'm not wasting another moment on jvschicago's incorrect rants. (And, Rascal, jvschicago seems to be afraid of simple facts because he/she isn't posting to answer my question over on Sitcoms Online.)

By: aliceinwonderland on 3/26/09
My few cents: I agree with jvschicago that undecided's comments here are a sneaky and thinly veiled attempt to cast shade on Baskins and clear Maples' reputation. Undecided's speculations can indeed be hurting Baskin's children (all 4 of them) feelings, and instead of recognizing this fact, undecided keeps on attacking jvschicago by calling his posts "incorrect rants".

However, I suggest to jvschicago to stop trying to address everything that undecided claims because it begins to take us off track.

If anyone finds any problems with my English, please don't post your feedback, but rather send to me personally. I always appreciate corrections: English is my second language :))

By: Sameera on 4/1/09
The case occurred during the height of the satanic ritual abuse panics. The whole thing has now been discredited as a hoax, a modern version of old witchcraft accusations as well as a modern witchhunt. Unfortunately, by the time the satanic ritual abuse died down, hundreds, if not thousands, of lives were ruined because of it. Parents lost custody of their children and even seeing them kidnapped because of false accusations; creche centres and day care workers found themselves in prison and their careers destroyed; hundreds of children were brainwashed into saying things that weren't true and now probably have very vivid but questionable memories of being abused - just as bad as real child abuse; and police officers, social workers, child psychologists and other child therapy workers ruined their reputations with overzealous and/or incompetent questioning.

The Baskin case must be remembered in this light and it should be borne in mind that if anything genuine did happen it would have been distorted, smothered and irretrievably lost amid a morass of hysteria and questioning which is now considered dangerous - that alone can brainwash a child into saying things that didn't happen, but people believe them because "children don't lie", and it was the height of the satanic ritual abuse panic.

By: Nellie on 4/2/09
We saw all this happen in the Cleveland and Orkney 'abuse' cases in the UK, back in the 80s and early 90's, when 'experts' insisted that children were being sexually or satanically abused - by fathers or other men in their families - and the authorities simply came in and took the children away from their homes. Hysteria and panic ruled the day. These children were summarily removed from their parents without anyone in authority having the common sense and guts to challenge such sweeping allegations.

Fortunately, such was the indignation and anger of the wronged parents - who, in the UK, are threatened with fines or imprisonment if they dare talk to anyone about what happens in child custody/welfare matters - that they defied such threats and went public with these gross injustices. In both the Cleveland and the Orkney cases, such was the public outrage that the children were returned to their homes and families - and public enquiries held into both cases. The allegations of abuse were found to be without merit.

Fortunately, those children were held captive by the authorities for comparatively short periods of time - but not before undergoing highly disturbing and dubious forms of questioning by social workers. Each child was isolated, shown anatomically-correct dolls and repeatedly bombarded with leading questions about the abuse he or she had allegedly suffered. And if the child insisted that he had never been abused by anyone, the questioning continued relentlessly, with promises that he could leave the room when the social workers got the answers they wanted from the by now exhausted child.

These children are now adult. Some are seeking punitive damages from the social services departments which orchestrated their removal. They are all very angry, as are their parents, at what happened to them - and at their utter helplessness at that time to prevent the authorities taking them away. What angers them more than anything is the continued insistence of some of these self-proclaimed 'experts' - even after all these years - that these children are simply 'in denial'. Utterly arrogant - utterly disgraceful.