Kids Survive Alleged 5-Year Imprisonment

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: Runes911
Did anyone read part of the article as "they were locked up for 5 years in a bathroom to starve." I didn't think it was possible to live 5 years without food...

Exactly, hence the word "Alledgedly"

Fishy story me thinks.

Ok, in America we use the term allegedly until someone has been convicted. This is because people are deemed innocent until proven guilty. Second, where does the article say they didn't eat anything for 5 years. Reading comprehension is key kids.

Actually legally that isn't true. In the eyes of the law being not guilty is not the same as being innocent.

Actually you are 100% wrong.

Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432; 15 S. Ct. 394 was an appelate case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1895 which established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes.

F. A. Coffin and Percival B. Coffin, plaintiffs in error, and A. S. Reed had been charged with aiding and abetting the former president of the Indianapolis National Bank, Theodore P. Haughey, in misdemeanor bank fraud between January 1, 1891, and July 26, 1893.

It is a complex case with a 50 count indictment. But the most interesting aspect is commentary by the Court regarding presumption of innocence:

The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.... Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
I wonder how the parents found the right balance to keep the alive. Let's face it, they obviously did not "starve to death". They were just not fed much. You don't survive for 5 years without any food. How did the parents and grandma know exactly how much to give? The kids were probably complaining about being hungry all the time so you can't use that as a gauge. Also, I am surprised that they didn't break out in the first week when they realized that this was going to be permanent and when they still had energy. Of course as time passed, it became less feasible to break out.

Yeah because lots of 6 and 11 year olds are strong enough to break out of their house from their mother, her boyfriend, and their grandmother. (They began their imprisonment in 2000)

 

[l Xes l]

sigh

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Feed them to the dogs

I am being serious.

Feed the kids or the adults? It would be a waste of time to feed the kids to the dogs unless the dogs need some tooth picks.

 

[sygyzy]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: sygyzy
I wonder how the parents found the right balance to keep the alive. Let's face it, they obviously did not "starve to death". They were just not fed much. You don't survive for 5 years without any food. How did the parents and grandma know exactly how much to give? The kids were probably complaining about being hungry all the time so you can't use that as a gauge. Also, I am surprised that they didn't break out in the first week when they realized that this was going to be permanent and when they still had energy. Of course as time passed, it became less feasible to break out.

Yeah because lots of 6 and 11 year olds are strong enough to break out of their house from their mother, her boyfriend, and their grandmother. (They began their imprisonment in 2000)

You are telling me that a 11 and 6 year old (at their prime, in 2000, not starving yet) couldn't stab or gouge out the eyes of a couple of people? I imagine at some point, one of the adults were gone to work.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: musicman87
a good way to fight childhood obesity, i hate those damn fat kids.

WTF?

 

[shoRunner]

Originally posted by: sygyzy

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: sygyzy
I wonder how the parents found the right balance to keep the alive. Let's face it, they obviously did not "starve to death". They were just not fed much. You don't survive for 5 years without any food. How did the parents and grandma know exactly how much to give? The kids were probably complaining about being hungry all the time so you can't use that as a gauge. Also, I am surprised that they didn't break out in the first week when they realized that this was going to be permanent and when they still had energy. Of course as time passed, it became less feasible to break out.

Yeah because lots of 6 and 11 year olds are strong enough to break out of their house from their mother, her boyfriend, and their grandmother. (They began their imprisonment in 2000)

You are telling me that a 11 and 6 year old (at their prime, in 2000, not starving yet) couldn't stab or gouge out the eyes of a couple of people? I imagine at some point, one of the adults were gone to work.

i'd sure hope 2 fully grown women and a fully grown man could keep 2 children under control

 

[lightpants]

I still don't understand what happened. There were 3 adults in the house. There were 3 children aged 9-17 that went to school and were fed normally. Then there were 2 that were starved and locked in a bathroom for 5 years.
Why didn' t the other 3 kids tell someone at school?

There is more to this story then has been told so far.

 

[DrPizza]

?? something doesn't seem right in this story...
If they were locked in the bathroom, how did other family members go to the bathroom?

And, the girl was running away because she was locked in the bathroom at night, or while adults were gone? That implies that
A) they weren't in the bathroom all the time
B) uhh, she wasn't running away because she didn't eat - she ran away because of being locked up??

Hang the parents, but lets wait for the full story.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Runes911
Did anyone read part of the article as "they were locked up for 5 years in a bathroom to starve." I didn't think it was possible to live 5 years without food...

same here

 

[Syrch]

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
This is one of those cases where it's really hard to favor due process over a bullet to the head.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: lightpants
I still don't understand what happened. There were 3 adults in the house. There were 3 children aged 9-17 that went to school and were fed normally. Then there were 2 that were starved and locked in a bathroom for 5 years.
Why didn' t the other 3 kids tell someone at school?

There is more to this story then has been told so far.

I've heard of other similar cases where one child in a family is abused in this manner while the others aren't. I think the distinction is ussually step children or in some way disabled. Or possibly just "difficult" compared to the others.

You have to understand how impressionable kids are - it ussually isn't until mid to late teens that kids will question their parents on anything, let alone something that seems to be as ingrained and established in this family as this situation. It'd be the kids going against the consensus of every adult in the family - and I'm sure they had all kinds of rationalizations for the other kids - backed up by threats.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
?? something doesn't seem right in this story...
If they were locked in the bathroom, how did other family members go to the bathroom?

It's not unusual to have more then one bathroom in a modern american home.

And, the girl was running away because she was locked in the bathroom at night, or while adults were gone? That implies that
A) they weren't in the bathroom all the time
B) uhh, she wasn't running away because she didn't eat - she ran away because of being locked up??

Hang the parents, but lets wait for the full story.

Regardless of the details of who was locked up where & when, it's absolutely clear that those two kids were gravely abused in the custody of the parents.

 

[Sundog]

This story really evokes some strong emotions in me. How absolutely horrible.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: KillyKillall
OMG....

I vote them for execution.

 

[MaxDSP]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Runes911
Did anyone read part of the article as "they were locked up for 5 years in a bathroom to starve." I didn't think it was possible to live 5 years without food...

same here

They don't mean a continiuous 5 years obviously

 

[MaxDSP]

Originally posted by: sygyzy

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: sygyzy
I wonder how the parents found the right balance to keep the alive. Let's face it, they obviously did not "starve to death". They were just not fed much. You don't survive for 5 years without any food. How did the parents and grandma know exactly how much to give? The kids were probably complaining about being hungry all the time so you can't use that as a gauge. Also, I am surprised that they didn't break out in the first week when they realized that this was going to be permanent and when they still had energy. Of course as time passed, it became less feasible to break out.

Yeah because lots of 6 and 11 year olds are strong enough to break out of their house from their mother, her boyfriend, and their grandmother. (They began their imprisonment in 2000)

You are telling me that a 11 and 6 year old (at their prime, in 2000, not starving yet) couldn't stab or gouge out the eyes of a couple of people? I imagine at some point, one of the adults were gone to work.

If the "parents" filled the kids with fear early on in their life, they were probably too afraid to retaliate or take any course of action.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: musicman87
a good way to fight childhood obesity, i hate those damn fat kids.

WTF?

LOL! Best part is he actually edited his original post TO that

 

[MaxDSP]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Aimster
Feed them to the dogs

I am being serious.

Feed the kids or the adults? It would be a waste of time to feed the kids to the dogs unless the dogs need some tooth picks.

I can handle tasteless jokes but you need a hard blow to the head with a blunt object

 

[Megadeth]

We live in a sick world.... or I guess I should say a world full of sick people.

 

[Pheran]

The advertisement that showed up when I looked up this story online is just so, so wrong.

 

[Cooler]

My uncle was holocaust survivor I can?t believe a family member would do this to another .Their fate must have been worse then death. I am not one for death penalty but in this case some one is going to fry.

 

[DVK916]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: Runes911
Did anyone read part of the article as "they were locked up for 5 years in a bathroom to starve." I didn't think it was possible to live 5 years without food...

Exactly, hence the word "Alledgedly"

Fishy story me thinks.

Ok, in America we use the term allegedly until someone has been convicted. This is because people are deemed innocent until proven guilty. Second, where does the article say they didn't eat anything for 5 years. Reading comprehension is key kids.

Actually legally that isn't true. In the eyes of the law being not guilty is not the same as being innocent.

Actually you are 100% wrong.

Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432; 15 S. Ct. 394 was an appelate case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1895 which established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes.

F. A. Coffin and Percival B. Coffin, plaintiffs in error, and A. S. Reed had been charged with aiding and abetting the former president of the Indianapolis National Bank, Theodore P. Haughey, in misdemeanor bank fraud between January 1, 1891, and July 26, 1893.

It is a complex case with a 50 count indictment. But the most interesting aspect is commentary by the Court regarding presumption of innocence:

The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.... Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf

In the legal system there is something refered to as being found factually innocence. It is being innocent beyond all resonable doubt. That is different than the innocent that you are talking about.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: shoRunner

Originally posted by: sygyzy

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: sygyzy
I wonder how the parents found the right balance to keep the alive. Let's face it, they obviously did not "starve to death". They were just not fed much. You don't survive for 5 years without any food. How did the parents and grandma know exactly how much to give? The kids were probably complaining about being hungry all the time so you can't use that as a gauge. Also, I am surprised that they didn't break out in the first week when they realized that this was going to be permanent and when they still had energy. Of course as time passed, it became less feasible to break out.

Yeah because lots of 6 and 11 year olds are strong enough to break out of their house from their mother, her boyfriend, and their grandmother. (They began their imprisonment in 2000)

You are telling me that a 11 and 6 year old (at their prime, in 2000, not starving yet) couldn't stab or gouge out the eyes of a couple of people? I imagine at some point, one of the adults were gone to work.

i'd sure hope 2 fully grown women and a fully grown man could keep 2 children under control

am I reading it wrong or does it say they were locked up ONLY at night or when the adults were out ?

As already asked... why didn't they tell anyone ?

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Pheran
The advertisement that showed up when I looked up this story online is just so, so wrong.

only a matter of time before it's on ytmnd