Shawn Hornbeck - frightened, brainwashed victim or willing accomplice?
Uncle Clover
perhaps - Shawn Hornbeck may have been more willing to stay with his abductor
than one might wish to believe. Granted he was only 11 at the time of his
disappearance and probably susceptible to brainwashing of a sort. But by the
time he reached 15, he wasn't acting very much like an unwilling abductee.
Whether through brainwashing or otherwise, it seems as if Hornbeck
remained with his captor willingly, skipping out on opportunity upon opportunity
to escape. Not that this made him -legally- consenting - I would never suggest
that. Just that it made him seem to be something other than 100% victim.
I have a theory about that. I think Hornbeck -was- at least
semi-willing to stay with the man because the man promised not to make him go to
school. If the man didn't molest him, then he may well have been enjoying his
captivity.
It sounds like a very distasteful thought on the face of it, yet the
notion fits the known facts pretty well. That sort of thing would certainly
have worked on me at 11 years of age. If the man -did- molest him, which I
think likely, then I wouldn't speculate on whether or not he enjoyed his
captivity. My speculations along -those- lines rests entirely on whether or not
he was sexually abused by his captor. It may have begun with threats, I don't
see that as at all unlikely. But by the time he & his new fellow captive were
found, it's not at all clear that it was still a coercive situation.
What do you think?
John
"Uncle Clover" <Uncle...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
news:e63lq2d7g0vnva7c3...@4ax.com...
At least someone has the GUTS to speak his mind. Let's get real-He very
well MAY have enjoyed the sexual contact whether it's abuse or not. This
kid wanted to be where he was.
anneinchicago
Yes, thank god also. I've been thinking this since the statements by
his friends and the parents of those friends have come out. Four years?
Going to sleepovers at friends' houses? The mall?
Maybe he resented his stepfather simply because the man was *his*
stepfather (what happened to his real father btw?). I have no idea and
I'm not blaming his family in any way. Maybe being with his abductor
gave him a freedom he didn't get at home. I have no idea. All I know
his, IMHO, his story is... odd.
anne
Lars Eighner
lovely and talented Uncle Clover broadcast on alt.true-crime:
> What do you think?
There are many mechanisms that could explain how even a kidnap victim who
was initially unwilling could become eventually come to be happy with his new
situation or could come to be under such control that physical restraint
would be unnecessary. However, it seems to me to be unreasonable to reject
out of hand the possibility that he welcomed the change of situation from
the start and went willingly, even if the original home situation was not
especially adverse.
I would have gone like a shot at the age of eleven, and I know several
others who would have, too. I know a couple who did so at the age of
thirteen or so, albeit with some degree of acquiescence from their original
families.
Now, I should say, I don't know what happened in this case. And indeed,
at this point, it is very likely that neither Shawn nor Devlin really
remember or even understood at the time how it went. It is very possible
that no one will ever know the facts of this particular case. The odds are
very much against Devlin having picked a child of like mind just by chance.
So it is most likely this is a combination of the various hostage
explanations: Stockholm syndrome, "Patty Hearst" syndrome, and so forth.
We know there is a strong tendency of human beings, especially but not
merely children, to identify with authority, to adapt to new situations, and
to make the best of it. We might call this brainwashing or mind control,
but some people seem to have a natural talent for it, without necessarily
knowing what they are doing or why it works. And, to be frank about,
"deprogrammers" pretty much use the same techniques, although for socially
acceptable ends.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
War on Terrorism: Treat Readers like Mushrooms
"DO NOT USE photos on Page 1A showing civilian casualties from the U.S. war
on Afghanistan." -Memo, _Panama City_ (FL) _News Herald_
b
> The following is based on the assumption he was *not* abused.
>
> Yes, thank god also. I've been thinking this since the statements by
> his friends and the parents of those friends have come out. Four years?
> Going to sleepovers at friends' houses? The mall?
>
> Maybe he resented his stepfather simply because the man was *his*
> stepfather (what happened to his real father btw?).
father died in a car accident - just three years before he disappeared
wonder if he resented his mother remarrying or just missed his father
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
> At least someone has the GUTS to speak his mind. Let's get real-He very
> well MAY have enjoyed the sexual contact whether it's abuse or not. This
> kid wanted to be where he was.
It certainly sounds that way. Could the abduction itself have been
faked? Perhaps this man courted Shawn online or in some other way, and
the evidence was destroyed. If the computer he was on was not at his
own home, or if he was schooled in methods of deleting evidence, it
could well have been so.
Cori
Uncle Clover
<snip>
> Could the abduction itself have been faked? Perhaps this man
> courted Shawn online or in some other way, and the evidence was
> destroyed. If the computer he was on was not at his own home,
> or if he was schooled in methods of deleting evidence, it could
> well have been so.
It also makes me wonder about the Ownby boy. Was he even forcefully abducted?
Or might both boys have been the target of the kind of online predator like
those focused upon on the Dateline series? I haven't read yet that Ben was
frightened or unwilling or that anything bad happened to him. I'm seriously
wondering now if both boys weren't "abductees" so much as they might have been
"runaways".
:-?
--
L8r,
Uncle Clover
_________________________________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reality is the soul's refusal to accept oblivion.
_________________________________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Copasetic
"Uncle Clover" <Uncle...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
> On 14 Jan 2007 17:51:00 -0800, cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Could the abduction itself have been faked? Perhaps this man
>> courted Shawn online or in some other way, and the evidence was
>> destroyed. If the computer he was on was not at his own home,
>> or if he was schooled in methods of deleting evidence, it could
>> well have been so.
>
> It also makes me wonder about the Ownby boy. Was he even forcefully
> abducted?
> Or might both boys have been the target of the kind of online predator
> like
> those focused upon on the Dateline series? I haven't read yet that Ben
> was
> frightened or unwilling or that anything bad happened to him. I'm
> seriously
> wondering now if both boys weren't "abductees" so much as they might have
> been
> "runaways".
>
> :-?
> --
> L8r,
> Uncle Clover
How do you explain the white truck (perfect description later given by Ben's
schoolmate,
who had to take a polygraph) screeching away from Ben's school stop? You
think Ben
had been in contact with Devin and/or Hornbeck and the two or three of them
had
planned this?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Uncle Clover
A guy helping a young teenager willingly run away might just as easily screech
away from the scene, knowing that people will be looking for the boy in a pretty
brief amount of time and not wanting to give anyone a chance to get a real good
look at him. Whether that was the case or he had just forcefully abducted the
boy, trying to avoid giving anyone a good, long look at you would not be unusual
behavior. It didn't work, obviously, as he -was- spotted and his truck ID'd,
but the attempt fits either scenario pretty well.
That said, I'm much more convinced of Hornbeck's willingness than I am of
Ownby's. Given the free and easy come-and-go nature of his relationship to
Devlin, I would actually be pretty surprised if he _weren't_ a willing
participant, at least at some point early on if not from the start. With Ownby,
things are being kept pretty hush-hush. That may be due to sexual abuse which
occurred during his captivity, or it may be because they don't want to admit he
was a runaway.
b
on the other thread
i mentioned a few theories and once of them was that the ownby thing
was prearranged
and i wonder who was driving
wasn't the dad at work in the afternoon
"i am now wondering - this is a stretch - since both boys spent SO MUCH
time online and gaming - if hornbeck had invited ownby over...... OR if
hornbeck was convincing ownby to stay..... how on earth could ownby
have been immediately "brainwashed" into staying in the apartment when
he knew people were looking for him..... the man wasn't even home....
shawn was going in and out of the apt.....
another terrible thought came to me - what if hornbeck himself picked
up ownby for innocent reasons and didn't realise that it would cause a
commotion and so they were "lying low" for a while
i am holding to my previous assertion that he may have seen the guy as
a replacement for his dead father
and even his whereabouts on the day he disappeared were strange.....
was the guy on the prowl.... or was this a chance encounter? "
why would someone be looking for a
for me it's the opposite
i can see more ownby wanting to leave since he was only there a few
days - that's why i was wondering if he was there willingly since his
family said he wasn't restrained from leaving the apartment
it will be very interesting if it turns out devlin was at work when the
abduction happenned
i wonder did he deliver any of the pizzas or just manage the place only
it still seems difficult to drive out 30-60min to abduct someone and
convince them not to leave/brainwash them, leave them at your apartment
and then go back to work
so strange and i am wondering if the truth will never be released
AusWendy
"Uncle Clover" <Uncle...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
I think that very possibly a frightened 11 year old, torn away from his
family and traumatised by being kidnapped would believe what he was told.
For all we know in the first few terrible weeks/months Shawn was told all
sorts of things. Things like your parents don't want you any more, if you
try to get away I'll kill your family etc etc. As time passed and the
kidnapper PROBABLY (we don't know yet) assaulted him, then fed and clothed
him Shawn would have experienced Stockholm Syndrome and also become
dependant on Devlin. This was an 11 year old CHILD.
Aus Wendy
Copasetic
"b" <butter...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168830118....@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Devin wasn't at work that Monday or Tuesday which the owner of
the pizza parlor said was strange as he hardly ever missed a day
of work.
John
is stupid beyond belief.........
"AusWendy" <n...@notlikely.com> wrote in message
news:zjCqh.1197$u8....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Uncle Clover
<snip>
> i mentioned a few theories and once of them was that the ownby
> thing was prearranged. and i wonder who was driving. wasn't the
> dad at work in the afternoon?
That's actually a pretty interesting observation. I hadn't thought of the
possibility of _Hornbeck_ bringing Ownby into the picture. I quite honestly
hope that's the case - that the two boys -were- runaways who just happened to
find a sympathetic adult to give them a place to stay. That would be -so- much
better than having both boys be the subject of an unwilling abduction and
subjected to some sort of sexual abuse.
b
Even more interesting - thanks
I guess one can assume Devlin almost certainly drove the vehicle..... I
wonder if Shawn was inside
and how he knew to ideal time to take this boy who lived in a rural
setting
Uncle Clover
Assuming he wasn't a willing runaway, yes, I can agree with that statement.
> For all we know in the first few terrible weeks/months Shawn was told all
> sorts of things. Things like your parents don't want you any more, if you
> try to get away I'll kill your family etc etc. As time passed and the
> kidnapper PROBABLY (we don't know yet) assaulted him, then fed and clothed
> him Shawn would have experienced Stockholm Syndrome and also become
> dependant on Devlin. This was an 11 year old CHILD.
Of course it was an 11 year old CHILD. Do you think 11 year old children cannot
be manipulative or ever willingly run away from home? I understand what
everyone is thinking (along the same lines you are), but they're being so
tight-lipped about it. There's nothing to indicate that either view is more
likely, as there's just not enough information. Afaic, all possibilities are
open at this point - mine, yours and just about anybody else's. Assuming one is
so likely as to treat it as indisputable fact is illogical and unreasonable. I
don't think my speculations are any more or less likely than yours, and in fact
have perfectly good reason for -hoping- my speculations are correct. If they
are, it would reduce the likelihood that either boy was seriously abused, and
that could only be a good thing.
Copasetic
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,243612,00.html
Devlin wasn't perfect, Wehrmeyer said, but "he wasn't a monster."
Wehrmeyer said Mike Posperi, owner of the Imo's Pizza Place where Devlin was
employed, first alerted the FBI and local authorities of Devlin's recently
suspicious behavior. Devlin, who never missed work, didn't show up at the
restaurant on Monday, the day Ownby was kidnapped. And on Tuesday, Wehrmeyer
said Posperi noticed dirt on Devlin's usually clean pickup truck.
Also suspicious was that Devlin drove to work last week. In all the years
Wehrmeyer has known him, he's always walked to work and refused rides when
offered.
"If you had a guy who worked next to you, if a lot of this stuff fit him,
and there were police in there, you would say, 'Devo has a white truck and
it had dirt on it, and he doesn't usually drive the truck,'" Wehrmeyer said.
http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=110824
Devlin worked at the Imo's pizza on Kirkwood Road for the last 20 years,
almost never missing a day of work, until recently. Sources say he was
absent from work this past Monday and Tuesday.
His boss, Mike Prosperi, released a statement saying "It's a total shock to
everyone of us at Imo's. He's been a very good employee, missing very few
days in all of his years here. He's done nothing to indicate any type of
strange behavior."
tiny dancer
"Copasetic" <deepsp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45aad5ac$0$4832$8826...@free.teranews.com...
I think this whole theory is crap. Ben's computer had been gone over
thoroughly, it was reported. Nothing found on it except that he liked to
play computer games.
As for Shawn, he was 11 years old when he went missing. How long did it
take for the SLA to brainwash Patty Hearst? Devlin had 4 1/2 years with
Shawn. Steven Stayner also had many freedoms, went to school, hung out with
friends, yet he never tried to get away until the other little boy was
kidnapped. Ben, to me anyway, looks a lot younger than 13 years old. I
think it's just as has been suggested. Devlin *liked* boys of a certain
age, and Shawn was past that age now. Devlin was looking to replace him
with 'fresh meat'.
This is all beginning to sound a bit like 'blame the victim' here. Same
thing that happened with Elizabeth Smart.
As for Shawn's biological father, I don't know what kind of relationship
they had. All I've been hearing is that the stepfather 'was the only father
he'd ever known'.
td
al2...@aol.com
Uncle Clover wrote:
> That said, I'm much more convinced of Hornbeck's willingness than I am of
> Ownby's. Given the free and easy come-and-go nature of his relationship to
> Devlin, I would actually be pretty surprised if he _weren't_ a willing
> participant, at least at some point early on if not from the start. With Ownby,
> things are being kept pretty hush-hush. That may be due to sexual abuse which
> occurred during his captivity, or it may be because they don't want to admit he
> was a runaway.
Just as Elizabeth Smart's parents don't want to admit thst SHE is a
runaway.
Regards,
Alex K.
Uncle Clover
wrote:
First off, the "theory" isn't even that - it's just speculation and guessing,
exploring possibilities. Second off, unless they examined the logs from his
ISP, anything less than an all-out forensic examination of the computer would be
very easy to fool. My 5 year old nephew could probably do it, I've little doubt
a 13 year old could.
> As for Shawn, he was 11 years old when he went missing. How long did it
> take for the SLA to brainwash Patty Hearst? Devlin had 4 1/2 years with
> Shawn. Steven Stayner also had many freedoms, went to school, hung out with
> friends, yet he never tried to get away until the other little boy was
> kidnapped. Ben, to me anyway, looks a lot younger than 13 years old. I
> think it's just as has been suggested. Devlin *liked* boys of a certain
> age, and Shawn was past that age now. Devlin was looking to replace him
> with 'fresh meat'.
>
> This is all beginning to sound a bit like 'blame the victim' here. Same
> thing that happened with Elizabeth Smart.
I'm sorry you feel that way. All I see is speculation in the absence of
information. If you see actual -blame- at this point, then you're reading into
it. One doesn't "blame" kids for running away. Suggesting that a kid might
have - I repeat, _MIGHT_ have - willfully ran away is in no way, shape or form
conferring "blame" upon them. It's something that happens, and there's not
really much in this case to indicate that it would be all that unlikely - at
least in Hornbeck's case. It's also not a speculation I'm all that firmly
committed to - it's just one possibility of several, and there's really nothing
wrong with exploring it. At least so long as it doesn't get to the point of
becoming an all-out accusation of some sort.
Surely you're aware that such scenarios do in fact occur? I mean it's hardly an
unreasonable speculation just because you, me and everyone else would "like" to
believe otherwise. It should also be obvious that even if the speculation were
correct, the boy was as you stated 11 years old at the time, and even if he
-were- willing to run away, he wasn't really old enough to make that decision.
The adult in his life would have had a responsibility to see to it that the kid
got whatever kind of help might be needed. Even if he thought the kid was
running away from abuse, he could've done -something- other than let him live
there for four years.
tiny dancer
"Uncle Clover" <Uncle...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
Sorry clover, I saw the previous threads concerning this topic, and they
upset me. I think what both these boys went through is bad enough, without
adding to their pain. As for the 'tight-lipped' concerns, LE explained in
one of the news conferences that 'they didn't want to say anything that
might jeopardize the case.' To me, that would account for the silence on
any details of the crime.
A couple of the shots I saw of Shawn, his eyes had a haunted look. Ben, for
the most part, looked happy to be back with his family. His sister appeared
very emotional when she spoke about her joy at his safe return.
td
Cliff and Linda Griffith
> One article says he only missed Monday and another says Monday and
Tuesday.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,243612,00.html
>
was
> employed, first alerted the FBI and local authorities of Devlin's recently
> suspicious behavior. Devlin, who never missed work, didn't show up at the
> restaurant on Monday, the day Ownby was kidnapped. And on Tuesday,
Wehrmeyer
> said Posperi noticed dirt on Devlin's usually clean pickup truck.
>
> Also suspicious was that Devlin drove to work last week. In all the years
> Wehrmeyer has known him, he's always walked to work and refused rides when
> offered.
>
> "If you had a guy who worked next to you, if a lot of this stuff fit him,
> and there were police in there, you would say, 'Devo has a white truck and
> it had dirt on it, and he doesn't usually drive the truck,'" Wehrmeyer
said.
>
> http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=110824
to
> everyone of us at Imo's. He's been a very good employee, missing very few
> days in all of his years here. He's done nothing to indicate any type of
> strange behavior."
I don't know about this. I've never been a manager or business owner, but I
wonder if I would really deem these things suspicious, especially if the man
had "been a very good employee" and had "done nothing to indicate any type
of strange behavior." If he suddenly missed a day or two of work, I'd
probably figure he was sick. (Did he "call in," or did he simply not show
up? If he didn't call, did the boss try to reach him?)
Uncharacteristically, he drove to work one week; but people knew he had a
white truck, and they knew the truck well-enough to notice that dirt on it
was out of the ordinary. Either I'm not very observant at all, or this guy
wasn't the straight-arrow friend/co-worker/employee that they're saying he
was. (Could be both, I suppose.)
Linda
BethInAK
"anneinchicago" <annein...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1168808696....@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> The following is based on the assumption he was *not* abused.
>
> Yes, thank god also. I've been thinking this since the statements by
> his friends and the parents of those friends have come out. Four years?
> Going to sleepovers at friends' houses? The mall?
>
> Maybe he resented his stepfather simply because the man was *his*
> stepfather (what happened to his real father btw?). I have no idea and
> I'm not blaming his family in any way. Maybe being with his abductor
> gave him a freedom he didn't get at home. I have no idea. All I know
> his, IMHO, his story is... odd.
His father died in 1999. He was VERY close with his stepfather and I think
you can see that closeness during the press conference.
BethInAK
"Uncle Clover" <Uncle...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
Neighbors heard SCREAMING at night. I think the kid was somehow terrifed to
go home. The kid posted messages on his own missing persons website as
Shawn Devlin with hints as to his whereabouts and hints that it was him.
An 11 year old doesn't hate school enough to allow himself to be apart from
his family for five years.
BethInAK
"Uncle Clover" <Uncle...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
news:e63lq2d7g0vnva7c3...@4ax.com...
Ok, and if the guy didnt' rape him daily, then why were they kidnapping a
younger kid?
Copasetic
"BethInAK" <SPAM...@donuts.net> wrote in message
news:12qmdla...@corp.supernews.com...
I haven't read that the neighbors heard screaming at night. Where did you
read
that?
This is the most I have heard about the possiblity of something going on:
http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1168816509002&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1112101662670
Tom Garner, who lives upstairs from Devlin, described him as irritable and
said he often heard loud banging, as though someone were punching walls. He
said he twice knocked on the door to ask him to quiet down.
Devlin and Shawn each answered the door once, and told him that nothing was
amiss, Garner, 49, said.
Garner also said he once heard what he described as whimpering.
Torrence Bobhrod
Uncle Clover wrote:
> There seems to be a general suggestion circulating that perhaps - just
> perhaps - Shawn Hornbeck may have been more willing to stay with his abductor
> than one might wish to believe. Granted he was only 11 at the time of his
> disappearance and probably susceptible to brainwashing of a sort. But by the
> time he reached 15, he wasn't acting very much like an unwilling abductee.
>
> Whether through brainwashing or otherwise, it seems as if Hornbeck
> remained with his captor willingly, skipping out on opportunity upon opportunity
> to escape. Not that this made him -legally- consenting - I would never suggest
> that. Just that it made him seem to be something other than 100% victim.
>
> I have a theory about that. I think Hornbeck -was- at least
> semi-willing to stay with the man because the man promised not to make him go to
> school. If the man didn't molest him, then he may well have been enjoying his
> captivity.
>
> It sounds like a very distasteful thought on the face of it, yet the
> notion fits the known facts pretty well. That sort of thing would certainly
> have worked on me at 11 years of age. If the man -did- molest him, which I
> think likely, then I wouldn't speculate on whether or not he enjoyed his
> captivity. My speculations along -those- lines rests entirely on whether or not
> he was sexually abused by his captor. It may have begun with threats, I don't
> see that as at all unlikely. But by the time he & his new fellow captive were
> found, it's not at all clear that it was still a coercive situation.
>
> What do you think?
there is a lot more yet untold. The kidnapper knew he was
kidnapped!
Torrence Bobhrod
b wrote:
> anneinchicago wrote:
> > The following is based on the assumption he was *not* abused.
> >
> > Yes, thank god also. I've been thinking this since the statements by
> > his friends and the parents of those friends have come out. Four years?
> > Going to sleepovers at friends' houses? The mall?
> >
> > Maybe he resented his stepfather simply because the man was *his*
> > stepfather (what happened to his real father btw?).
>
> father died in a car accident - just three years before he disappeared
>
> wonder if he resented his mother remarrying or just missed his father
>
He was told she was dead and he had no family..
Torrence Bobhrod
BethInAK wrote:
"They" ?
> kidnapping a
> younger kid?
Torrence Bobhrod
Uncle Clover
"Rape him daily"? You know, I think that -almost- qualifies as one of the
lesser-known types of Freudian slips. Be it for your own perverse sexual
gratification or mere satisfaction of a voyeuristic curiosity, you _want_ him to
have been abused, don't you?
--
L8r,
Uncle Clover
cig...@gmail.com
BethInAK wrote:
>
>
>
> Neighbors heard SCREAMING at night. I think the kid was somehow terrifed to
> go home. The kid posted messages on his own missing persons website as
> Shawn Devlin with hints as to his whereabouts and hints that it was him.
>
> An 11 year old doesn't hate school enough to allow himself to be apart from
> his family for five years.
I read about his website posts but they dont seem to be "hints" as to
his whereabouts. In one he simply asks "how long are you going to look
for your son?" and in another he asks for permission to write a poem
about Shawn.
It's a little hard to buy that he would try to use the website as a way
to tip off his parents, considering he had free access to come and go,
a cell phone, and was even alone with police a few times and still made
no mention.
Andrys Basten
<cig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>BethInAK wrote:
>
>> Neighbors heard SCREAMING at night. I think the kid was somehow terrifed to
>> go home. The kid posted messages on his own missing persons website as
>> Shawn Devlin with hints as to his whereabouts and hints that it was him.
>>
>> An 11 year old doesn't hate school enough to allow himself to be apart from
>> his family for five years.
>
>I read about his website posts but they dont seem to be "hints" as to
>his whereabouts. In one he simply asks "how long are you going to look
>for your son?" and in another he asks for permission to write a poem
>about Shawn.
Someone signed the guest book "Shawn Devlin" using his abductor's last name
and then gave the actual city they were living in, when asked to
list the city. This is the name he went by the last few years too.
He then apologized later that day for asking the question (possibly
just calling the webowners' attention to it at all) and then said he
was wondering if he could write a poem about this as he liked to write
poems (which Shawn's various Internet bios said he does). He said he'd
like to do it in "horner" of Shawn but then pointed out his spelling
error though (in the midst of many) as if trying to draw attention to
the 'horn' part. He also put "shawn Hornbeck" (with capital H but
all lowercase for 'Shawn') in a sentence.
The main thing for me is he said twice that he wondered if it would
be okay to write this poem (for submission, it seems) and this
indicated a request for a REPLY to him -- either to his email link
if he had one or in the comments area from someone connected with
the site. It looks as if he was looking for INTERACTION and to be
noticed in a surreptitious way.
They've tried to ask him about this but stopped when he started
to cry there, per one post I saw but I don't know where the person
got that info. Seemed to be from a tv interview. A good discussion
is readable at Steve Huff's True Crime blog, which has almost
300 comments in it.
http://truecrimeblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/amazing-development-in-terrible-story.html
>It's a little hard to buy that he would try to use the website as a way
>to tip off his parents, considering he had free access to come and go,
>a cell phone, and was even alone with police a few times and still made
>no mention.
The stepfather's been quoted as saying his life was threatened.
Who knows? The fact is that someone naming himself as 'Shawn Devlin'
from "Kirkwood" drew attention to himself in that comments area and
asked for approval to send a poem about Shawn. A request for
interaction and for expression of something about himself.
- Andrys
--
http://www.andrys.com
Aknee Wombuster
But, here we go again, uptight and sexually repressed Mr. And Ms.
America!
The question?
Why did Mr. Michael J. Devlin kidnap Shawn Hornbeck, and, later, Ben
Ownby?
"Publicly," the response is always an echo: "Why"?
But the ultimate answer, almost always, is SEX!
It was the same with Elizabeth Smart, and most of the other abductees
and kidnapped and, as we later MUST admit, the sexually abused, or
misused. Tragically, sometimes it ends in murder. But it always takes
a while, doesn't it - for first the "authorities" - then the
media - then, finally, the relatives to admit that, yes, "my child
was raped!"
There, I said it!" "Raped." It was really about SEX.
Why ELSE would a guy like Devlin want to abduct and keep a teenage boy?
Young Hornbeck was too young to earn money for Devlin. But Shawn was
old enough to look for a way out, and maybe get away. And Devlin
surely was aware that kidnapping is a federal crime, especially when it
involves a "child." Authorities would always be "looking." His prison
term would be long.
If it hasn't already, it will soon be "revealed," that Shawn was
"raped," repeatedly, during his incredible four years as Devlin's
"captive." And, aside from the so-called prisoner syndrome which says
captives often "bond" with their captors, Shawn, his relatives,
Devlin's neighbors, the police, the community, and we, the public,
will come to grips with what really happened during those years.
BUT WHY would Hornbeck - or Miss Smart - stay with their captors
for such lengthy periods of time, near their homes, without at least
trying to escape?
Yeah, again, it's mostly about the sex.
A curious, repressed, or closely sheltered kid, his or her sexual
identity almost painfully emerging from early puberty, is abducted,
and, whoa! They're abruptly initiated into the strange but
intriguing and, yes, the "feels-good" realm of sexual gratification
outside of masturbation. They're captured, they're trapped by a
person or persons they fear, but the constant sexual attention is,
well, it's attention!
"This person likes my body, my self. I am . . . needed!"
As days and months and years pass, the teen, his or her sexuality
coming to terms with a basic physical need, comes to feel no immediate
or pressing need to flee. And the captor's ministrations fulfill the
kid's need to be "loved," sexually, at least. At this time, the
captive is being "raped" only in a legal sense. For the kidnapped
youth, it's part of a ever-strengthening emotional bond that tempers
feelings of homesickness and other yearnings that might prompt an
escape attempt.
Once freed, the kidnapped person is overcome with competing emotions.
But, reunited with parents, siblings, and familiar surroundings, the
kid reverts to life much as it was before the abduction. But the
captor and the captivity are not forgotten. And the kidnapper is not
exactly reviled, either. For the sexual bond that has been established
will require years to sublimate and repress. If in fact it can ever be
thus.
So let's not react with shock (and awe?) when it's revealed that
Shawn, at the least, was a sexually exploited captive. Deep down, we
all knew that to be the case all along. Let's drop the hypocrisy, the
repression, shall we?
Beth In Alaska
"Uncle Clover" <Uncle...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
Unc, I think you are the one whose falling for his subconscious issues
here - you think Hornbeck VOLUNTARILY stayed with this person who took him
and according to neighbors made him scream at night.
Beth In Alaska
> I haven't read that the neighbors heard screaming at night. Where did you
> read
> that?
>
> This is the most I have heard about the possiblity of something going on:
> http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1168816509002&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1112101662670
>
> Tom Garner, who lives upstairs from Devlin, described him as irritable and
> said he often heard loud banging, as though someone were punching walls.
> He said he twice knocked on the door to ask him to quiet down.
> Devlin and Shawn each answered the door once, and told him that nothing
> was amiss, Garner, 49, said.
>
> Garner also said he once heard what he described as whimpering.
There was also a neighbor who heard screaming - but she couldn't determine
which apartment they were from:
Article about other neighbor who couldn't determine source of screams:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...7D?OpenDocument
Mave said she occasionally had heard the screams of a boy coming from the
building, but neither she nor police officers who responded to her call
about it could find out the source. "It was a horrific scream, like a parent
beating a child," she said.
Beth In Alaska
<cig...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168865092.1...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
I don't know how scared he was, and how Devlin threatened him, but I do not
believe that the kid was voluntarily in Devlins care. I think that the
posts on his site were hints to his parents, including "kirkwood" which was
where he was.
Uncle Clover
I've read that neighbors heard screaming from "a nearby apartment", but not that
it was absolutely, positively beyond a shadow of a doubt Devlin making Hornbeck
scream. You read that into it.
Damn, this place must be like a live-feed ink blot test for you - I don't envy
you much at all. It must suck to be so transparent and all... :-#
--
L8r,
Uncle Clover
___________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beauty is where you see it.
___________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beth In Alaska
"Uncle Clover" <Uncle...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
I'd say its a pretty good chance, don't you? She heard a "young boy"
screaming.
> Damn, this place must be like a live-feed ink blot test for you - I don't
> envy
> you much at all. It must suck to be so transparent and all... :-#
I never took you for a complete asshole before, thats for sure. Perhaps I'm
jaded, but I cannot believe that Shawn was kidnapped by this man and just
"kept" as a housepet for five years, and then cried at his press conference
when he was asked about the posts on his missing persons website. A kid
wouldnt' do that to his parents unless he was under extreme duress.
Perhaps its because I'm a parent and I know how much my child loves me.
Lars Eighner
talented Beth In Alaska broadcast on alt.true-crime:
> There was also a neighbor who heard screaming - but she couldn't determine
> which apartment they were from:
> Article about other neighbor who couldn't determine source of screams:
> http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...7D?OpenDocument
> Mave said she occasionally had heard the screams of a boy coming from the
> building, but neither she nor police officers who responded to her call
> about it could find out the source. "It was a horrific scream, like a parent
> beating a child," she said.
Hmm. Yet, the upstairs neighbor who was certain he heard the slamming and
bumping from Devlin's apartment says nothing about screaming. The video of
the place I have seen indicates that this place was not exactly the Ritz,
and living in such a place myself, blood-curdling screams are not like to
have been extremely uncommon. The last place we lived was similar, and we
discovered after we left that they guy upstairs had been raping his own
four-year-old daughter. We probably heard her screams, but the background
level of kids screaming kept us from knowing anything was out of the
ordinary. I don't know how many times I've thought a kids was being
axe-murdered in the grocery story only to turn the corner in the grocery
story and discover he just wasn't getting the kind of sugary cereal he had
seen on TV.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
I have not seen as far as others because giants were standing on my shoulders.
Uncle Clover
<beth...@spamfreeclearwire.net> wrote:
I'd say many young boys live in rural communities, and many young boys make lots
and lots of noise for lots and lots of reasons. The neighborhood is hardly
scattered, there are plenty of houses in close proximity from whence the
reported screams may have been issued. Unless she's 100% sure she heard it
specifically coming from that exact place of residence, it's useless as an
indicator as to what may or may not have been happening during Hornbeck's
captivity. It's not that I'm certain it -wasn't- him, mind you - it may well
have been. It's just that until it's known for certain that it was, it cannot
just be assumed to have been so. Not if you want to get to the truth. It may
have been him and it may have meant every bit of what you think it meant, but it
may not have been him also. If he -wasn't- being sexually abused during those 4
years, it would be a pretty horrible thing to saddle Devlin with. If he _was_,
of course, Devlin would deserve every bit of it. But I don't like lynch mobs,
they tend to kill too many innocent people.
> > Damn, this place must be like a live-feed ink blot test for you - I don't
> > envy
> > you much at all. It must suck to be so transparent and all... :-#
>
> I never took you for a complete asshole before, thats for sure.
Alas you were correct, for I am a solitary asshole and as such, am incomplete.
;-)
Really, though, I'm sorry, I don't really know why I felt the need to be so
ignorant to you just then. I know better, but sometimes I forget. :-\
> Perhaps I'm
> jaded, but I cannot believe that Shawn was kidnapped by this man and just
> "kept" as a housepet for five years, and then cried at his press conference
> when he was asked about the posts on his missing persons website. A kid
> wouldnt' do that to his parents unless he was under extreme duress.
I believe kids are capable of much more than you're giving them credit for.
People we call kids today used to be what was relied upon to fight wars. They
have it in them, I think it's naive to assume they don't.
> Perhaps its because I'm a parent and I know how much my child loves me.
Perhaps you're not every parent and your child not every child. I can
understand what you're saying, but to reject something out-of-hand just because
it doesn't fit into some leave-it-to-beaver notion of what it means to be a
"kid" these days - I can't do that. To me, it's dishonest, even if I'm only
being dishonest to myself. You probably don't see it that way and so no, I'm
not accusing you of being a liar or anything. That's just how it is from my
perspective, that's all.
More than likely I have this view of kids because other kids made my childhood a
living hell. I know what "children" are capable of. They can be petty,
spiteful malicious little bastards when they want to be, some of them are
anything _but_ "innocent" - yes, even at age 11 - and they can have the urge to
do all -kinds- of things the adults in their life would never want to believe.
I don't know if I just happened to grow up among a bunch of warped kids, but to
me the word "child" doesn't carry the automatic connotation of "innocence". You
should try to protect them while you can, let them be a kid if possible while
they still have the chance, but however they get that way some kids are simply
_not_ innocent. Period.
Whether that's the case with Hornbeck, I honestly don't know. I could believe
it either way.
Beth In Alaska
"Uncle Clover" <Uncle...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
>> I'd say its a pretty good chance, don't you? She heard a "young boy"
I don't believe in lynch mobs either (for example I'm not in favor of sex
offender websites EXCEPT for the repeat offender) but I can't see how you
can consider a man who had physcial custody of two minors potentally
innocent. What he did was illegal, whether or not he had sex with the kids
or not.
>> > Damn, this place must be like a live-feed ink blot test for you - I
>> > don't
>> > envy
>> > you much at all. It must suck to be so transparent and all... :-#
>>
>> I never took you for a complete asshole before, thats for sure.
>
> Alas you were correct, for I am a solitary asshole and as such, am
> incomplete.
>1
> Really, though, I'm sorry, I don't really know why I felt the need to be
> so
> ignorant to you just then. I know better, but sometimes I forget. :-\
I know you aren't usually like that, thus the "before" part of my response
;-)
>> Perhaps I'm
>> jaded, but I cannot believe that Shawn was kidnapped by this man and just
>> "kept" as a housepet for five years, and then cried at his press
>> conference
>> when he was asked about the posts on his missing persons website. A kid
>> wouldnt' do that to his parents unless he was under extreme duress.
>
> I believe kids are capable of much more than you're giving them credit
> for.
> People we call kids today used to be what was relied upon to fight wars.
> They
> have it in them, I think it's naive to assume they don't.
Sure. However, I see no indication that Shawns home life was unhappy, other
than his fathers death. However, that could have a sincerely proufound
effect on a child.
>> Perhaps its because I'm a parent and I know how much my child loves me.
>
> Perhaps you're not every parent and your child not every child. I can
> understand what you're saying, but to reject something out-of-hand just
> because
> it doesn't fit into some leave-it-to-beaver notion of what it means to be
> a
> "kid" these days - I can't do that. To me, it's dishonest, even if I'm
> only
> being dishonest to myself. You probably don't see it that way and so no,
> I'm
> not accusing you of being a liar or anything. That's just how it is from
> my
> perspective, that's all.
You are always entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to disagree! but I
shouldn't be called a pedophile because it!!
> More than likely I have this view of kids because other kids made my
> childhood a
> living hell. I know what "children" are capable of. They can be petty,
> spiteful malicious little bastards when they want to be, some of them are
> anything _but_ "innocent" - yes, even at age 11 - and they can have the
> urge to
> do all -kinds- of things the adults in their life would never want to
> believe.
> I don't know if I just happened to grow up among a bunch of warped kids,
> but to
> me the word "child" doesn't carry the automatic connotation of
> "innocence". You
> should try to protect them while you can, let them be a kid if possible
> while
> they still have the chance, but however they get that way some kids are
> simply
> _not_ innocent. Period.
My brother had some very big challenges with peers growing up. He was
exceptionally bright, and somehow not socially "regular" and therefore had
little in common with his peers. Of course, this made him a target for
exceptional creulty. Lucklily, my parents had the means and the knowhow to
find an appropriate school for him where he fit in well. So I have
certainly seen my share of "bad kids".
Parents can be incredibly stupid and do things like place far too much
emphasis on being "best" as opposed to perhaps "compassionate". I am
particularly appalled at what passes for "boys will be boys", and once told
a co-worker well "your boys will be criminals" in response. Even among my
peers of nice uppermiddleclass families there is no accountability for kids
behaviors - kid gets in trouble at school, mom gets kid put in a different
class because its something wrong with that terrible teacher who punished
poor little Branden for hitting Jimmy.
julie kay
>anneinchicago wrote:
>> The following is based on the assumption he was *not* abused.
>>
>> Yes, thank god also. I've been thinking this since the statements by
>> his friends and the parents of those friends have come out. Four years?
>> Going to sleepovers at friends' houses? The mall?
>>
>> Maybe he resented his stepfather simply because the man was *his*
>> stepfather (what happened to his real father btw?).
>
>
>father died in a car accident - just three years before he disappeared
>
>wonder if he resented his mother remarrying or just missed his father
I read somewhere that the perp told him that his mother was killed by
a drunk driver.
Frankly, I think we're assuming a maturity and confidence that this
kid didn't have.
He was kidnapped, he was kept by his captor - until he grew out of the
captor's preference.
And in answer to the naging questions.... how many other long time
kidnapped kids are out there? ... Think about it... the guy will
kidnap and molest... but not kill.... there could be quite a few....
>
> I have no idea and
>> I'm not blaming his family in any way. Maybe being with his abductor
>> gave him a freedom he didn't get at home. I have no idea. All I know
>> his, IMHO, his story is... odd.
>>
>> anne
>>
>>
>> Uncle Clover wrote:
patfish
Uncle Clover wrote:
> There seems to be a general suggestion circulating that perhaps - just
> perhaps - Shawn Hornbeck may have been more willing to stay with his abductor
> than one might wish to believe. Granted he was only 11 at the time of his
> disappearance and probably susceptible to brainwashing of a sort. But by the
> time he reached 15, he wasn't acting very much like an unwilling abductee.
>
> remained with his captor willingly, skipping out on opportunity upon opportunity
> to escape. Not that this made him -legally- consenting - I would never suggest
> that. Just that it made him seem to be something other than 100% victim.
>
> I have a theory about that. I think Hornbeck -was- at least
> semi-willing to stay with the man because the man promised not to make him go to
> school. If the man didn't molest him, then he may well have been enjoying his
> captivity.
>
> It sounds like a very distasteful thought on the face of it, yet the
> notion fits the known facts pretty well. That sort of thing would certainly
> have worked on me at 11 years of age. If the man -did- molest him, which I
> think likely, then I wouldn't speculate on whether or not he enjoyed his
> captivity. My speculations along -those- lines rests entirely on whether or not
> he was sexually abused by his captor. It may have begun with threats, I don't
> see that as at all unlikely. But by the time he & his new fellow captive were
> found, it's not at all clear that it was still a coercive situation.
>
> What do you think?
Without reading another response first, I've got some thoughts.
What the hey, we're telling the truth here, right? I really thought
that stepfather guy was raring and ready to get his face on tv right
quick. And something about the stepfather was creepy.
Also, were these parents really beating the drum for the return of this
kid? Which is not to say they didn't want to find him but I remember
how all we heard about was Elizabeth Smart constantly when she was
abducted. I can't recall hearing much about this kid all the time he
was missing.
Yes, I suppose the kid hated school so much it was worth the
molestation, IF it happened and I must suppose it did.
But there really is a whiff of something a bit odd about this whole
thing.
Beth In Alaska
"patfish" <patf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1168905451.5...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Its been four years but the family was VERY much actively looking for their
child. Check out shawns website - its very active and very - oops, its
been replaced with a found poster. But that family was very involved in the
search for their kid if their website was any indication.
Uncle Clover
<beth...@spamfreeclearwire.net> wrote:
> "Uncle Clover" <Uncle...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
<snip>
> > If he -wasn't- being sexually abused during those 4 years, it
> > would be a pretty horrible thing to saddle Devlin with. If he
> > _was_, of course, Devlin would deserve every bit of it. But I
> > don't like lynch mobs, they tend to kill too many innocent
> > people.
>
> I don't believe in lynch mobs either (for example I'm not in favor of sex
> offender websites EXCEPT for the repeat offender) but I can't see how you
> can consider a man who had physcial custody of two minors potentally
> innocent. What he did was illegal, whether or not he had sex with the kids
> or not.
I didn't mean innocent of -everything-, but possibly innocent of sexual abuse.
I don't think folks would get angry enough to lynch anybody for simply housing
runaways so long as no exploitation were involved.
I agree that as the responsible adult, even if the boys approached _him_ (which
I don't actually believe, but just "if") and asked to move in with him, he
should not have just kept them and been hush-hush about it. That facet was
never in dispute with me.
I also don't believe that any apparent willingness on their part (_if_ there was
any) would justify his actions. It would be a much _less_ serious offense, but
even if he never laid a hand on them in any sexual way, it would still be an
offense.
<snip>
> > I'm sorry, I don't really know why I felt the need to be
> > so
> > ignorant to you just then. I know better, but sometimes I forget. :-\
>
> I know you aren't usually like that, thus the "before" part of my response
> ;-)
<whew> I swear I'm much, much better than I used to be. I had a lot of anger
and hate growing up. Being an all-out asshole was the only way to survive.
Once in awhile, those old habits kick back up again. I'm always grateful
whenever someone is honest enough to tell me I'm being an asshole, because
sometimes I just can't see it on my own.
> >> Perhaps I'm
> >> jaded, but I cannot believe that Shawn was kidnapped by this man and just
> >> "kept" as a housepet for five years, and then cried at his press
> >> conference
> >> when he was asked about the posts on his missing persons website. A kid
> >> wouldnt' do that to his parents unless he was under extreme duress.
> >
> > I believe kids are capable of much more than you're giving them credit
> > for.
> > People we call kids today used to be what was relied upon to fight wars.
> > They
> > have it in them, I think it's naive to assume they don't.
>
> Sure. However, I see no indication that Shawns home life was unhappy, other
> than his fathers death. However, that could have a sincerely proufound
> effect on a child.
Would a teenager or near-teenager need any real-world justification to
experience a bout of angst? Lordy, I remember situations for which I thought
the world was about to end. That feeling is one of the hooks predators use to
snag their victims. If you understand that aspect of being that young and you
can remember it well enough from your own experience, you could probably
manipulate a kid to do just about anything.
Then again, some kids are also quite skilled at pushing the buttons of the
-adults- around them, too.
> >> Perhaps its because I'm a parent and I know how much my child loves me.
> >
> > Perhaps you're not every parent and your child not every child. I can
> > understand what you're saying, but to reject something out-of-hand just
> > because
> > it doesn't fit into some leave-it-to-beaver notion of what it means to be
> > a
> > "kid" these days - I can't do that. To me, it's dishonest, even if I'm
> > only
> > being dishonest to myself. You probably don't see it that way and so no,
> > I'm
> > not accusing you of being a liar or anything. That's just how it is from
> > my
> > perspective, that's all.
>
> You are always entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to disagree! but I
> shouldn't be called a pedophile because it!!
Yegads, you're quite right, though that wasn't the only slant to my remarks (nor
my primary intent). Some people are just so hungry for news that they don't
care what it's about just so long as -something- happened to get all worked up
about for a little while. Voyeurs and sadists - I am both at various times, of
course, which is probably where that came from. I was projecting.
<snip>
> My brother had some very big challenges with peers growing up. He was
> exceptionally bright, and somehow not socially "regular" and therefore had
> little in common with his peers. Of course, this made him a target for
> exceptional creulty. Lucklily, my parents had the means and the knowhow to
> find an appropriate school for him where he fit in well. So I have
> certainly seen my share of "bad kids".
It makes it double-hell when you have to watch the -next- generation go through
the same crap. My nephew's going through it now, though they seem to be able to
help him in ways that were not available to me. Hopefully it does some good.
> Parents can be incredibly stupid and do things like place far too much
> emphasis on being "best" as opposed to perhaps "compassionate". I am
> particularly appalled at what passes for "boys will be boys", and once told
> a co-worker well "your boys will be criminals" in response. Even among my
> peers of nice uppermiddleclass families there is no accountability for kids
> behaviors - kid gets in trouble at school, mom gets kid put in a different
> class because its something wrong with that terrible teacher who punished
> poor little Branden for hitting Jimmy.
Yup, we humans sure came down out of the trees with some major -issues- to work
out. Leaving our collective inner chimp behind in the trees is -so- much easier
said than done. We're just now beginning to recognize what's going on with
regard to our behavior and psychology, how the whole thing works, and slowly
we're beginning to take control of ourselves. But it's a -real- long way to go
before that ideal can even come -close- to becoming realized.
Uncle Clover
<beth...@spamfreeclearwire.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Its been four years but the family was VERY much actively looking for their
> child. Check out shawns website - its very active and very - oops, its
> been replaced with a found poster. But that family was very involved in the
> search for their kid if their website was any indication.
Can you imagine what they must have felt? At some point, they almost certainly
began to accept on some level that he was probably dead. They may even have
grieved his loss in some inner corner of their mind. To settle on that notion
and then find out it's wrong - I try to imagine any number of my dead relatives
showing up alive and well at my doorstep one day. If it were my kid yet, I'm
not sure I'd survive the experience.
Of course if -my- kid were to show up at my doorstep today, I'd have to ask him
where in the hell his mother got my sperm because _I_ sure didn't give it to
her.
Poor kid. ;-)
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
> It's a little hard to buy that he would try to use the website as a way
> to tip off his parents, considering he had free access to come and go,
> a cell phone, and was even alone with police a few times and still made
> no mention.
Not to mention nowadays, with the internet, it would be impossible to
fool a kid with a story about his mother being killed by a drunk
driver, unlike in the days of Steven Staynor, who believed his
kidnapper's story of his father dying of a heart attack.
Cori
Beth In Alaska
"Uncle Clover" <Uncle...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
> <whew> I swear I'm much, much better than I used to be. I had a lot of
> anger
> and hate growing up. Being an all-out asshole was the only way to
> survive.
> Once in awhile, those old habits kick back up again. I'm always grateful
> whenever someone is honest enough to tell me I'm being an asshole, because
> sometimes I just can't see it on my own.
To be quite honest, I was shocked that were an asshole. You are usually
very kind. I think you perceive yourself as more of an asshole than you
really are.
> Would a teenager or near-teenager need any real-world justification to
> experience a bout of angst? Lordy, I remember situations for which I
> thought
> the world was about to end. That feeling is one of the hooks predators
> use to
> snag their victims. If you understand that aspect of being that young and
> you
> can remember it well enough from your own experience, you could probably
> manipulate a kid to do just about anything.
I had a very nice childhood, and junior high still sucked. I told my mother
I hated her daily. But she was such a smart mother she'd just say "thats ok
dear, when I was 11 I hated my mother too. thats what you do when you are
11". Of course that wasnt' the response I was going for. But it worked.
> Then again, some kids are also quite skilled at pushing the buttons of the
> -adults- around them, too.
And adults are the ones who should know better than to allow their buttons
to be pushed by a kid (I HATE YOU is a perfect example).
> Yegads, you're quite right, though that wasn't the only slant to my
> remarks (nor
> my primary intent). Some people are just so hungry for news that they
> don't
> care what it's about just so long as -something- happened to get all
> worked up
> about for a little while. Voyeurs and sadists - I am both at various
> times, of
> course, which is probably where that came from. I was projecting.
We have some of them here in this group. I understood your comments. I was
still shocked though <vbg>.
> It makes it double-hell when you have to watch the -next- generation go
> through
> the same crap. My nephew's going through it now, though they seem to be
> able to
> help him in ways that were not available to me. Hopefully it does some
> good.
Yeh, I can imagine how horrible it must be to see a good kid tortured at
school. I think if The Monk (my little guy) has issues with social things
(it doesn't apppear so, he's a hambone in public) I will be sending him to a
special school for geek kids. I won't let him be tortured. Although I do
believe some adversity is good for all kids - and learning to laugh at
yourself is a great skill to get through those crappy years. I hope that
Monk can learn it.
My brother was always "different" than his peers and part of that was that
my parents didnt' value things like sports (which I understand). But for a
boy to be accepted he needs to have some interest and skill in things that
perhaps I dont' value. I think I value my childs happiness more than I
dislike sports. Luckily for me my husband is rather...average boy. He
likes baseball and will probably be a great little league coach. He'd play
every kid, no matter how crummy and tell overly competitive parents to take
a shower.
> Yup, we humans sure came down out of the trees with some major -issues- to
> work
> out. Leaving our collective inner chimp behind in the trees is -so- much
> easier
> said than done. We're just now beginning to recognize what's going on
> with
> regard to our behavior and psychology, how the whole thing works, and
> slowly
> we're beginning to take control of ourselves. But it's a -real- long way
> to go
> before that ideal can even come -close- to becoming realized.
See, now you've scared the crap out of me. I have to raise a kid to be a
normal, functioning, non-asshole, secure human.
HOW CAN I DO IT??????????????????
Beth In Alaska
"Uncle Clover" <Uncle...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:02:12 -0900, "Beth In Alaska"
> <beth...@spamfreeclearwire.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Its been four years but the family was VERY much actively looking for
>> their
>> child. Check out shawns website - its very active and very - oops, its
>> been replaced with a found poster. But that family was very involved in
>> the
>> search for their kid if their website was any indication.
>
> Can you imagine what they must have felt? At some point, they almost
> certainly
> began to accept on some level that he was probably dead. They may even
> have
> grieved his loss in some inner corner of their mind. To settle on that
> notion
> and then find out it's wrong - I try to imagine any number of my dead
> relatives
> showing up alive and well at my doorstep one day. If it were my kid yet,
> I'm
> not sure I'd survive the experience.
My father's mother died when he was 15. He once got a phone call that went
like this:
"Is this gerald fleischer?"
"yes"
"This is your mother calling"
"Where are you calling from exactly?"
I wonder if parents of "lost" children ever really believe they are dead. I
mean, I think I would but wouldnt' there always be that hint of hope,
"maybe....". I don't know. I can't imagine having a child disappear. THAT
would kill me.
> Of course if -my- kid were to show up at my doorstep today, I'd have to
> ask him
> where in the hell his mother got my sperm because _I_ sure didn't give it
> to
> her.
LOL!!
Cliff and Linda Griffith
news:12qq65i...@corp.supernews.com...
> My father's mother died when he was 15. He once got a phone call that
went
> like this:
> "Is this gerald fleischer?"
> "yes"
> "This is your mother calling"
> "Where are you calling from exactly?"
Gosh, Beth...
Don't keep us (ME) in suspense! What did the woman answer? "Heaven",
"Hell", or somewhere in-between, like Kansas City?
Linda
Beth In Alaska
"Cliff and Linda Griffith" <grif...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:me9rh.149$4T...@newsfe05.lga...
LOL.
We lived in a town of 20,000 in suburban Pennsylvania. In that town there
was ANOTHER Gerald Fleischer. Go figure.
Uncle Clover
<beth...@spamfreeclearwire.net> wrote:
> "Uncle Clover" <Uncle...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
> news:vkboq2tpfptlc2lje...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> > Yup, we humans sure came down out of the trees with some major
> > -issues- to work out. Leaving our collective inner chimp behind
> > in the trees is -so- much easier said than done. We're just now
> > beginning to recognize what's going on with regard to our
> > behavior and psychology, how the whole thing works, and slowly
> > we're beginning to take control of ourselves. But it's a -real-
> > long way to go before that ideal can even come -close- to
> > becoming realized.
>
> See, now you've scared the crap out of me. I have to raise a
> kid to be a normal, functioning, non-asshole, secure human. HOW
> CAN I DO IT??????????????????
The key to raising a perfect human lay in realizing that
perfect humans have flaws. Not only that, but they're also
insecure and almost always assholes. Once you realize that,
you can't -help- but to raise a perfect child. ;-)
Beth In Alaska
"Uncle Clover" <Uncle...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:23:15 -0900, "Beth In Alaska"
> <beth...@spamfreeclearwire.net> wrote:
>
>> "Uncle Clover" <Uncle...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
>> news:vkboq2tpfptlc2lje...@4ax.com...
> <snip>
>
>> > Yup, we humans sure came down out of the trees with some major
>> > -issues- to work out. Leaving our collective inner chimp behind
>> > in the trees is -so- much easier said than done. We're just now
>> > beginning to recognize what's going on with regard to our
>> > behavior and psychology, how the whole thing works, and slowly
>> > we're beginning to take control of ourselves. But it's a -real-
>> > long way to go before that ideal can even come -close- to
>> > becoming realized.
>>
>> See, now you've scared the crap out of me. I have to raise a
>> kid to be a normal, functioning, non-asshole, secure human. HOW
>> CAN I DO IT??????????????????
>
> The key to raising a perfect human lay in realizing that
> perfect humans have flaws. Not only that, but they're also
> insecure and almost always assholes. Once you realize that,
> you can't -help- but to raise a perfect child. ;-)
HAH!
al2...@aol.com
>
> Yes, I suppose the kid hated school so much it was worth the
> molestation, IF it happened and I must suppose it did.
>
> But there really is a whiff of something a bit odd about this whole
> thing.
Why do you *have* to suppose that molestation happened?
The media and John Walsh are ASSUMING that Hornbeck was
brainwashed/frightened by Devlin, and John Walsh is ASSUMING that the
two boys were molested.
But, when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.
As for creepiness, I'm not sure about Hornbeck's step-father, but
Elizabeth Smart's father is VERY creepy.
As for no media attention at the time of Hornbeck's initial
disappearance, maybe the Smart case simply received more attention than
the Hornbeck case because Elizabeth is a girl and Hornbeck is a boy.
Regards,
Alex K.
BethF
<al2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1169011316.7...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> patfish wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I suppose the kid hated school so much it was worth the
>> molestation, IF it happened and I must suppose it did.
>>
>> But there really is a whiff of something a bit odd about this whole
>> thing.
>
>
> Why do you *have* to suppose that molestation happened?
>
> The media and John Walsh are ASSUMING that Hornbeck was
> brainwashed/frightened by Devlin, and John Walsh is ASSUMING that the
> two boys were molested.
>
>
> But, when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.
Faux News was reporting that child porn was found on Devlins computer. If
thats true, thats pretty damning. Or maybe he stole Shawn just to look at
him.
Did anyone see Bill Oreilly on this subject - he said several things of
interest: first was that he thought that shawn wanted to be with devlin and
that his posts on his missing persons website were "taunting" his parents.
Someone on websleuths had an excellent insight into the weird posts - i
think they were clues, but i think that devlin had some sort of netnanny on
the computer - perhaps shawn had to type his name incorrectly - or else the
net nanny would catch him.
Oreilly also spoke about shawn being forced to do things with corpses and
other kids. If thats so, this could be a very good reason why shawn was
afraid to go home -perhaps he believed he'd be arrested or that his parents
no longer loved him.
I also have to wonder - if Shawn was stolen because Devlin is a pedophile
and Ben was stolen because Shawn was too old, what was going to happen to
Shawn? It would be hard to kill him as everyone already knew him as Devlins
kid. Or what would happen to Ben,then? Devlin magically got a second kid?
And whatever kept shawn from running kept Ben from running- and ben was only
there a couple of days. I think Devlin was terrifying.
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:07:20 -0900, "BethF"
> <beth...@spamfreeclearwire.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Faux News was reporting that child porn was found on Devlins computer. If
> >thats true, thats pretty damning. Or maybe he stole Shawn just to look at
> >him.
> >
>
> The porn stuff could have been downloaded by Hornbeck.
Yes, but the whole thing is far too complex to be solved by
speculation, and far too fascinating not to speculate.
Cori
Beth In Alaska
<cmashiel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169067824.5...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
Cori, that is for sure.
Wild Monkshood
Beth In Alaska wrote:
Well, never fear. Hornbeck and family will be on Oprah tomorrow to clue
us in. I'm assuming I wasn't hallucinating....
WM
>
>
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
> Well, never fear. Hornbeck and family will be on Oprah tomorrow to clue
> us in. I'm assuming I wasn't hallucinating....
>
> WM
That sounds well worth tuning in for!
Cori
Wild Monkshood
cmashiel...@hotmail.com wrote:
I bet Law Enforcement isn't happy with it. Not wanting to question
their motives, but it seems a little early to start the media tour. I
wonder what the kid's counselor, assuming he has one, thinks about this.
And, no, I'm not talking about the disgraceful excuses for counselors
that appear on such shows as Oprah.
WM
>
> Cori
>
Andrys Basten
Wild Monkshood <wild_mo...@bellsloth.net> wrote:
>> Wild Monkshood wrote:
>>
>>[Cori]
>>> Well, never fear. Hornbeck and family will be on Oprah tomorrow to clue
>>>us in. I'm assuming I wasn't hallucinating....
>>>
>>>WM
>>
>>
>> That sounds well worth tuning in for!
>
> I bet Law Enforcement isn't happy with it. Not wanting to question
>their motives, but it seems a little early to start the media tour. I
>wonder what the kid's counselor, assuming he has one, thinks about this.
>And, no, I'm not talking about the disgraceful excuses for counselors
>that appear on such shows as Oprah.
>
>WM
I read 2 days ago that Hornbeck won't be on and won't be doing
interviews on tv soon. His parents are appearing with her.
- A
Wild Monkshood
Andrys Basten wrote:
Even so.....
WM
>
>
> - A
>
Beth In Alaska
"Wild Monkshood" <wild_mo...@bellsloth.net> wrote in message
news:ryIrh.4624$bp4....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Because Shawns parents are very serious advocates for missing kids, I
suspect its to raise awareness to question suspicious family arrangements.
Because Shawn should have been found four years ago.
tiny dancer
"Beth In Alaska" <beth...@spamfreeclearwire.net> wrote in message
news:12qvehi...@corp.supernews.com...
Perhaps too, it's an attempt to show Shawn as the *victim* here. I'm not
wording that exactly as I mean it to sound. Can't seem to find the right
phrasing I need. But what I'm getting at is, when Steven Stayner was found,
his parents wanted to keep all that happened to him *secret*. They were
ashamed of the abuse their son suffered at the hands of his abductor. They
were ashamed/embarrassed by the sexual abuse poor Steven endured. Which I'm
sure caused Steven, in turn, to feel enormous guilt and unnecessary pain.
IIRC, they forbid him to get any help/therapy, remarking that 'now that he
was home, everything would be just *fine*. I'm thinking that could have
been a big part of why Steven had such a hard time integrating back into
society and tragically only lived a short number of years after gaining his
freedom. From all accounts, he couldn't find relief/happiness/solace, etc.,
even after being freed. It was a very sad and tragic end to all the
suffering little Stevie endured for seven long years.
td
td
cmashiel...@hotmail.com
> Because Shawns parents are very serious advocates for missing kids, I
> suspect its to raise awareness to question suspicious family arrangements.
> Because Shawn should have been found four years ago.
After watching the show, I felt this was an absolute coup on the part
of Shawn and his parents to offset all the nasty speculation swirling
around Shawn. NOTHING could have been more convincing than his own
personal appearance. Also, his aunt really stuck it to the people who
recognized Shawn four years ago and said nothing because Shawn didn't
look or act like their perception of what a kidnap victim "should"
project. Far from believing Shawn to be stupid or suicidal, I think he
adopted an act to survive, an act which worked way too well on his
"friends," who probably feel like piles of crap about now. This was
probably a big motivation of theirs for going on the show--to raise
awareness to people who should speak out and don't! Instead, one kid
was tortured for four years and another kidnapped and traumatized.
Cori
Andrys Basten
but taped the rest of it and will watch it all later. I saw
that Shawn said he did write the two notes to the website identifying
his current full name and the city where they lived. He turned to one
of his parents (his mother I think) to say that he had hoped someone
would notice it.
If afraid something would be done to his parents (as has been
suggested), this was a subtle approach, I suppose.
In article <eog2ko$4qo$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
Andrys Basten <and...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <1168865092.1...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> <cig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>BethInAK wrote:
>>
>>> Neighbors heard SCREAMING at night. I think the kid was somehow terrifed to
>>> go home. The kid posted messages on his own missing persons website as
>>> Shawn Devlin with hints as to his whereabouts and hints that it was him.
>>>
>>> An 11 year old doesn't hate school enough to allow himself to be apart from
>>> his family for five years.
>>
>>I read about his website posts but they dont seem to be "hints" as to
>>his whereabouts. In one he simply asks "how long are you going to look
>>for your son?" and in another he asks for permission to write a poem
>>about Shawn.
>
>Someone signed the guest book "Shawn Devlin" using his abductor's last name
>and then gave the actual city they were living in, when asked to
>list the city. This is the name he went by the last few years too.
>
> He then apologized later that day for asking the question (possibly
>just calling the webowners' attention to it at all) and then said he
>was wondering if he could write a poem about this as he liked to write
>poems (which Shawn's various Internet bios said he does). He said he'd
>like to do it in "horner" of Shawn but then pointed out his spelling
>error though (in the midst of many) as if trying to draw attention to
>the 'horn' part. He also put "shawn Hornbeck" (with capital H but
>all lowercase for 'Shawn') in a sentence.
>
> The main thing for me is he said twice that he wondered if it would
>be okay to write this poem (for submission, it seems) and this
>indicated a request for a REPLY to him -- either to his email link
>if he had one or in the comments area from someone connected with
>the site. It looks as if he was looking for INTERACTION and to be
>noticed in a surreptitious way.
>
> They've tried to ask him about this but stopped when he started
>to cry there, per one post I saw but I don't know where the person
>got that info. Seemed to be from a tv interview. A good discussion
>is readable at Steve Huff's True Crime blog, which has almost
>300 comments in it.
>http://truecrimeblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/amazing-development-in-terrible-story.html
>
>>It's a little hard to buy that he would try to use the website as a way
>>to tip off his parents, considering he had free access to come and go,
>>a cell phone, and was even alone with police a few times and still made
>>no mention.
>
> The stepfather's been quoted as saying his life was threatened.
>
> Who knows? The fact is that someone naming himself as 'Shawn Devlin'
>from "Kirkwood" drew attention to himself in that comments area and
>asked for approval to send a poem about Shawn. A request for
>interaction and for expression of something about himself.
>
> - Andrys
>--
>http://www.andrys.com
>
>
>
Andrys Basten
Bart Bailey <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>In Message-ID:<eoplof$b30$1...@reader2.panix.com> posted on Fri, 19 Jan
>2007 05:42:39 +0000 (UTC), Andrys Basten wrote: Begin
>>
>> If afraid something would be done to his parents (as has been
>>suggested), this was a subtle approach, I suppose.
>
>conditions awaited at home should he decide to return, as he was
>certainly free to do.
Not sure that he would sign off with his findable new name he was living
under and his new city, nearby.
I think he was testing whether they could figure that out without
his actually sending email to contact them directly (not sure what
threats may have been made re his family and contacting them --
we know that's been done in previous cases). He may have preferred
a more passive mode - "come find me so I don't have to take the first
dangerous steps" (for all). I remember what I was like at 11 and
if kept under those circumstances, I don't know what I'd be like.
This was from many accounts, a big mean guy.
What interested me most was his 2nd note, which seemed to take
care to point out his first note so that it wouldn't be overlooked.
And if a stranger (with a similar first name, in these unusual
circumstances) asks if he might write a poem in Shawn's "horner'
and then draws attention to not knowing how to spell that word,
in the midst of misspelling everything (Shawn was not put into
school for those years), I'm not sure why that post would be ignored.
Why encourage people to write?
His stepfather (since he was age 1 and their closeness seems to
show on the Oprah video) said he deleted it eventually because
others had pretended to be Shawn. In none of the tv reports is there
any description of the much longer 2nd note, apologizing for the
first note and asking for permission to do the poem.
> He now seems (at least on Oprah's questioning) to
>be reluctant to discuss his comments or motivations as if things are
>still a bit touch and go and the discovery of the other kid forced the
>time line.
The 'experts' (and they do spend more time with these kids and the
fallout than most of us would) insist that it can be harmful to push
these kids to 'explain' everything right away - better to make them
feel more safe in a place that has not been 'home' for years.
Pressure may be the last thing they need. And voicing what happened
when it's man-boy can raise conflicting and often shame-involved
feelings in children subjected to this. I do know that I just don't
know and I think there's no reason to rush him because we're curious
out here.
> I wouldn't be surprised if he 'disappears' again at some time
>in the future.
Well, a lot happened to him in 4 years. So, all the more reason
for them to be more careful. I'm glad I haven't seen him placed on any
more shows, either in video at home or sitting in the audience. The
latter was painful to watch.
His smiles for his parents seem to me sincere. He doesn't try to
hide his more negative feelings when surrounded by people wanting
reactions from him. But the smiles come quickly when looking at them.
And they don't look forced.
I'm glad they found him alive. I think they need some time.
shannonki...@yahoo.com
John wrote:
>> ...Let's get real-He very well MAY have enjoyed the sexual contact whether it's abuse or not.
You are a sick M.F. He was ELEVEN!!! Grown women (and men) have been
known to stay with their captors even once they've been given some
"freedoms."
People can be mentally captive too.
Sicko.
Uncle Clover
Flame-baiting troll though he may be, John might not actually be wrong about his
statement. Sexual abuse isn't always physically unpleasant, and when you're too
young to realize it shouldn't be happening, you might actually enjoy it.
Think of it in the same category as drug abuse - if an 11 year old kid began
getting into drug abuse, they would very likely enjoy being high. That doesn't
mean their drug use isn't or wasn't a negative thing. It only means that it
takes awhile before we're mature enough to know how to discriminate the positive
or negative aspects of things.
Part of the recover for many sexual abuse survivors is dealing with memories of
the abuse in which the abused was actually enjoying the experience. It's one of
the things that feeds into a person's self-loathing blame.
You seem to be at least somewhat aware of that given your response. But given
just the quote above to which you replied, I don't see that John said anything
wrong or sick - even if that may have been his objective.
shannonki...@yahoo.com
Uncle Clover wrote:
>> Flame-baiting troll though he may be, John might not actually be wrong about his
> statement. Sexual abuse isn't always physically unpleasant, and when you're too
> young to realize it shouldn't be happening, you might actually enjoy it.
Being penetrated is not pleasant at first--even vaginally! Rarely will
you hear a virgin say, "Yeah, it was so good."
I assume that being sodomized would be even more unpleasant. And even
an 11 year old would know that it's just not "right." What in the
world would make anyone think that this poor kid stayed for sex!
> Part of the recover for many sexual abuse survivors is dealing with memories of
> the abuse in which the abused was actually enjoying the experience. It's one of
> the things that feeds into a person's self-loathing blame.
This may all be true, but seems to have no foundation in this case. He
was a kid and he did not want to be sodomized by a 300 lb. slob. End
of story.
No vitriol directed at you, though. You seem perfectly nice.
But don't defend that loon.
Uncle Clover
How do you know if any anal penetration was even involved? And furthermore,
yes, victims of abuse - even when anal penetration is involved - _can_ actually
learn to yearn for the sensation, even if it wasn't too pleasant for them the
first time. I know I did. I was sexually abused as a toddler -with- anal
penetration, and by the age of seven, had fucked myself with virtually every
penis-shaped object in the house.
I never really did reflect on -that- aspect of it. Kinda' makes me sick now
that I think about it, but it's just how I know abused victims might sometimes
enjoy the experience, even in the case of anal penetration.
But like I said, we don't even know -if- sexual contact was part of Shawn's
experience with Devlin, let alone what type it might have been.
Uncle Clover
wrote:
<snip>
> I never really did reflect on -that- aspect of it. Kinda' makes me sick now
> that I think about it, but it's just how I know abused victims might sometimes
> enjoy the experience, even in the case of anal penetration.
On rethinking that, "enjoy" might not necessarily be the only reason they'd
willingly continue to endure it. It can be more of a "craving", even of a
thoroughly unpleasant experience. I believe it's how masochism starts. That's
what my behavior regarding "every penis-shaped object in the house" was - a
desire to hurt "that way" for reasons I didn't understand, even though it didn't
really feel good. It might also be some sort of "trade-off" - a victim might
willingly put up with it without enjoying it due to some reward or another they
expect to get from the abuser.
In that light, then I guess you're more right than I thought you were. There's
still a chance that if such abuse occurred, the Hornbeck might have "liked" it
due to what I explained previously, but the notion bears considerably less
weight in light of the above thoughts. And it also still doesn't mean it was a
"good" experience no matter -how- what he felt about it.
If he did endure it, I hope he's strong because it will attach to him like a
leech and stick with him for the rest of his life.
Lars Eighner
<1169522241.3...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented shannonki...@yahoo.com
broadcast on alt.true-crime:
> Uncle Clover wrote:
>> Flame-baiting troll though he may be, John might not actually be wrong about his
>> statement. Sexual abuse isn't always physically unpleasant, and when you're too
>> young to realize it shouldn't be happening, you might actually enjoy it.
> Being penetrated is not pleasant at first--even vaginally! Rarely will
> you hear a virgin say, "Yeah, it was so good."
> I assume that being sodomized would be even more unpleasant.
You also seem to "assume" that is the kind of contact that would be
either most likely or inevitable under such circumstances. It isn't.
> And even an 11 year old would know that it's just not "right." What in the
> world would make anyone think that this poor kid stayed for sex!
I'm sure that wouldn't be the only reason. But free blow jobs, video games,
no school, computer, pizza, not much in the way of rules --- I would have
found that a very attractive package when I was eleven, even without the
computer and video games which didn't exist yet.
>> Part of the recover for many sexual abuse survivors is dealing with
>> memories of the abuse in which the abused was actually enjoying the
>> experience. It's one of the things that feeds into a person's
>> self-loathing blame.
> This may all be true, but seems to have no foundation in this case. He
> was a kid and he did not want to be sodomized by a 300 lb. slob. End of
> story.
I find it really very instructive that so many people immediately think
of anal sex in such a stituation and hilarious that they suppose the older
party would be in the insertive role. How naive!
> No vitriol directed at you, though. You seem perfectly nice.
> But don't defend that loon.
We don't really know the facts in this particular case. But I do know there
are eleven year olds who would volunteer for such a situation like a shot
because I was one of them. That doesn't mean Shawn was one of them. I
don't know that, John doesn't know that, but you don't know the contrary
either. I do know that to integrate him back into his family and community
at this point the story has to be that he was held against his will, and
that story may be true or it may be a necessary fiction at this point.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Countdown: 728 days to go.
Miriam Cohen
Odds are "John" never heard of "Stockholm Syndrome".
--
L'Chaim
Miriam
In the beginning
the Word already was.
No Fox Zone
with his captor
then what would the charge be? For example lets say he testifies, I
was hitching hiking,
like in the movies, and this man picked me up and I said you wanna hang
out... and he let
me be his guest for 4 years. Now what do we have in legal terms?
Anybody want to speculate? (Think of it like OJ's book) LOL
Uncle Clover wrote:
> There seems to be a general suggestion circulating that perhaps - just
> perhaps - Shawn Hornbeck may have been more willing to stay with his abductor
> than one might wish to believe. Granted he was only 11 at the time of his
> disappearance and probably susceptible to brainwashing of a sort. But by the
> time he reached 15, he wasn't acting very much like an unwilling abductee.
>
> Whether through brainwashing or otherwise, it seems as if Hornbeck
> remained with his captor willingly, skipping out on opportunity upon opportunity
> to escape. Not that this made him -legally- consenting - I would never suggest
> that. Just that it made him seem to be something other than 100% victim.
>
> I have a theory about that. I think Hornbeck -was- at least
> semi-willing to stay with the man because the man promised not to make him go to
> school. If the man didn't molest him, then he may well have been enjoying his
> captivity.
>
> It sounds like a very distasteful thought on the face of it, yet the
> notion fits the known facts pretty well. That sort of thing would certainly
> have worked on me at 11 years of age. If the man -did- molest him, which I
> think likely, then I wouldn't speculate on whether or not he enjoyed his
> captivity. My speculations along -those- lines rests entirely on whether or not
> he was sexually abused by his captor. It may have begun with threats, I don't
> see that as at all unlikely. But by the time he & his new fellow captive were
> found, it's not at all clear that it was still a coercive situation.
>
> What do you think?
Lars Eighner
<1169533109.2...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and
talented No Fox Zone broadcast on alt.true-crime:
> Let's say the kid admits he wanted to stay there and willingly went with
> his captor then what would the charge be? For example lets say he
> testifies, I was hitching hiking, like in the movies, and this man picked
> me up and I said you wanna hang out... and he let me be his guest for 4
> years. Now what do we have in legal terms?
> Anybody want to speculate? (Think of it like OJ's book) LOL
No coersion, no restraint, kid volunteered, no sexual contact that either
of them will admit ... hm, I'd guess there is probably a bunch of neglect
and contributing to the delinquency charges, mainly on account of he wasn't
in school, which in all doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Some state
kidnap statutes include language about detaining a minor without consent of
the lawful guardian, and I suppose it kind of depends on the construction of
detain, but I am guessing statutes intended to cover non-custodial parents
with whom kids go willingly would apply in such a case.
James Fenimore
---------------
shannonki...@yahoo.com
Lars Eighner wrote:
> In our last episode,
> <1169533109.2...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and
> talented No Fox Zone broadcast on alt.true-crime:
>
> > Let's say the kid admits he wanted to stay there and willingly went with
> > his captor then what would the charge be? For example lets say he
> > testifies, I was hitching hiking, like in the movies, and this man picked
> > me up and I said you wanna hang out... and he let me be his guest for 4
> > years. Now what do we have in legal terms?
It would still be kidnapping, because an 11 year old doesn't legally
get to decide where he lives.
shannonki...@yahoo.com
Uncle Clover wrote:
> And furthermore, yes, victims of abuse - even when anal penetration is involved - _can_ actually
> learn to yearn for the sensation, even if it wasn't too pleasant for them the
> first time. I know I did. I was sexually abused as a toddler -with- anal
> penetration, and by the age of seven, had fucked myself with virtually every
> penis-shaped object in the house.
I'm really sorry to hear that this happened to you. However, I still
doubt that anyone would stay away from their parents/family just
because they enjoyed the sensation of being penetrated--or because of
no school, free access to video games, etc. Shawn himself said that he
prayed every day for release; that he mostly slept to cope with his
life; and that he didn't leave because he was "terrified."
It sounds to me like a child who had been terrorized and abused--not
someone who wanted to hang out for free sex and video games. It would
eventually have gotten old. He would have wanted to return home.
shannonki...@yahoo.com
Uncle Clover wrote:
> If he did endure it, I hope he's strong because it will attach to him like a
> leech and stick with him for the rest of his life.
Really? Is there no hope then?
Beth In Alaska
<shannonki...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169575882.5...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
I think that early sexual abuse causes kinks. I think this is what Unc was
referring to.
Uncle Clover
Of course. A few of them actually. The primary hope is that he didn't go
through anything like that, that it really was just a "Mr Lonely" type seeking
to play the father role even if for kids that aren't his own. If he did go
through it, it's also possible that he will grow up with good memories of the
experience. It -does- happen from time to time that one who is sexually
exploited at such a young age grows up with no hard feelings and no bad
after-effects - it is possible, after all. Humans have been sexually active at
the ages of 12 or so for far longer than it's been taboo, so -some- of us can
unquestionably handle it. It's the fact that today's 12 year olds are so much
less mature that makes it a danger to them, and the fact that we can't know
which ones would be "okay" with having been sexually active and which ones
won't, that's why we can't permit adults to exploit them like that. They're
just too easy to hurt. But like many 12 year olds before them, -some- of
today's kids turn out just fine after going through such a relationship. We
-are- equipped to handle sexual relationships at that age if the conditions are
right, but I don't know what those conditions are and wouldn't want to gamble
with some kid's psychological health just to get an orgasm off of them. So it
cannot be condoned in any cases, because while some kids are fine with it, far
too many aren't, and it's just not worth the risk. It's only where someone
breaks this taboo that the character of any given child is learned in this
regard. So the hope is that if Shawn was sexually used by Devlin, he will be
the type who won't suffer scars from it. If _that_ can't be the case, then the
hope is that he will be strong enough to go on to lead a life and have the same
chances to find happiness as many of the rest of us do.
So yes, there's hope. Lots of it. But there isn't much hope that it will be
easy in -any- likely scenario that I can see.
Uncle Clover
That may well be the case. The hope you seek lay for me in the possibility that
you're wrong. You're probably not, I acknowledge that based on everything we've
seen & heard to date, but I can't help but to hope just the same that you are.
:-/
Uncle Clover
> Let's say the kid admits he wanted to stay there and willingly went
> with his captor
> then what would the charge be? For example lets say he testifies, I
> was hitching hiking,
> like in the movies, and this man picked me up and I said you wanna hang
> out... and he let
> me be his guest for 4 years. Now what do we have in legal terms?
>
> Anybody want to speculate? (Think of it like OJ's book) LOL
The kid wouldn't be old enough to legally consent to a change in address just
like that. He might be able to file for some sort of "divorce" situation to be
divorced at his request from his parents, but it would have to go through the
proper channels for Devlin to be anything other than a negligent adult in the
matter. It wouldn't matter if Shawn & Ben each literally _BEGGED_ Devlin to let
them stay with him and refused to take no for an answer, he is the adult, and it
would be his responsibility to make sure the law is adhered to.
I think if Shawn had gone with him in a willing situation at the age of 15, it
-might- be a slightly easier matter for Devlin to worm his way out of in terms
of trouble. But not at 11. I think for the age of 11, some sort of charge
similar to kidnapping - perhaps even a -type- of kidnapping - would apply. In
some jurisdictions, I know, it can be purely voluntary and yet, if the
individual "kidnapped" wasn't legally capable of consent, it's still considered
kidnapping. Much like statutory rape is still seen as "rape" even if the minor
was entirely willing.
Uncle Clover
Not without going through some sort of legal process, that is. There are
situations where an 11 year old could possibly win the right to live with the
adult of their choosing, but I don't believe that would be applicable in this
case. Even if Shawn had gone to court to win the right to live with Devlin, I
don't know of any legal basis he might have had to argue for such a right. And
if ever one existed, he's certainly not talking about it -now-. :-/
Miriam Cohen
Blatantly obvious to the most casual observer. :)
Lars Eighner
talented Miriam Cohen broadcast on alt.true-crime:
Evidently this would be in Missouri the crime of child kidnaping
|
| Missouri Revised Statutes
|
| Chapter 565
| Offenses Against the Person
| Section 565.115
| August 28, 2006
|
| [rd_bar.gif]
|
| Child kidnapping--penalty.
|
| 565.115. 1. A person commits the crime of child kidnapping if such
| person is not a relative of the child within the third degree and such
| person:
|
| (1) Unlawfully removes a child under the age of fourteen without the
| consent of such child's parent or guardian from the place where such
| child is found; or
|
| (2) Unlawfully confines a child under the age of fourteen without the
| consent of such child's parent or guardian.
|
| 2. In determining whether the child was removed or confined unlawfully,
| it is an affirmative defense that the person reasonably believed that
| the person's actions were necessary to preserve the child from danger
| to his or her welfare.
|
| 3. Child kidnapping is a class A felony.
Now in the spirit of this, which is that we are not talking about the
particulars of Shawn's case, which we don't know, and we are assuming in the
hypothetical case that there never was any force, coercion, threats,
confinement, or sexual contact, it appears this crimes consists of the
"removal" of the child from where it is found. There's the escape clause
for people who pick up a stranded kid somewhere --- presumably this
evaporates if some reasonable steps are not taken after the child is out of
danger, etc. Now, the next question is: picking the child up (removal)
seems to be necessary for this crime in the absence of confinement, so what
if the kid comes to the apartment under his own power and just stays?
Is that "child kidnaping"?
(I haven't looked into the federal statutes --- Lyndberg law and its
successors.)
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Countdown: 727 days to go.
Uncle Clover
> In Message-ID:<c74dr25ohkoh5msuo...@4ax.com> posted on
> Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:56:57 -0500, Uncle Clover wrote: Begin
>
> >because while some kids are fine with it, far
> >too many aren't,
>
> Aren't fine with the experience itself,
> or the aftermath from those around them?
Honestly I think one can be "traumatized" because those around them apparently
expect them to be and for no other reason. I'm quite sure that's possible. But
it's unquestionable that such exploitation often leads to situations in which no
amount of non-challance by the adults around one is going to make everything
okay.
brainfart
> We'll probably learn that Shawn felt brow-beaten and "trapped" at home.
>
> But, here we go again, uptight and sexually repressed Mr. And Ms.
> America!
>
> The question?
>
> Why did Mr. Michael J. Devlin kidnap Shawn Hornbeck, and, later, Ben
> Ownby?
I don't know about the second kid, but it sounds like Shawn Hornbeck was a
runaway and only technically a kidnap victim because of his age. I don't
know anything about his family life, but he obviously enjoyed living with
the fat pizza guy more than living with his biological parents. While the
relationship was obviously illegal, from the kid's point of view he had
everything going for him - from not having to attend school to being
allowed to play video games all day and even drive a truck attended (which
you notice he didn't drive to the nearest police station). For a supposed
kidnap victim, he had complete freedom and no mean father yelling at him
and all he had to do is let some fat pervert fuck him in the ass a few
times a week.
This kid is starting to sound like that little hustler who made the Oprah
circuit last year with his tale of setting up a webcam in his bedroom and
charging perverts to watch him masturbate, and then complained that they
had "molested" him. Though legally "molestation," the term suggests
something involuntary and since the kid took out huge paid magazine and
web advertisements offering his sexual services in exchange for a fee
charged to a credit card, I hardly think he was molested and that he is
actually a little whore who masturbates all day and decides he should at
least get paid for it so he can buy Nintendo cartridges. Actually, since
he lost his boyish good looks, he is forced to whore his story on Oprah,
and similarly this Shawn Hornbeck must also whore his story on Oprah since
his sugar daddy got busted. Nintendo cartridges ain't cheap...
Cori
Media reports catching up to all the speculation that's been going on
here.
Cori