Discussion in 'West Memphis III' started by Ausgirl, Dec 10, 2013.
Because all of the properly qualified people who examined the evidence say so.
The correct answer is indeterminate, as child abuse experts such as Dr. Joyce A. Adams note "Both the hymen of a pubertal girl and the anus of a child can stretch to allow penetration without causing tears" on slide 10 of her presentation “Doctor, was there penetration?” Why we usually can’t tell by looking. And slide 40 shows the various physical indicators anal penetration are quite rare even when such penetration is probable:
Also, Dr. Anna S. Botash further explains:
This doctor was retained by which side? And what findings specific to this case did she make? I may have read right past it. Again on my phone so my apologies if I did.
In that little chart up there, I can't see whether the figures are regarding chronic abuse or violent rape.
There IS a difference. And usually, very different kinds of signs and injuries.
Interestingly, the Byers' were concerned that Chris might have been molested in the weeks prior to the murders. And there were concerns expressed over the question of longer term abuse in more the one victim, in regard to the autopsy findings, weren't there? IIRC Stevie Branch has some irritation on his penis that could indicate that.
But violently raped at time of murder? No -- and the evidence backs that up, and the experts report NO sign of trauma. Until somebody shows me a violent anal rape in a child in which there's NO physical damage to tissue, I'm sticking with that as a fact.
That's a false dichotomy as chronic abuse can be quite violent, but all one can rightly conclude from absence of anal trauma is that there wasn't any rape violent enough to cause such trauma, be it regarding this case or any other. Of course experts hired to defend the three have argued otherwise as such experts do in many other cases, but that's what they're paid to do.
I must assert, because there might be some people who just don't grasp it - that there's NO way a child being forcibly sodomised, in the way Misskelley describes it happening, is going to avoid physical damage to tissue.
I'm trying to be delicate here. But I'm also saying -- if you haven't been forcibly raped as a child, then you cannot imagine how painful it is. You just cannot. It's agonising. You don't just lie there like a log and take it; if you are conscious at all you are GOING to resist in some way, and you cannot help it because it --is agony -- And it's agonising--- because there is tissue damage occurring. Especially when there is a struggle and the child is resistant.
There is NO way all three of those kids were forcibly raped at all, let alone with enough force to produce anal distention, while receiving NO tissue damage at all, in the manner Misskelley describes. No way, no how.
And for arguments to the contrary, I want to see more than one pissy little ambiguously designated graph. The burden of proof here, for me, is NOT on me.
Because I --know-- what happens when an unwilling child is forcibly raped, and how impossible it is NOT to sustain damage. Really, that's all I have to say on it.
On second thought I'll try a different approach by asking: where in any of Misskelley's confessions does he describe struggle during anal penetration, or even suggest the boys were conscious at the time?
Will this work?
The next few lines from that confession are worth considering too:
The "wake up" part in particular suggests the boys were in and out of consciousness, and hence weren't necessarily conscious enough to violently resist during anal penetration.
Kicking and talking while Jason was having sex with him. I think that's clear enough. I'd say he used wake up in the same context as raise up. As the quoted text shows "they could run, they just had them tied"
Those kids weren't raped. I know it (and how dare you, kyle, diminish an agonising rape down to a logical fallacy, just to win a point in an argument? oughta be damn ashamed of yourself).
That big pile of medical experts who examined the evidence knew it.
The only people who -don't- know it are those still clinging to the idea Misskelley's confession was 100% accurate.
Just a giant pile of :no:.
I agree, but even if they had been unconscious, that wouldn't make it non-violent. What Jessie described was three teenage boys acting like drunken savage animals and violently raping those little boys. There is just no way there wouldn't have been at least some sign on one of the boys. Do I believe it's possible to rape a child and leave no sign? Yes. Do I believe it's possible that Damien and Jason did what Jessie described and left no signs of it? No possible way. How disgusting.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I wasn't going to bother. something was asked. I provided it, deflected.
I'm so sorry that happened to you Ausgirl:heartbeat:
Thank you, Lola. I do appreciate it. :hug:
It's painful to share these things, I still feel very much ashamed about them. But through my own experience, and those of the many adult survivors of child rape I have encountered in my life who've shared their own stories with me, I feel I do have some perspective to add, when people are talking about child rape and the physical damage that results.
It's hard not to go into graphic detail, yet be clear on what I mean. But there's chronic, coerced molestation, and there's forced rape. And there's a difference, and there's different results, for several reasons and potential reasons.
But, to be blunt, I don't see anywhere Misskelley saying any of them stopped to apply lube or try to calm the children. I do see Misskelley, as gheckso clearly pointed out, saying there was a struggle while the rape occurred.
Small bodies don't cope well with adult penetration, and much moreso if they not relaxed via coersion or drugs or whatever. Three boys, all raped unwillingly in a violent struggle, no rectal damage. I don't think so.
I don't mind people disagreeing with me. But it would be awesome if that was done with respect.
NO - that's pure rubbish
I think Kyleb has some very interesting points and I'm not so small minded as to refuse to listen to another's opinion even if it makes my own look like poppycock.
Those boys were all three striped naked for a reason. I also believe the boys were raped in more ways than one.
A/ Replying with insults doesn't make your posts more credible. It's also against TOS. Perhaps you could look those up.
B/ Your second point's actually a good one, and I actually agree with you there.
However, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is Jessie's description of forcible rape. Which he describes quite clearly.
We should ALL try to respect one another it's more productive
Separate names with a comma.