Chinese girls freed from basement chains

Page last updated at 10:56 GMT, Thursday, 20 May 2010 11:56 UK

Police in Wuhan, central China, have freed two teenage girls who had been kept chained in a basement for almost a year, Chinese media say.

The girls, aged 16 and 19, were rescued after a repairman found a note they had smuggled out in a broken television.

The suspected captor, 39-year-old Zeng Xiangbao, had been in custody for a week in an unrelated rape case.

It is unclear whether the girls, who were naked when found, had been sexually abused.

The pair were found shackled in an underground room of a two-storey house in the city in Hubei province, the Beijing News reported.

The 19-year-old, who was reported missing in July last year, lived only 200m away from the house where she had been confined.
The uncle of one victim said the pair, who had been surviving on pot noodles they had found in the room after their captor failed to return, would have starved to death had they not been found.

The discovery was made after a repairman, after removing the cover of a TV to fix it, found the girls' note.

"Help! I have been held in an underground place for more than a year," the note read, along with a sketch of where they were being kept and the phone number of the 19-year-old's father.

A friend of the repairman called the father's number and then alerted the police.

Officers searched the area and eventually discovered the underground room, which had been disguised by boards and layers of soil.

Mr Zeng, the suspected captor who lived in the house with his 70-year-old mother, had been arrested a week earlier on a rape charge.

Divorced last year, Mr Zeng worked at a nearby kiln and was a quiet man, according to the South China Morning Post.

The girls had put notes in pot noodle and bread packaging on previous occasions in an attempt to summon help, but they had not been found.




can we expect some statement from the fragrant duo about how this gives them hope Madeleine is still alive blah blah blah?

This case reminds me of the Belguim event, when Sabine (schoolgirl) was abducted by Marc Dutroux.

A horrible case, but thank goodness the girls had the good idea of putting the note in the tv set. The thought that they might have been left to starve to death is just terrible, as is the thought of their ordeal throughout the past year.

But I don't think even the McCanns would think of using the ordeal these girls have been through to compare this case to the supposed abduction of Madeleine. If the Chinese girls were held for a year, they must have been 15 and 18 when kidnapped - very different from a 3-year-old. And no way could the McCanns keep on claiming there's no evidence of Madeleine being harmed if they publicly admitted the notion that child-abductors aren't kind people who make sure their abductees brush their teeth and rub their tummy when they're not feeling well (as Kate said on Oprah).

Still, you never know, a few crass, insensitive comments from the Team may be just round the corner.

Well remember they linked Madeleine (3) with Elizabeth Smart (14) kidnapped from a bedroom shared with her 9 yr old sister who witnessed the abduction and Jaycee Duggard ( 11) abducted within sight of her home and which was witnessed by her stepfather who gave chase on a bicycle but lost sight of her.
The mccanns claim no evidence of serious harm despite them claiming the above latter cases means she could be alive but fail noticeably to mention that Jaycee was raped frequently by her abductor and bore him 2 children, and theat Elizabeth was forced to endure a pseudo marriage and then was raped.
The fact that both girls were raped by their abductors is concealed by ommission, the mccanns make no mention of the rapes etc just concentrating soley on the fact they were found alive months and years after their abduction.
If they came out and admiited to that fact it would destroy their claim of no evidence Madeleine has come to serious harm at the hand of her 'abductor' Rape is a serious harmful crime, more so on a child especially one of such young and tender years.
The fact they continue to reiterate the no serious harm is not normal behavior for any parent of a missing child, If a child is abducted by a non parent/ family member then it is probable that harm will ensue, a predator will not take a child to give them candy and treat them like a princess.This is more so if no ransom is demanded.
that child will have been taken for one reason and one reason only, to be a sexual plaything for the abductor. That is serious harm whichever way you look at it.
So why do they repeat this mantra?
is it because they were advised early on so as to avoid charges of child neglect? remember the penalties were harsher if harm befell the child, or, is it simply because they know what what happened that night? There was no abductor, Madeleine died at some point on that vacation and thus is beyond any kind of harm so technically they are telling the truth, there is no evidence of any serious harm befalling Madeleine simply because you cannot harm that which is already dead.

hobnob wrote:Well remember they linked Madeleine (3) with Elizabeth Smart (14) kidnapped from a bedroom shared with her 9 yr old sister who witnessed the abduction and Jaycee Duggard ( 11) abducted within sight of her home and which was witnessed by her stepfather who gave chase on a bicycle but lost sight of her.
The mccanns claim no evidence of serious harm despite them claiming the above latter cases means she could be alive but fail noticeably to mention that Jaycee was raped frequently by her abductor and bore him 2 children, and theat Elizabeth was forced to endure a pseudo marriage and then was raped.
The fact that both girls were raped by their abductors is concealed by ommission, the mccanns make no mention of the rapes etc just concentrating soley on the fact they were found alive months and years after their abduction.
If they came out and admiited to that fact it would destroy their claim of no evidence Madeleine has come to serious harm at the hand of her 'abductor' Rape is a serious harmful crime, more so on a child especially one of such young and tender years.
The fact they continue to reiterate the no serious harm is not normal behavior for any parent of a missing child, If a child is abducted by a non parent/ family member then it is probable that harm will ensue, a predator will not take a child to give them candy and treat them like a princess.This is more so if no ransom is demanded.
that child will have been taken for one reason and one reason only, to be a sexual plaything for the abductor. That is serious harm whichever way you look at it.
So why do they repeat this mantra?
is it because they were advised early on so as to avoid charges of child neglect? remember the penalties were harsher if harm befell the child, or, is it simply because they know what what happened that night? There was no abductor, Madeleine died at some point on that vacation and thus is beyond any kind of harm so technically they are telling the truth, there is no evidence of any serious harm befalling Madeleine simply because you cannot harm that which is already dead.

Good post Hobnob,I'm of the mind your second premise is the more likely....I always have been.