• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

13 victims, ages 2 to 29, kept shackled by parents

I've read that DM article, but nowhere does it say how the girlll escaped and got a cell phone. Anyone know how? thank goodness she did, however it happened.
 
I read that she escaped her shackles and found a cellphone inside the house to call police. Apparently she knew how to operate a cellphone. But I don't know if that's a confirmed explanation of what happened.
 
It seems like the food deprivation and shackling may have been somewhat recent. Group photos from 2016 don't show emaciation. Wrists are shown in various photos and I can't see obvious signs of bondage.

Though the faces aren't shown, the postures and demeanors suggest a huge happy family. The story reads like the police found something like Auschwitz but these photos aren't like that at all.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5272703/Police-13-siblings-chained-California-home.html
 
William Parcher said:
It seems like the food deprivation and shackling may have been somewhat recent. Group photos from 2016 don't show emaciation. Wrists are shown in various photos and I can't see obvious signs of bondage.

Though the faces aren't shown, the postures and demeanors suggest a huge happy family. The story reads like the police found something like Auschwitz but these photos aren't like that at all.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5272703/Police-13-siblings-chained-California-home.html
Click to expand...

They do not look like adult children in the photo, given that half of them are adults in that photo, could you pick out the ones over 18? They don't look emaciated in that photo but they don't look to be normally developed either.
 
But the mother herself is not tall. They could take after her rather than the father.
 
ponderingturtle said:
they don't look to be normally developed either.
Click to expand...
That's a losing argument for sure. You could show these photos to many people who are unfamiliar with the story. Ask "this is a family, do you see anything unusual here?" The answer is not going to be "the kids are not normally developed".

Physically, they look very normal. Your squawking doesn't change that. But a highly emaciated 17 year old girl might appear to be 10 years old. But there is no emaciation seen in any of the photos. You can't change that with your squawky posts.
 
William Parcher said:
That's a losing argument for sure. You could show these photos to many people who are unfamiliar with the story. Ask "this is a family, do you see anything unusual here?" The answer is not going to be "the kids are not normally developed".

Physically, they look very normal. Your squawking doesn't change that. But a highly emaciated 17 year old girl might appear to be 10 years old. But there is no emaciation seen in any of the photos. You can't change that with your squawky posts.
Click to expand...

So who looks 26 and all the others, minimum 5, over 18 in that photo?

It does not look like a photo of parents and their mostly adult children.
 
William Parcher said:
That's a losing argument for sure. You could show these photos to many people who are unfamiliar with the story. Ask "this is a family, do you see anything unusual here?" The answer is not going to be "the kids are not normally developed".

Physically, they look very normal. Your squawking doesn't change that. But a highly emaciated 17 year old girl might appear to be 10 years old. But there is no emaciation seen in any of the photos. You can't change that with your squawky posts.
Click to expand...

Right, but when it is pointed out that several of the "kids" are not kids it does seem a bit odd. Can you see that?
 
Dr. Keith said:
Right, but when it is pointed out that several of the "kids" are not kids it does seem a bit odd. Can you see that?
Click to expand...
No because I can't know the heights of anyone in the photos. I can see an obvious distribution of heights. Some are taller than others and that might indicate age distribution - but boys do tend to be taller than girls of a similar age.

It looks like it might be 3 boys and 9 girls and one baby in arms.The father is much taller than the mother but actual heights are unknown. The kids all look slim but there is no emaciation presented.

Stunting often refers to arrested height. These kids may all have normal heights. But people can have youthful appearance even without stunting. Myself, I look much younger than my actual age but I'm not stunted in any way.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So who looks 26 and all the others, minimum 5, over 18 in that photo?

It does not look like a photo of parents and their mostly adult children.
Click to expand...
I suspect that they are posing with the oldest and tallest towards the rear of the group. The pictures have faces blurred and none are close to the camera anyway. We can't see certain facial features which we often use to gauge age.

We can't know that if we were standing right there looking at these people that we would be shocked to learn their actual ages. We cannot determine that by looking at these pictures.
 
William Parcher said:
I read that she escaped her shackles and found a cellphone inside the house to call police. Apparently she knew how to operate a cellphone. But I don't know if that's a confirmed explanation of what happened.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your reply.
 
What's your thesis here, WP? What's the big deal with whether or not they looked emaciated?
 
William Parcher said:
That's a losing argument for sure. You could show these photos to many people who are unfamiliar with the story. Ask "this is a family, do you see anything unusual here?" The answer is not going to be "the kids are not normally developed".
Click to expand...

Right, because they are unfamiliar with the story. The photos appear to show two parents and a whole lot of children, and if that were the actual case (which is easy to presume by looking at the photos), the photo doesn't look unusual at all.

But we ARE familiar with the story. We know that's actually a photo of two parents, seven adults, and only six actual children. Tell somebody that, and they're more likely to find something unusual about it.
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
I suspect that they are posing with the oldest and tallest towards the rear of the group. The pictures have faces blurred and none are close to the camera anyway. We can't see certain facial features which we often use to gauge age.
Click to expand...

But the police did; the police saw them face-to-face and thought they were all children until they were told otherwise.
 
Might have just missed it, but where are they getting definitive proof of their ages from?

I wouldn't be taking the parents word for it, or the kids
 
William Parcher said:
I suspect that they are posing with the oldest and tallest towards the rear of the group. The pictures have faces blurred and none are close to the camera anyway. We can't see certain facial features which we often use to gauge age.
Click to expand...

There's an image in this that doesn't have their faces censored.

I don't think I would think any of the people other than the married couple were over the age of 15.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom