Posted on 05/06/2003 8:54:30 AM PDT by 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.
Gee, dontcha wonder what the qualifications are to be an expert?
The point is that this reporter or his editor deliberately contorted himself in ten different ways to avoid mention of these women's sexual deviancy, as if it were not the least bit relevant. It's like the 10,000 lb. gorilla in the room. Tell us why they are prima facie such weird people (especially "Dad") and let US decide if it's relevant to the fact that they are evil, cruel sadists who get a kick out of kicking 10-year old boys in the balls and making them eat feces.
Uh, you want to tell me the last time that happened? "A person raped a woman..." Sorry, but no.
Maybe it would be easy to guess or figure out that these women are deviants, but to repeat myself from above: that's not the point. A reporter is supposed to give an explanation for bizarre things that come up in his story--not to leave them unexplained and make the reader guess at what should have been included as an obvious fact.
This reporter or his editor deliberately contorted this article in ten different ways to avoid mention of these women's sexual deviancy, as if it were not the least bit relevant. It's like the 10,000 lb. gorilla in the room. Tell us why they are prima facie such weird people (especially "Dad") and let US decide if it's relevant to the fact that they are evil, cruel sadists who get a kick out of kicking 10-year old boys in the balls and making them eat dog feces.
"should have been included as an obvious fact."
If it is obvious, then why point it out? We had record highs today. The sun causes the heat we have experienced.
This was mentioned 3/4ths of the way down a prior article--also an outrage, since it belongs up top that they have been "partners" for seven years.
We had record highs today. The sun causes the heat we have experienced.
That's different. There's no conspiracy to deny the sun's involvement. Also, there are no loose ends in the story that require such an explanation. The reporter has done a hand-stand here to avoid mentioning the homosexuality, whereas he was all too eager to mention that they homeschool. He doesn't want to give the impression that homosexual parenthood is moral terrorism against children--which, by the way, is the truth of the matter.
Conversely, if the reporter had left out the part about homeschooling, wouldn't you wonder why no one had missed the kids at school? Well, in the same way, intelligent readers coming across this story at first must wonder why the hell there are two women there locking the kids up, and why one of them wants to be called "dad." Not that they can't guess it themselves, but reporters are not supposed to leave readers hanging like that--they're supposed to make the calls and figure it out.
Oh heavens, I was afraid of that!! There's always the danger that folks are going to try to sound the drumbeat to 'oversee' homeschoolers better because if this!<p.It is obvious that this 'couple' was not 'homeschooling' anyone, except maybe the little girl. What they were doing was abusing them. Why didn't the neighbors drop a dime on these two before now?
Just remember, an EX is a has-been, and a SPURT is a drip under pressure!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.