Not all endings are unhappy

January 13, 2007 9:25 AM

2 children that disappeared 4 1/2 years and 40 miles apart have been found, alive and TOGETHER.What makes the story even better is that one of the boys was predicted dead by a television psychic. Whoops.
posted by deusdiabolus (112 comments total)

ah ... well, you see, she meant to say he was dead in 2106 ... she was predicting the future ... it's an obvious misunderstanding
posted by pyramid termite at 9:32 AM on January 13, 2007

"Parents rejoice after 2 Mo. boys found"

They found others earlier?
posted by hal9k at 9:45 AM on January 13, 2007

Wait, a television psychic was proved wrong?

This changes everything...
posted by keswick at 9:47 AM on January 13, 2007

I shudder to think how messed up these kids' heads are after four years with their psycho surrogate parent.
posted by craniac at 9:49 AM on January 13, 2007

Good Lord! The kidnapper lives in my hometown. Kirkwood is about the safest suburb imaginable. The Post-Dispatch once called it where Leave it to Beaver would have been shot if it were set in St. Louis.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 9:51 AM on January 13, 2007

I don't think it's the first time Montel's favorite psychic has screwed up.
posted by washburn at 9:52 AM on January 13, 2007

Hard to believe so many people seriously trust the opinions of "psychics", and "astrologers", and ""clergy".
posted by newfers at 9:53 AM on January 13, 2007 [5 favorites has favorites]

You've got the facts wrong. One of the kids was kidnapped just this last week--it was the search for him that lead to the discovery of the other kid, who'd been kidnapped years earlier by the same man. Just sick speculation, but it may mean that the older kid was getting too old for the man's sexual taste, and the new kid was his replacement. I think that was the situation with the Steven Stayner case.
posted by tula at 9:56 AM on January 13, 2007

One kid was snatched four years ago, the other four days ago. Friend of the kid that was snatched four days ago gave the description of the pickup truck that led to the capture of the kidnapper. What don't get and they haven's aksed/asnwered yet is what s the story of the kid that's been missing for four years? The neighbors said they saw kid and kidnapper coming and going and assumed kid was kidnapper's son. Can't reasonably healthy teen outrun overweight middle-aged guy in apartment complex parking lot?
posted by fixedgear at 9:59 AM on January 13, 2007

I hope there is a better ending than this time before
posted by A189Nut at 10:03 AM on January 13, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Can't reasonably healthy teen outrun overweight middle-aged guy in apartment complex parking lot?

Stockholm Syndrome.
posted by pardonyou? at 10:10 AM on January 13, 2007

Doing a Youtube search for Sylvia reveals dozens of times that she's either said things that make absolutely no sense, or said something just plain mean.

Why do people take her seriously? If often seems that she's just as confounded by that question as I am.
posted by roll truck roll at 10:10 AM on January 13, 2007

Can't reasonably healthy teen outrun overweight middle-aged guy in apartment complex parking lot?

That's always the first thing that pops into my head when I read about things like this. I imagine saying something to the abductee along the lines of " I know where your family lives, and if you even try to run away I will kill them all", would probably be quite effective intimidation.
posted by oneirodynia at 10:11 AM on January 13, 2007

You mean psychic abilities are complete bullshit? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!
posted by clevershark at 10:14 AM on January 13, 2007

Kirkwood is about the safest suburb imaginable. The Post-Dispatch once called it where Leave it to Beaver would have been shot if it were set in St. Louis.

Doesn't sound too safe to me.
posted by CRM114 at 10:22 AM on January 13, 2007

Not even just Stockholm Syndrome. I think regular fear of not making it or something worse happening if you try could keep you from trying to leave.

This is good news, I'm glad they've been found (although I didn't know they were missing), but I feel bad for the years of therapy that I would assume both will need.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 10:23 AM on January 13, 2007

Kudos to the kid who gave the local cops a detailed description of the pickup, and kudos to the Kirkwood cops who recognized it when they were on an unrelated call.

The first kid is going to have a tough readjustment with his family. But Steven Stayner is one end of the bell curve, Elizabeth Smart is the other. Then there's Natascha Kampusch. I don't think she fits any typical profile of a victim.
posted by dhartung at 10:23 AM on January 13, 2007

Can't get enough of anchors saying "went missing".
posted by wfc123 at 10:37 AM on January 13, 2007

It seems extremely rural Franklin County, Missouri, is swapping its reputation as Meth Central, USA for kidnappings. The boy that was taken four years ago was from Richwoods, an unincorporated area that straddles the county line. The recent boy was taken from an area just west of the county seat. And then there was the newborn taken (and also safely recovered) just a couple months ago in Lonedell, a crossroads a couple miles north of Richwoods. That's where I grew up, though the kidnappings weren't quite so common then.
posted by ewagoner at 10:42 AM on January 13, 2007

Bizzare story. And the kids didn't seem upset about the whole thing or anything. How weird.
posted by delmoi at 10:43 AM on January 13, 2007

Oh SNAP, Sylvia Browne!
How on Earth is she still making a living at something she's so bad at...?

I saw Ben's parents & sister on the Today Show being interviewed by Meredith Viera... it just broke my heart. I'm so happy to hear that he's safe now.
posted by miss lynnster at 10:53 AM on January 13, 2007

Wow....amazing story. I'm sure we'll see the TV version soon, good or bad.

We are going to learn more.....never assume anything is what this story is about....both that 4.5 years is too long for your kid to return and that kids, even pre-adolescent ones, are going to try easily to contact their family even when left relatively free to roam.
posted by skepticallypleased at 11:01 AM on January 13, 2007

I'm glad the stopsylviabrowne.com site has gotten some play here. She is a horrible person. The more I see about her, the madder I get. Exhibit C, your honor...
posted by ObscureReferenceMan at 11:01 AM on January 13, 2007

I must be out of the loop as I had no idea who Sylvia Browne is. But watching these videos suggests to me that 1.) she is a charlatan and a really lousy one at that or 2.) she honestly believes she has some power but can't quite figure out why she is wrong so often.

Either way, she seems really unpleasant. This has totally helped reinforce my decision to avoid watching shows like Montel.
posted by quin at 11:16 AM on January 13, 2007

This "psychic" seems to be about on the same level as the breatharian lady. However, her idiocy and near sociopathology doesn't mean that everyone in her line of work is making it up, even if most are. I keep an open mind on these things.
posted by imperium at 11:17 AM on January 13, 2007

Well sorry for the derail (and I really am happy about those kids . . .). But my favorite Montel/Sylvia Browne moment was one episode when Montel kept asking Browne about Bigfoot, asking whether Bigfoot was real. Montel was very enthusiastic about Bigfoot, but Browne informed him that no, Bigfoot wasn't real. The Chupacabra, however---that was *very* real, she told Montel.

Montel was obviously not very happy. Try as she might, Browne was unable to get Montel to as excited about the Chupacabra as he'd been about bigfoot, and he seemed to regard her with a bit of suspicion for the rest of the show.
posted by washburn at 11:34 AM on January 13, 2007 [4 favorites has favorites]

I'm with you, ORM. I'm a skeptic, however there are people in my family who have had their share of ESP stuff so I don't discount it entirely. The thing is, people who loudly claim to be psychic & then take advantage of the inconsolable grief and sadness of others for fame & profit make me nauseous. Sylvia Browne does national tours with the Learning Annex, gets airtime on Montel & Larry King, writes books, and she's wrong SO OFTEN and SO PUBLICLY that I just don't get why she's still in the public eye. As far as I'm considered, she's no better than these scam artists... and yet she continues to be rewarded and gain celebrity. She should be working in a truck stop diner or something. Hell, she should go to jail. She HURTS people... people who are already suffering!

In case you haven't noticed, she (& her arrogance) ticks me off. So does this guy. Ghost Whisperer, my a**...

Oh, but how do you really feel, miss lynnster...?
posted by miss lynnster at 11:37 AM on January 13, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

At least in Australia some people are publicly exposing these disgusting faux-psychic vultures... we really need to go back to doing more of that (Cue the jungle drums, mon!).

Where's James Randi when we need him?
posted by miss lynnster at 11:58 AM on January 13, 2007

I keep an open mind on these things.

Is your open mind aware of any genuine psychics?
posted by the cuban at 12:00 PM on January 13, 2007

Where's James Randi when we need him?

Only one click away.
posted by jaronson at 12:08 PM on January 13, 2007

I'm highly skeptical of anyone who calls themselves a psychic and tries to profit off of other people. I can read fortunes using my great grandmother's fortune telling cards, and I know just how much of it is the power of suggestion. That said, I have witnessed things in my own life that I can't explain, and I don't even try to. I've spent enough time at the Magic Castle to know that even the most seemingly inexplicable things generally have logical explanations, even if I can't imagine what they are. Sometimes I don't even want to know... sometimes it's awfully fun to just believe.

With people like Sylvia Browne however, fun has NOTHING to do with it. Just nasty, old fashioned greed.
posted by miss lynnster at 12:23 PM on January 13, 2007

Bizzare story. And the kids didn't seem upset about the whole thing or anything. How weird.
posted by delmoi at 6:43 PM GMT on January 13

The kid who was gone for 4 years will have more than likely completely dissassociated himself from his experience. Or so I would imagine.

The saddest part for me is that the parents haven't actually gotten their kid back, just someone who looks and sounds like him. No matter how much they support and love him those four years and the kid's childhood are lost forever. Still, it's better than never knowing or finding him dead.
posted by slimepuppy at 12:34 PM on January 13, 2007

Randi is right here. Too bad the Dragon lady has yet to take the challenge.
posted by Holy foxy moxie batman! at 1:43 PM on January 13, 2007

Isn't Randi the guy from that "impossible watch" crap? His credibility took a hit with me over that, which sucks because I really admire him.
posted by bob sarabia at 1:47 PM on January 13, 2007

Thank you for that link, A189nut.

To read the Steven Stayner story is to descend into a pit of human evil and be smeared with the misery it has birthed into the world; to find the story of Steven's older brother Cary Stayner at the bottom of that pit is to be precipitated into the Abyss.

Cary Staner is the man who killed those four women at Yosemite in 1999; truly a monster-- and a pedophile who attempted to bargain with the authorities for child pornography while in custody in exchange for some parts of his confession.

Cary Staner was 11 years old, and, if I read a statement from his father correctly, well into puberty when his 7 year old brother Steven was kidnapped by the pedophile, Parnell. In his confession to the Yosemite murders, Cary claims to have fantasized about killing women since the age of 7, and also claims not to have sexually molested his victims in any way-- a claim I did not see contradicted in the material I was able to find, even though his last victim was found soon enough after her death that forensic tests could have been performed. In 1990, the year after Steven was killed in a motorcycle accident, the uncle Cary was living with at the time was murdered.

In light of all this, it's hard for me to resist thinking that Steven could have been very much a victim before he was kidnapped, and that his compliance with his kidnapper is anything but surprising, even without invoking the Stockholm Syndrome.

What finally broke the spell and caused Steven to strike for freedom? According to Wikipedia (linked above):

As Stayner approached puberty, Parnell began to look for younger victims. On Valentine's Day 1980, Parnell kidnapped five-year-old Timmy White in Ukiah, California. Stayner waited for an opportunity to escape with Timmy and return him to his parents.

Again, I find it difficult to resist wondering whether Steven finally acted not to save himself, lost even before his kidnapping, but to save a boy so much like his younger innocent self-- to save himself before the Fall.

And to save himself from turning into his brother.
posted by jamjam at 2:15 PM on January 13, 2007

tula, I think you've misread the first sentence.
posted by Auz at 2:22 PM on January 13, 2007

Where's James Randi when we need him?

Actually, the guy who started stopsilviabrowne.com is very active over at the JREF boards.

Holy - Silvia actually agreed to the challenge (on Larry King), then backed down. Also, Randi will be changing the challenge a little - to keep away the (every day) crazies, and allow more "reputable" paranormal types go for the prize. It should even allow the JREF to "go after" people like Browne, and John Edward, etc.

bob - Don't be too hard on The Amazing about the impossible watch debacle. I think he tried a little too hard to be clever.
posted by ObscureReferenceMan at 2:55 PM on January 13, 2007

Holy crap this ad found on one of the stop sylvia pages is some scary shit.
posted by damn dirty ape at 4:38 PM on January 13, 2007

Auz, you're right. Apologies to deus.
posted by tula at 4:56 PM on January 13, 2007

the cuban, would you believe me if I said I had?

The Million Dollar Challenge guys are coming for Browne. I'm glad to see. Open minded doesn't equal idiot.
posted by imperium at 5:10 PM on January 13, 2007

for more psychic extravaganza: an italian psychic have predicted on Berlusconi's television the end of the Prodi's Govern for the 22 of june and said that if he's wrong he will kill himself outside the parliament. I love this country.
posted by darkripper at 5:52 PM on January 13, 2007

"Stockholm Syndrome," extreme intimidation, dissociation... Why is it so hard to consider the idea that a kid might stay with a guy for over 4 years because he LIKES him and ENJOYS whatever they do? It could be that he wasn't really abducted, that Devlin just made an offer the kid accepted. Something like "You won't have to go to school or eat broccoli, you'll have your own room with a big screen TV, a DVD player and an Xbox, and I won't do anything that hurts or degrades you." Mind you I'm not saying it's a GOOD thing, but there's no reason to make this nebbish the Devil Incarnate just because he might be a "pedophile".

Wouldn't you feel awful if it turned out that "home" was worse? Maybe his stepfather was flat-out raping him and this nebbish guy only felt him up a little. If so, what would YOU do?

The point is we don't know and might never know what really happened. The rush to condemnation on "hot button" issues like this illustrates why I'm doubtful about the jury system, for example.
posted by davy at 6:09 PM on January 13, 2007

Mind you I'm not saying it's a GOOD thing, but there's no reason to make this nebbish the Devil Incarnate just because he might be a "pedophile".

No, certainly not. Especially not one who kidnaps little boys. But lets not assume they do anything. Perhaps they just like xbox.

And I just want to double check: Are you serious?
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 6:28 PM on January 13, 2007

.

(for all of the victims.)
posted by jb at 6:40 PM on January 13, 2007

Wouldn't you feel awful if it turned out that "home" was worse? Maybe his stepfather was flat-out raping him and this nebbish guy only felt him up a little. If so, what would YOU do?

I have to ask too -- are you for real?

I wouldn't feel awful that we had put a kidnapper in jail for taking a boy from his family for 4.5 years. Not one bit. I would feel bad that his father wasn't already in jail too, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it's okay to kidnap someone. The appropriate action if the father is a serial rapist is to report the father, not take the kid and leave a serial child rapist out there on the loose.

And the kid was 10 when he was taken. Even if he got an xbox and a tv for staying with the kidnapper, we don't let kids make those decisions for a very good reason. They aren't able to give informed and reasoned consent. Giving payment to a child certainly doesn't justify the pain his parents were put through by not knowing where their kid was or whether he was alive. And if the kid got those things for sex, it's prostitution, which is illegal even for adults!
posted by defending chump at 6:51 PM on January 13, 2007

"The appropriate action if the father is a serial rapist is to report the father"

A few questions:

Do you know what the word serial means?

More importantly, have you ever met a kid that's been molested?

What about a kid that's been raped by his father? And what about a kid who was raped by his father, turned his father in, and wound up in foster care -- where he was molested again? So this time he simply ran away from the foster home, having seen what he already got for turning in one sex offender, and wound up an "Oliver Twist" on the street far from home? Where has was caught shoplifting, so they put him in juvie hall for a week till the Authorities figured out who he was and what they might do with him -- where he was repeatedly gangraped by the other inmates? (Yes, I'm talking about a kid I knew when I was 15, and no it wasn't me.) Perhaps staying with this Devlin nebbish really seemed like the best rational option, given the possible alternative outcomes.

Mind you, again, I don't have any idea whether this situation I described really is anything like what actually happened in Missouri -- because all we know about that case is the little bit the media feeds us. Maybe both of those boys were abducted at gunpoint and the older one stayed so long from Stockholm Syndrome. Or maybe not. We don't know for sure. See?
posted by davy at 7:21 PM on January 13, 2007

Well said slimepuppy.
posted by nickyskye at 8:20 PM on January 13, 2007

Something like "You won't have to go to school or eat broccoli, you'll have your own room with a big screen TV, a DVD player and an Xbox, and I won't do anything that hurts or degrades you."

No, I won't do anything degrading at all, except force you to move away from your family and in with me - a total stranger - and never speak of this to anyone because it's totally illegal. But y'know, family bonds are so overplayed. You'll be totally normal and cool growing up with me, random middle-aged Dude. There's free pizza. You like pizza, right? Pizza is so much better than stability or moral support in these formative years.

(In other words, if you are not kidding, this is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.)
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:41 PM on January 13, 2007

Also, what would motivate someone to take an eleven year old kid, if not for "degrading" purposes? Home accessory? "This living room needs something to tie it together. I think a pubescent boy would be perfect. I'll just go down the street and find one."

I really can't see any motivation for kidnapping that does not include some sort of underlying pyschological distress.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:43 PM on January 13, 2007

Grapefruitmoon: Clearly you missed the part about the "xbox."

And only feeling him up "a little."

::eyeroll::
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 9:53 PM on January 13, 2007

Amazing. I can’t believe the amount of control that these perpetrators exert over their victims. I mean, I’d have to be scared pretty shitless not to scream out at any given moment that I’ve been kidnapped by this fucking guy and someone get me as far away from him as possible.
posted by hadjiboy at 1:06 AM on January 14, 2007

I checked out that StopSylviaBrowne website. The intro refers you to the "Articles" section, so I clicked that and scrolled down: The first item beneath the Hornbeck story reads, "A woman loses her money to someone posing as Sylvia Browne's son in a classic phony psychic scam."

What the hell? If I start prank-calling senior citizens, claiming that I am John Edward's brother and telling them to mail me $50 checks, that doesn't prove that John Edward is a fake. Now, John Edward is a fake, and so is Sylvia Browne — but if you're going to build a website to debunk her, you ought to limit yourself to presenting evidence that supports your case. Another of his "articles" consists of 2 e-mails sent by "former Sylvia Browne fans" — not victims who were scammed by her, mind you, but just a couple of people who dislike her.

It just seems like the petty rantings of some nutjob who's got an axe to grind against Browne. The fact that he happens to be right doesn't mean he's coherent or worth reading.
posted by cribcage at 1:15 AM on January 14, 2007

would you believe me if I said I had?

Humour me. I could do with a laugh.
posted by the cuban at 5:45 AM on January 14, 2007

I think the point davy is trying to make is that some kidnapped children may already come from extremely disfunctional, and even dangerous households--which may make them more easy prey for kidnappers in the first place. From the child's point of view, if the option is between mom who drinks and dad who beats me up and uncle fred that touches me in my private parts, or some stranger dude who seems nice and lets me play video games and eat pizza and doesn't hurt me... well, that's not a tough choice.

Thing is, davy, there are perfectly legal ways to become the guardian of a child that comes from a bad domestic situation. One of the guys I work with has a child--not his by genetics, but his parents are too fucked up to take proper care of him. He went through the proper channels to gain custody of his son. It's not like child protective services want a kid to stay in a bad situation.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:14 AM on January 14, 2007

I think the point davy is trying to make is that some kidnapped children may already come from extremely disfunctional, and even dangerous households--which may make them more easy prey for kidnappers in the first place. From the child's point of view, if the option is between mom who drinks and dad who beats me up and uncle fred that touches me in my private parts, or some stranger dude who seems nice and lets me play video games and eat pizza and doesn't hurt me... well, that's not a tough choice.

Yeah, but the only problem with davy's "point" is that there isn't a shed of evidence to suggest that these kids came from bad home situations. Davy just made that up and then said that maybe the kidnapper only felt the kids up "a little." This is just bizzare, and seems to be driven by some misguided defense of pedophiles -- viz "there's no reason to make this nebbish the Devil Incarnate just because he might be a 'pedophile.'"
posted by Mid at 8:01 AM on January 14, 2007

Until two years ago when I moved, I lived above them in the Apartments on S. Holmes in Kirkwood. While I was uncomfortable with the situation in their apartment, they gave absolutely no reason to call the authorities. I wish I could say there was a red flag that I should have been aware of, alerting me to what was going on, but there wasn't. While I had a coulple of unpleasant encounters with Devlin, what really stands out was the appearance of normalcy that they projected. I was unaware that Shawn Hornbeck was not attending school, that is one of those red flags that would have provoked me into calling the authorities. I had no evidence of any abusive behavior nor any other reason to respond. What most amazes me about my failure to detect anything is that at the age of Shawn, when he disappeared, I was the victim of a pedophile; yeah, my radar is always on. I am so aware of those issues that I am always concerned about making false accusations, which could have devastating consequences.
posted by featherbender at 8:54 AM on January 14, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Mid : "This is just bizzare, and seems to be driven by some misguided defense of pedophiles"

No, Davy just likes getting a rise out of people. Check through his commenting history.
posted by Bugbread at 9:09 AM on January 14, 2007

While I had a coulple of unpleasant encounters with Devlin, what really stands out was the appearance of normalcy that they projected. posted by featherbender

Would you share some specifics?
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:56 AM on January 14, 2007

No I'm not just trying to get a rise out of people, nor am I defending pedophiles or pedophilia; my point, AS I'VE SAID SEVERAL TIMES, is that the news isn't giving us enough information to justify jumping to a condemnatory conclusion, and I've proposed a few scenarios that would just as easily fit the few data we have as the standard fairy tale.

But hey, whatever. Why be bothered about any facts? After all the world is such a simple and binary place: everything is either Good or Evil, Black or White, Us Normal People or Them Satanic Sickos. All you need to know to rush to judment is for somebody to hint that someone might be a Pedophile and right away you conclude that not only is the allegation true but that he's nothing but a ravening pervert from Hell -- and his young associates (if any) are always abused and traumatized victims who had no voluntary part in the scenario whatever. That's the Standard Story and you're sticking to it. Why try to think when it's so easy not to? Indeed, anybody who says "We don't know the whole story" is automatically Suspect: who would say such a thing but a Pedophile Defender? "A vile wretched heathen!"

As for what to do about this Grave Moral Problem, that's easy too: "Get out yer pitchforks, fellas! To the Lynching Tree with 'em!"

I see a couple people upthread who this comment here might not describe, but we won't see many of those, so fearsome is the anticipated anathema. It's far easier to join the Righteous Chorus, in case somebody's out there compiling a list of all Mefites who did not jump in to comment on the side of the Angels. After all, if you're not against Evil you're allowing it to happen -- maybe you're even a Pedophile yourself!

So all tll those virtuous Mefites who want to take a stand against Evil are invited to chime in below.
posted by davy at 10:23 AM on January 14, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

davy wrote...
Maybe his stepfather was flat-out raping him and this nebbish guy only felt him up a little.

Yes, I can definitely see where you're not trying to defend pedophiles. Clearly the statement "only felt him up a little" was meant to both to display and provoke only calm and rational discourse.

[...]take a stand against Evil[..]

Despite delusions of grandeur you are not evil, you are merely a troll. Go climb back under your bridge.
posted by tkolar at 10:46 AM on January 14, 2007

this is awesome: nobody knows what the fuck happened except the kid and the kidnapper, but everybody on Tv -- and on the Internet, apparently -- is busy commenting on the whole situation. In the meantime, the "liberal media" (lol) devoted to this very minor event a lot of precious air time that would otherwise had been used for irrelevant stories about people getting blown up in, say, Iraq or even subsaharan Africa, and depressing stuff like that.

in the absence of Killer Poison Spinach, I guess that Weird Kidnapped Kid is good enough for the ratings. too bad the kid is not a pre-teen blonde girl -- now that would make for great journalism.
posted by matteo at 10:58 AM on January 14, 2007

Um, tkolar, assuming these were your only options as far as you could tell, would YOU rather be, oh, violently buttfucked without vaseline or only felt up a little? That's like "Would you rather be beaten with a baseball bat or a feather boa?" Do you get it NOW?

But hell, by chiming in as you did you've told us all "I swear I'm not a pedophile, really!", so feel free to resume sharpening your pitchfork.

(And matteo, are you suicidal or something? I have so little to lose by anything I say here, but...)
posted by davy at 11:23 AM on January 14, 2007

"My dad is violently buttfucking me without vaseline. This guy will probably only feel me up a little. Maybe he's got an Xbox. I should go with him."

Wtf?
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 11:36 AM on January 14, 2007

metafilter: My dad is violently buttfucking me without vaseline.
posted by econous at 12:02 PM on January 14, 2007

Maybe I've lost my faith in humanity but when a guy kidnaps a child (the one, legal, fact we know) and then kidnaps another one 4 years later, my mind does not jump to serial-superhero, but to pedophile.
posted by slimepuppy at 12:35 PM on January 14, 2007

davy, I was only felt up a little, it still fucks you up for the rest of your life. Personal opinion only, any punishment for pedophiles that is not preceded by terms like medieval, barbaric or horrifying is inadequate
posted by featherbender at 12:38 PM on January 14, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

CitrusFreak12, I hope you're never in a situation where you have to think hard enough to choose the lesser of two evils; your head would explode within 30 seconds.

As for this thread/subject in general, it's really not worth talking about anymore: like I said, once Mr/Mrs/Ms J. Q. Random hears anything hinting of "pedophilia" s/he instantly knows everything there is to know about the situation, no facts required.

But hey, just to keep the "WTFs" coming and the pitchfork sharpeners in business, here's a link to a very brief and limited Wikipedia article nobody will read, on Child Sexuality. I'll warn y'all that the Wikipedia article might require thinking about facts, so it might be better for y'all to avoid it; I'll also say that anybody who wants to research that subject in more depth is going to have to do his/her own legwork, linking to the Wikipedia article is close enough to "spreading KIDDY PORN" as it is.

I'll take this opportunity to state that yes, I myself do disapprove of adults having sex with pre-pubescent children for a number of reasons, concern for the child and his/her stability among them, and that I don't quite understand how an anybody can find a pre-pubescent child sexy anyway (though I confess that when I was 11 I had fun feeling up my sister's 10 year old friends, so maybe I just outgrew it), but don't let that stop you: the park up the street is full of good stout lynching trees for those of you who feel compelled to protect America's children from my Satanic message. All you need to know you know already: I've already pointed out that the media has not supplied us with enough facts to really be sure what if anything went on out there in Missouri.
posted by davy at 1:01 PM on January 14, 2007

CitrusFreak12, I hope you're never in a situation where you have to think hard enough to choose the lesser of two evils; your head would explode within 30 seconds.

I'd just go with whichever option included the Xbox, naturally.
Prince of Persia with only moderate fondling? A fair trade I'd say.

In what situation would I be where I must choose between a father violently buttfucking me (without Vaseline no less) or some guy in a rickety van offering me an Xbox with light groping as payment? Your hypothetical scenario is complete shit.

You claim that because the media isn't providing us with "the whole story" there is a chance that the father was just as bad, perhaps worse, when compared to this fellow. What you fail to realize is that it doesn't rectify what he did or make it right by any means. "The court finds the defendant not guilty, on the grounds that the father was a serial rapist, and this guy only felt him up a little. I mean, seriously your honor, he's just a pedophile." Right.

Furthermore I'd like to know how my inability to visualize just how the warped little cogs in your head turn somehow renders me unable to weigh the pros and cons of given situation where the options presented to me are all less than desirable..

"though I confess that when I was 11 I had fun feeling up my sister's 10 year old friends, so maybe I just outgrew it"

Again, I’d just like to ask:
Wtf?

Thanks for the ancedote.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 2:07 PM on January 14, 2007

But hey, just to keep the "WTFs" coming and the pitchfork sharpeners in business, here's a link to a very brief and limited Wikipedia article nobody will read, on Child Sexuality.

Was that article there when you linked to it, davy? Because it certainly isn't there any longer. Nor is there any record of deletions, discussions, etc.

In what situation would I be where I must choose between a father violently buttfucking me (without Vaseline no less) or some guy in a rickety van offering me an Xbox with light groping as payment? Your hypothetical scenario is complete shit.

No it isn't.

Have you ever contemplated, even for a moment, the factors that go into turning a child into somebody who sells sex?

A significant proportion of them are running away from homes where they are being sexually molested. Despite all of the dangers inherent in their new situation, they choose it because -- at the time at least -- it gives them more control and more choices than the situation that they were previously in. At least they get to choose who they will or won't have sex with, and they gain a degree of financial independence that's unavailable to them any other way.

Long term, it's almost invariably a bad choice. The risk of falling foul of addiction, pimps, predators, etc. are extremely high. But when you talk to them, they'll tell you that in the short term, coming from the situation that they've come from, it seems like their only rational option.

While those circumstances may be inconceivable to you, there are probably dozens of such kids at any one time in every major city in the Western world.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:08 PM on January 14, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Have you ever contemplated, even for a moment, the factors that go into turning a child into somebody who sells sex?

The post was about a man who kidnapped two boys, one of them gone from his family for four years.

I was responding to some hypothetical strawman which davy put into play. Child prostitution isn't the issue here.

If you read the article, I'm sure you'll see no mention of what Davy is talking about with the father being some sort of rapist and the kid having no other option but to go with the this man. No mention of child prostitution, nothing.

His argument is fallacious. He seems to think that IF the father was somehow worse than this kidnapper, that makes it not so bad. That we shouldn't 'jump to conclusions' when a newspaper article tells us a man took two boys away from their families.

Anyway, he's just being a troll.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 3:29 PM on January 14, 2007

Correcting my malformed link to the aforentioned Wikipedia article.

"While those circumstances may be inconceivable to you, there are probably dozens of such kids at any one time in every major city in the Western world."

And when I was a teenaged runaway I met several of them. (It wasn't that I was molested at home though; I just didn't like juvie jail.)

And I might add that in the current eminently newsworthy case in Missouri, no article I've seen so far has suggested that the Evil Perpetrator was pimping the boy out, they're just talking about "mental terror". Apparently no "respectable" reporter and/or commentator has ventured to consider that maybe the kid really liked the guy; of course in the Real World such things never happen. Not that I'm defending any pedophiles, just pointing out that 1) we don't know much about the actual facts of the actual case, and 2) the world is a more complex place than a simple binary Good/Evil world-view can take into account.

As for CitrusFreak12, s/he should let us know when s/he gets to senior high school where they might define big words like "fallacious."
posted by davy at 3:37 PM on January 14, 2007

Note by the way that in the article I just (correctly!) linked to it's the "Experts" who purport to explain why the kid never ran away; I haven't yet seen any reports or interviews giving the kid's own explanation -- and if he did give an explanation that differed from the Experts' people would claim he's too young to think for himself or to interpret reality in his own way.
posted by davy at 3:46 PM on January 14, 2007

"As for CitrusFreak12, s/he should let us know when s/he gets to senior high school where they might define big words like "fallacious.""

Fallacious:
1. Containing fundamental errors in reasoning

"His argument is fallacious. He seems to think that IF the father was somehow worse than this kidnapper, that makes it not so bad."

That is what we call a logical fallacy. Two wrongs don't make a right, would be the easy way of explaining it.

Your attempts to belittle me and insinuate that I don't know what I'm talking about because you mistakenly think I'm in junior high school is another logical fallacy. It's called an ad hominem argument.

And I'm in college, not that it's any of your business.

I think I'm done with this thread.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 3:53 PM on January 14, 2007

CitrusFreak12 wrote...
I think I'm done with this thread.

And we as a community appreciate that. The trolls really don't need to be fed.
posted by tkolar at 4:10 PM on January 14, 2007

If you read the article, I'm sure you'll see no mention of what Davy is talking about with the father being some sort of rapist and the kid having no other option but to go with the this man. No mention of child prostitution, nothing.

I know that the article doesn't mention it, but that's davy's point: that one alternative scenario could be the voluntary exchange of sexual favours for shelter, x-box and big screen TV.

Children in the habit of selling sex (almost all of whom have been previously molested) often sell themselves for far less.

Of course, as he pointed out, this is nothing more than a hypothetical scenario, but as a hypothetical, there's nothing wrong with it that I can see.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:27 PM on January 14, 2007

what if the kid's dad was really a pod person and the kidnapper was trying to rescue the kid while saving the human race? ... or what if he was one of those reptile people david icke is always going on about? ... hey, what if his dad smoked as much crack as davy does? ... hmmmm?

davy - would YOU rather be, oh, violently buttfucked without vaseline or only felt up a little?

hey, i used to listen to people debate questions like that all the time ... in junior high school

CitrusFreak12 - Your attempts to belittle me and insinuate that I don't know what I'm talking about because you mistakenly think I'm in junior high school is another logical fallacy.

see, i'm not the only one who's getting that junior high school feeling from this thread
posted by pyramid termite at 4:54 PM on January 14, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I wish too that people would unconfuse themselves: I'm not saying that pedophilia is a good thing. Nor am I saying that it's good that the kid stayed for several years, only that we don't have him telling us why he stayed, only whoever (in the above case) the Associated Press consider "experts" (and random netizens) spouting off the Standard Story. While it's true that there would be n stereotypes if such things were never true, it's fallacious to assume the we know all there is to know because of a 2 minute TV news item.

And pyramid termite, thanks for the chortle. You're funny when you strain hard enough.
posted by davy at 4:58 PM on January 14, 2007

what if the kid's dad was really a pod person and the kidnapper was trying to rescue the kid while saving the human race? ... or what if he was one of those reptile people david icke is always going on about?

Your hypothetical scenario is complete shit.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:03 PM on January 14, 2007

This thread has degenerated into an argument about hypothetical either/or's, but I think Davy's original point still stands. The situation seems a lot more complicated than anyone is allowing for at this point. Clearly, the older kid had multiple opportunities to escape. According to some reports, people even asked him if he was actually Shawn Hornbeck and he ignored/laughed off/blew off the question.

So, there are several possibilities for this.

1) stockholm syndrome.
2) fear and intimidation. "i'll kill your family if you ever try to run away." doesn't seem that likely in light of recent revelations (for example the above), but it's possible.
3) the kid may have had ambivalent feelings about escape for other reasons. like, his situation with his kidnapper was better than his home situation.

Sure it's tempting to cast this Devlin character as the sick pedophile that the media has persuaded us to fear behind every bush. But everyone deserves an actual trial, and it's a little unfair to jump to conclusions. Maybe he was just really lonely (obviously to the point of deranged and criminal behavior, but that doesn't mean he was a pedophile). Maybe the kid's mom was an alcoholic who physically abused him, and his step-father talked wistfully about when could they just send the kid off to bootcamp. Probably not. Who knows (certainly not us).

This is clearly a complicated situation, and it's hardly fair to assume the worst. Of anyone involved.
posted by crackingdes at 8:35 PM on January 14, 2007

I saw on the news tonight reports that he was "violent" towards the kid. Neighbors above could hear him through the floors.

I think 1 & 2 are the most likely. If you're eleven years old and someone tells you that if you try and run away, that you'll kill or hurt them or their family... odds are they'll listen to you. Now imagine if that has been put into your head for four years. I'd say #2 is very likely.

But you're right, we shouldn't assume he's a pedophile. But still, what kind of person kidnaps two boys?
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 9:46 PM on January 14, 2007

A criminal. Someone who was mentally ill perhaps? Pedophilia sells papers and gets people to watch the news, but it might be nothing more mundane than someone who wanted a child and went about it in the worst possible way. Problem is, that doesn't make it any better. Even if we are incredibly charitable and assume that nothing illegal or immoral went on other than the kidnapping, there is still that whole kidnapping aspect. Guy has problems. Assuming everything that's been reported is credible, and he gets a fair trial, let's just put him away for our safety and his.

I saw on the news tonight reports that he was "violent" towards the kid. Neighbors above could hear him through the floors.

Well, assuming featherbender is telling the truth upthread, that might be misreporting or not have always been the case.

I'm not trying to single you out or dismiss your arguments CF12 as I agree with most of them, I'm just using your last post as a soapbox to rail against a lot of nonsense I saw in this thread. My bet is that the guy is guilty, and that there is badness there beyond the initial crime of grabbing two kids, but the speculation irritates me. Until there is proof of additional criminal behavior, let's not assume anything more than we know. To do anything more is just useless titillation and pointless wankery. Exactly the kind of thing that news outlets thrive upon to keep the latest lost blond girl missing as a 24/7 headline story.
posted by quin at 10:10 PM on January 14, 2007

Thank you for the clarification, quin.

As for the violence thing, I just saw it on the news and it was coming from the mouth of the guy who lived above them. Just sayin'.

Well put, I might add.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 11:03 PM on January 14, 2007

So much arguing for such a simple issue, the guys a child abductor, chop his head off.
posted by Iron Rat at 12:26 AM on January 15, 2007

Pedophiles are SO scary! Fear! Terror! Fear! Terror!

Sometimes, they take you to their home. That's scary! And then, like, they let you shower, and wash your clothes, so you have to stay all naked until stuff dries, or worse, wear something of theirs! Horror!

But after you get washed, then that's the worse part. They (I can hardly type this) give.you.food.

But it gets worse, sadly. Next thing you know, these sicko creeps start in on what they're really after. They moan, they beg, they plead. They'll promise just about anything, some of them, just to get what they want.

If you're strong, you can hold up against the horrible PAIN, of listening to an old man cry and beg. Many fail, and give in. Next thing you know, those old lips are wrapped around your willie, and you're scared for life.

In case few here have figured it out, this isn't a topic about which many can address rationally. Clue: Davy is doing pretty damn good.

Yes, this boy may have gone through all kinds of hell. But then, maybe not. We're all human, here. When we think of this fearful thing, we think of that which we ourselves fear the most, usually, a violent, painful ass-rape. But as a man who, as a teenager, was the delight of some of these men you demonize, I can tell you: most of them crave the cock, and some not even that. Hell, some of them are happiest getting a bit of abuse from their victims. Others, above all else, seek something that isn't even sexual, rather, an emotional need.

Sure, one of these guys that's going to go so far as to snatch young kids off the street is suspect of being the worst sort. But desperation pushes people to extremes of behavior. 40 years ago, it wasn't very difficult for a man to find a boy that was available, and get his needs met, without violence or power games. Maybe even the boy needed the man with equal desperation.

In "Torchsong Trilogy", Mathew Brodrick's character comments, while telling Harvy Firestein about his early life in New York, "I needed the affection worse than they needed the money". How about that. Getting paid to get what you need.

To be fair, most (or even all) of you who can't wrap your healthy adult mind around these issues, probably have nothing in your experience with which to relate to these matters. Okay. But just work on the rationality, and realize some of us on Metafilter do indeed have such experience, and can seek to help the rest of y'all fortunates to understand such things.
posted by Goofyy at 3:43 AM on January 15, 2007

I don't think Davy's a troll; that is, he's not saying something he doesn't actually believe just to get a rise. Instead, he has a fondness for expressing what he actually does think in a way that gets a rise out of people, instead of trying to bring them over to his side.

What I see him saying here is, basically:
1) We don't know that the man was a pedophile, and society (British and American) has a tendency to jump the gun in assuming pedophilia based on little or no information.
2) What the guy did may have been bad, but we don't know for sure if it was an worsening of the situation. It being an improvement doesn't necessarily mean it was good (for example, if I were kidnapped from Jeffrey Dahmer by a person who wanted to stick bamboo slivers under my fingernails, it would be an improvement, but "kidnapping by a torturer" does not therefore de facto become a good thing).

Both of which are, I'd say, reasonable statements. Now, this is not to say that the latter case is likely, just that we have so very little information that assuming that the kidnapping, instead of probably being a worse thing than living at home, was absolutely definitely being a worse thing than living at home, is extending our assumptions beyond the relevant data.

I would hope, though, that davy would agree that, while we cannot be absolutely certain that the kidnapping was a worsening of the situation, that it is incredibly likely that it was a worsening of the situation.
posted by Bugbread at 4:18 AM on January 15, 2007

I suppose this just reinforces the importance of how you phrase things. Quin and bugbreads rehashings of what davy said seem to be perfectly reasonable, whereas davy's statements appear only to be inflammatory.

Davy, I can see now, assumming that bugbread is accurate about what you were saying, your statements were not completely unreasonable as I thought. I do, however, think the way which you stated them was somewhat troll like, inentional or not. I apologize if I was overly snarky.

And also, what gives with the media's inability to give us more info? Was it mandated by the police dept?
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 6:46 AM on January 15, 2007

After reading this discussion, it came as a creepy surprise this morning to read this on BoingBoing: "One user profile at gamertagpics.com, a popular networking site for XBox Live players, appears to show Shawn Hornbeck standing outside of Devlin's apartment, where police found him last Friday."
posted by TochterAusElysium at 7:21 AM on January 15, 2007

TAE -- that is completely creepy, and makes you wonder if someone could have located him at some earlier point with some creative googling.
posted by Mid at 7:40 AM on January 15, 2007

TochterAusElysium : "One user profile at gamertagpics.com, a popular networking site for XBox Live players, appears to show Shawn Hornbeck standing outside of Devlin's apartment, where police found him last Friday."

Well, it does provide some evidence for the Xbox argument ;-)
posted by Bugbread at 8:08 AM on January 15, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

TAE -- that is completely creepy, and makes you wonder if someone could have located him at some earlier point with some creative googling.

Google's more useful than I thought if it can find images of missing children living under assumed names.
posted by Epenthesis at 8:32 AM on January 15, 2007

Well, it does provide some evidence for the Xbox argument ;-)

lmfao. Ok. Davy wins.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 9:42 AM on January 15, 2007

bugbread wrote...
[davy] has a fondness for expressing [himself] in a way that gets a rise out of people

My momma always said that trolls are what trolls does.
posted by tkolar at 10:41 AM on January 15, 2007

Oh bite me. There was nothing "inflammatory" about my first comment, beginning:

'"Stockholm Syndrome," extreme intimidation, dissociation... Why is it so hard to consider the idea that a kid might stay with a guy for over 4 years because he LIKES him and ENJOYS whatever they do? It could be that he wasn't really abducted, that Devlin just made an offer the kid accepted.'

It took several allegations that I was trolling and/or defending an evil pedophile -- and a few of my responses to them -- before I got "vituperative" (and even then it was mild for me, you shitslurping frosh slug). What it is that, like dios and the late ParisParamus[1], I don't belong to the In Crowd of those officially certified to express "controversial" (read: not completely echo-chambered) opinions. So bugbread can stuff his unnecessary "rephrasing", and my critics can be sure that any apologies[2] will NOT be accepted.

The fact remains too that even my most persistent critic has admitted that I was correct in the substance of what I said. Problem is, considering the source, now I'm tempted to change my mind, a la 'If CitrusFreak12 told me grass was green I'd want a second opinion.'[3]

To quote the late Andrew Kehoe, "Criminals are made, not born."

[1] Though my stands on almost every applicable issue are diametrically opposed to dios' and PP's: I dissent from the left of the crowd.

[2] A "conciliatory" noise that still tacitly blames me for the dispute is nothing like an apology, child.

[3] Anyway, CF12, didn't you say "I think I'm done with this thread" at 6:53 PM EST on January 14?
posted by davy at 10:58 AM on January 15, 2007

davy : "So bugbread can stuff his unnecessary 'rephrasing', and my critics can be sure that any apologies[2] will NOT be accepted."

Well, we have two possibilities here:

1) My paraphrasing was accurate. And people found the contents not-so-disagreeable. If this was the case, then I'd say it was necessary paraphrasing, not unnecessary paraphrasing, if your goal is communicating your ideas.

2) My paraphrasing was inaccurate. And people found the contents not-so-disagreeable. If this was the case, I apologize for misreading and misrepresenting your position.
posted by Bugbread at 11:34 AM on January 15, 2007

Buggy, my point is I should not have to have an Acceptable person rephrase my comments, in rather similar language, to avoid being insulted by idiots. And if that is necessary you should be paid to translate, which I can't afford.

I apologize for slopping the bile over on you, assuming you meant "he has a fondness for expressing what he actually does think in a way that gets a rise out of people" in the nicest possible way. Again, I disagree: plenty of Acceptables are regularly more "negative" than I am, what differs is who is doing the negativitating, who they're being negative at, and then sometimes the substance of what they're saying. Mefi abounds with Quonsar fans, e.g.; do you think if he or you had said what I did, i.e. 'Why is it so hard to consider the idea that a kid might stay with a guy for over 4 years because he LIKES him and ENJOYS whatever they do?', that he or you would have been followed around being called a Pedophile Defender?

But if dios, PP or I said "the sky is sometimes blue" lots of twits would pile on us for it.
posted by davy at 11:53 AM on January 15, 2007

(By the way, I apologize to dios and PP for including them: it just occurred to me that stupid people might read that and think they Defend Pedophiles, which as far as I know ain't true.)
posted by davy at 12:05 PM on January 15, 2007

I think saying "Maybe his stepfather was flat-out raping him and this nebbish guy only felt him up a little." just might have been why people thought you were being a "Pedophile Defender."

Regardless of who said it, I still would have asked if they were serious.

'If CitrusFreak12 told me grass was green I'd want a second opinion.'

...if dios, PP or I said "the sky is sometimes blue" lots of twits would pile on us for it.

You can dish it out but you can't take it. I see. There there. You just need a little love, is all. And don't worry, davy, I still love you.

Anyway, I was reading an article and it said:

Shawn Hornbeck was allowed to ride his bike, stay with friends and use a mobile phone, according to neighbours of Michael Devlin, a 41-year-old arrested for his abduction.

Was this information previously available? The article was written "18 hours ago." So I'm just wondering if the press is making any progress, or if they're just going to keep rearranging the same info in different ways.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 12:19 PM on January 15, 2007

I understand what you're saying with the "acceptable" people and "unacceptable" people thing, and I agree that some people are roasted for saying fairly innocuous stuff, based on who they are, and others are given a green flag for some pretty vicious stuff, based on who they are. And it bugs me too.

But, personally, I don't think you're in either camp. With the exception of a few folks who may have a personal grudge, and some others who are ambivalent (like, er, me), for the most part you're in the "treat comment on its face, not based on who the commenter was" camp, and the "feel a person up" bit was, on its face and without user-baggage, what got people upset.

(Also, note that the person who responded the strongest is also a very new user, and therefore unlikely to have an image of many people here, beyond the people who've recently been in big flaming arguments in the last few weeks, which (AFAIK) you haven't. Unless they're a long time lurker, and I don't get that feeling.)
posted by Bugbread at 1:10 PM on January 15, 2007

"Shawn Devlin" had other online profiles.

"Profiles of a teen who appears to be the missing Missouri boy appear on three sites."
posted by ericb at 1:13 PM on January 15, 2007

Interesting tidbit from the AP article:

Another notable online appearance of "Shawn Devlin" came Dec. 1, 2005, in the comments on a Web page for the missing Shawn Hornbeck. The poster, listing his residence as Kirkwood, first asked, "How long are you planning to look for your son?" An hour later, a new post appeared, apologizing for the prior post.

"i write poems and i was wounding if it would be ok to write a poem for the Hornbeck fam. And they son 'shawn Hornbeck' it would be cool if i could but if you dont want me to I can understan why i guess but i was wounding i guess if i could write a poem in his honer (sorry I don't know how to spell that last word.)"

posted by ericb at 1:22 PM on January 15, 2007

Anyhow, the two admitted pedophiles I met (the last back in 1978) were closer to goofyy's description: the one I sorta got to know was a hippie-type nebbish who was basically harmless and even pathetic, who in fact was being blackmailed by his 12 year old "buddy" and the kid's (step-?)father who put him out as bait. The most he got, if he was "good", was a chance to give the boy sweets and pet him like a puppy, though apparently he had to be allowed a little more at first so he'd incriminate himself. I told him he was silly to fall into a trap like that, that he should have been content to look at porno instead, or pick someone closer to "legal" (like me) as a substitute.

Of course now the "look at porno instead" option is vanishing: these days even innocuous pictures, like of little boys in their Underoos or snapshots of kids playing croquet with their parents at a nudist colony, get classed as KIDDY PORN, possession of which often gets people worse penalties than committing forcible rape.

Now the first pedophile I met was a fat greasy cigar-chomping old man who picked me up hitchhiking and almost instantly started begging and offering me money, unsuccessfully. If he hadn't been so smelly and ugly I might have let him blow me for $50; aside from being disgusting he too struck me as harmless and pathetic, more likely to be beaten up and blackmailed than to actually harm anybody. (As to the "mental harm" some pervert might "inflict" on one by begging to blow him, well, I don't advocate torturing and imprisoning those who wear white shoes after Labor Day.)

Of course I'm aware that not all pedophiles are harmless and pathetic, e.g., that some do forcibly ass-rape 9 year olds, so I'm not about to defend them all as a class; rather I say that we should take them on a case-by-case basis, that the guy who gets off sucking a 12 year old's toes should be treated more leniently than a dangerous creep. (Now watch, some moron will commence following me around calling me a Toe-Sucker Defender.)

[ And bugbread, okay, point taken. You may fuck off in peace. :-) ]
posted by davy at 1:30 PM on January 15, 2007

Bugbread: I'm a long time lurker, but I never paid any attention to usernames unless I was reading a conversation back and forth between users. So no, I'm not familiar with users on the site for the most part.

Ericb: That poem one is weird. I love how the first one has perfect grammar and punctuation and lists the location, but the second one has horrible spelling and lists the location only as "devlin." My guess is the first is the kid, the second the kidnapper. Just a guess.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 1:53 PM on January 15, 2007

Hey bugbread, it's been over two hours since I advocated relative leniency for toe-suckers and nobody's flamed me yet. Am I in The Quiet Earth now or what?
posted by davy at 3:52 PM on January 15, 2007

Maybe they're all just closet toe-suckers?
posted by Bugbread at 4:23 PM on January 15, 2007

Ah, the plaintive cry of a starving troll. It warms the heart to hear it.
posted by tkolar at 9:07 PM on January 15, 2007

tkolar, don't you have a gerbil handy? Your brain is getting lonely.
posted by davy at 10:17 PM on January 15, 2007

davy's doin' it, doin' it
picking tkolar's nose and chewin' it, chewiun' it
posted by econous at 3:35 PM on January 16, 2007

Bill O’Reilly blames the victim
posted by homunculus at 9:21 PM on January 17, 2007

I will try to be even handed about my comment, but to quote the Man, 'I'm not buying this.'

O'Reilly doesn't believe in Stockholm Syndrome. Fair enough. There might some question of a doubt about it's reality. So I ask you Hypothetical Kidnappers (because I would never suggest that anyone do anything illegal. It would be inappropriate.) Imaginary Bad People, take Bill
O'Reilly captive for a couple of months. It might be rough, the guy is kinda a tool, but just work with me here. He doesn't believe that anyone under duress could ever see their captors point of view. So it's up to you, kidnappers to prove him right. Now, admittedly, most of the time Stockholm Syndrome is seen in the young, ostensibly because they are impressionable. I would argue that O'Reilly is one of the least most impressionable people in the world, so if you, the kidnappers can have any kind of impact, we can view it as a win for psychology everywhere.

It may be a hypothetical exercise, but consider this: it's for Science!

All that said, this is worth remarking on:

Lady : [About Devlin], he's probably a criminal (Assuming what as been presented is true,) he is a criminal. Maybe not a pedophile, but definitely a kidnapper. And kidnapping is a crime.

Lady: You may turn out to be right [Not likely, I'll hold my breath, really.]

Bill: I usually do....

HA. I mean, that is just comedy right there. O'Reilly usually correct? I'm no liberal, left-wing ideologue, but even I'm one of the first to say that this dude is full of shit.

/checks rules.
// can we force someone to be an ex-pat for a decade or so
posted by quin at 11:32 PM on January 17, 2007

Has anyone else noticed how Shawn Hornbeck does not look at all like how the experts projected he would look at this age? (In one of the missing posters). He's much paler, obviously, but more than that, his face is a different shape. It's much rounder, and somehow less balanced. It could be that the projected model was wrong, or it could be that the stress had actually changed his growth. I wonder if he is as tall as he would have been?

None of us know what he has been through in the last four years. He may not want us to know, and we have to respect that. But in his face, I don't see a happy or even content child - I see a haunted one.
posted by jb at 3:40 AM on January 18, 2007

Bill O’Reilly blames the victim

Olbermann on O'Reilly: "Why does [he] still have a job?"
posted by ericb at 3:51 PM on January 19, 2007

"The Akers [Shawn Hornbeck's parents] wouldn't discuss details of their son's time in captivity, including whether he was physically threatened by his abductor. But they told talk-show host Oprah Winfrey in an interview that aired Thursday they think Shawn was sexually abused."^*
posted by ericb at 3:56 PM on January 19, 2007