I 100% disagree.
First, if the father is an international businessman of some sort, then it's 100% likely that he was highly educated and would want to pass that education on to his son, regardless of his mental condition. Granted, he probably didn't educate his son properly, or equally in all areas, but it's absolutely probable that he taught his son all sorts of important things.
Second, again, you're speaking from an extremely biased and opinionated view on this, and you need to stop it. You are being incredibly arrogant and simple-minded here. Just because in YOUR experience and in YOUR opinion abuse would be more probable in this case doesn't make it so. In this kind of situation, if he was taking the boy into the woods with him out of fear, then it's by far most likely that he would have taken excellent care of the child because he's protecting him. Does that guarantee that's what happened? Absolutely not! You could be entirely right, but how can you know? YOU DON'T. So stop arguing it, because it's quite retarded to do so.
END OF DISCUSSION. You're beating a dead horse by now. It's blatantly clear that you're wrong and you don't know what happened, yet you insist on continuing to argue. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.
SW-5120-1900-6153
