Two Women Accused of Locking Boys in Closet Threatened (Kenmore Update)

WJW Fox 8 ^ | May 6, 2003 | The Associated Press and FOX Television Stations

[mabelkitty]

(5/6/03) — Two women accused of abusing five boys in the home they shared expressed fear in court Monday about death threats they have received.

Mary Rowles, 30, has been charged with five felony counts of child endangering. Alice Jenkins, 27, was charged with five felony counts of child endangering and two counts of felonious assault. Rowles and Jenkins were arrested Friday after Rowles' three boys, ages 8, 10 and 14, were found wandering city streets early April 28. Rowles and Jenkins posted bond Monday after appearing with their attorneys in Akron Municipal Court.

The three runaway boys, along with Rowles' other children, two other boys, ages 6 and 13, and a 12 year-old girl, have been removed from the home into foster care. Police said the three boys who ran away told a story of being forced to live inside a closet that reeked of urine, with the only light coming in at the bottom of the door.

The boys told detectives they were allowed out three times a day to eat and use the bathroom. They were not missing from any public or private school because they were home schooled.

The girl was well-fed and hadn't had to spend time in the closet, police said. Jenkins — whom the children were ordered to call "Dad" — disciplined the children, police said, while Rowles took a more passive role.

On Monday, Judge Eleanor-Marsh Stormer placed Rowles and Jenkins under a supervised pretrial release program because they were afraid to return to their home. The women said they have been receiving death threats. The case now goes to a Summit County grand jury. Rowles and Jenkins are due to appear before a Common Pleas magistrate May 14. Rowles' lawyer, Kirk Migdal, would not discuss the case Monday. Jenkins' lawyer, Don Malarcik, said his client "is devastated" by her arrest.

"Alice has no prior criminal record whatsoever," Malarcik said. He said Jenkins has cooperated with police and the Summit County Children Services Board.

[biblewonk]

But they did make a point that they were homeschoolers!

[The Old Hoosier]

Read the earlier pieces on it--I linked to one above.

[nina0113]

What's the big deal? The raping priests weren't gay either.

How do you figure that? The abusers were all male, the victims were 90+% male. (Male + male) sex = homosexual.

I wouldn't call it "gay" myself, but that's the word they've chosen.

[kitkat]

*** experts often look in textbooks for answers that appear under their noses.***

Oh, how RIGHT you are! And I don't suppose that these experts think it's relevant that the woman they were forced to call "Dad" kicked the poor little boy in the groin while she was wearing steel-tipped shoes.

[Gunrunner2]

>>Again, no mention of the fact that these two child abusers are lesbians

What's the big deal? The raping priests weren't gay either. <<

Actually, the priests that did the abusing are overwhelmingly homosexual/gay.

The priests were not pedophiles, as represented in the press.

Pedophiles find prepubescent children sexually attractive, and the priests were not abusing children, they were, in the vast majority of the cases, abusing teenage boys---that is homosexual abuse.

The thing is, like in the news article in this piece, the media distorts, misrepresents or leaves out who was doing the abusing. In the case of the priests, the media actively tried to cover up the fact that the abusing priests are homosexuals. The media bent the truth and did all they could to ward off a homosexual scandal. . .at the expense of tewenagers. Imagine how much the homosexual agenda would have been set back if the media accurately reported that the abusing priests are homosexuals. Indeed. Then try and follow up with a sympathetic news report supporting homosexual Boy Scout leaders.

Now, of course, maybe I missed the sarcasm in your post. If so. . .never mind.

[Living Free in NH]

Sorry. I guess I should've applied a < sarcasm > tag.

[try phecta tom]

I agree, but its better that it isn't mentioned lest they become the victims, just hang em on what they did. (we know why they did)

[nina0113]

The media has really been trying to sell that idea - they're pedophiles, not gays - and a huge number of people have actually bought it.

[ThanhPhero]

My point is the information in the piece implies just short of stating the lesbianism. To anyone for whom that identification matters the identification is obvious. Are you protesting that heterosexual women who act like lesbians but are not actually lesbians are besmirched by this article that describes blatant lesbian characterics without using the word?

[Seeking the truth]

Sorry. I guess I should've applied a < sarcasm > tag.

Yes, you should have! I was caught by your remarks and I've been here on FR a long,long time!

[Alas Babylon!]

On Monday, Judge Eleanor-Marsh Stormer placed Rowles and Jenkins under a supervised pretrial release program because they were afraid to return to their home.

This makes me wanna puke! Why aren't they in JAIL???? They can share a cell; just the two of them. No possibility then for anyone to make good a death threat.

[xm177e2]

maybe I missed the sarcasm in your post. If so. . .never mind.

I think I see the sarcasm. Whenever a non-heterosexual does anything wrong, his/her sexual orientation vanishes as an issue. They are no longer lesbians because they are bad. It is sort of like how the media tries to hide the race of criminals when they are not white.

[cgk]

There won't be. Aside from asides like this one:

Jenkins — whom the children were ordered to call "Dad" — disciplined the children, police said, while Rowles took a more passive role

Truly disgusting. Talk about brainwashing children.

[cgk]

Funny how this nicely santized article does mention the girl received somewhat humane treatment, but doesn't quite cover the amount of abuse the boys received - including the DAD-figure making the brothers hold one of the others down while she kicked him in the groin with her steel-toe boots. Man-haters? You bet. Which is why I can't figure on their choosing the term "DAD" for the "partner" of the mother. Taking the gender out of the title, I presume.

[cgk]

One more thing - why doesn't this article discuss the extent of the abuse of the 10 year old? Wasn't he 28 POUNDS when found?

[John O]

Further proof that any exposure of children to homosexual behavior is child abuse

[Politicalmom]

Having to call one "Dad" is a pretty good indicator.....

[Gunrunner2]

Indeed.

[conservababeJen]

Was it necessary? How do you even know if the piece doesn't mention it?

The fact that they were "partners" was mentioned in an earlier article about this story. Look at this interesting piece of the story.....

The GIRL was well-fed and hadn't had to spend time in the closet, police said. Jenkins — whom the children were ordered to call "Dad" — disciplined the children, police said, while Rowles took a more passive role.
emphasis mine.

The above quote sheds light on why the fact that they were lesbians and male haters is an issue here.

[Diddle E. Squat]

I haven't forgotten how the Jesse Dirkhising story was handled, but get a grip. Anybody reading the story would soon realize that they were a lesbian couple, there are too many references to conclude otherwise. If nothing else, mentioning that the kids were forced to call the other lady 'Dad' is pretty darn obvious.