Q: Were the victims raped, as JM described?

[Ausgirl]

Those boys were all three striped naked for a reason. I also believe the boys were raped in more ways than one.

rsbm

Now, I know we are coming at this issue from two very different viewpoints.. but, if we can put aside suspects for a moment, and have a look at what the evidence actually is to support this idea...

One of the boys had abrasions close to his anus, which are describes as 'fine scratches'.

A similar description is given to the abrasions on the penis of another victim.

This is a bit of a red flag to me that -maybe- some kind of sexual assault was going on. Not anal rape, but sexual assault of some other kind.

Another flag is the way the boys were tied. IMO, and having observed a few multiple homicides involving binding, it is -extremely- unusual for all the victims to be tied in a way as to look very similar to one another (accounting for the fact that not all the boys' binding were precisely alike, but near enough in visual and physical effect). In fact, I cannot off the top of my head recall -one- in which the bindings were this similar. It speaks to a desire for a certain appearance, rather than sheer necessity, I think.

And the -way- they were tied is such that their buttocks were exposed. There's a bajillion ways to tie somebody up. In this sort of case, I ask myself, 'WHY that particular way?' because it can say a lot about the perp's intentions. The way the boys were bound is overtly humiliating, and that could be one reason..

Anyway. Probably a little OT for this specific thread, but worth mentioning IMO. Plus, it's nice we can agree on some things.

 

[kyleb]

Kicking and talking while Jason was having sex with him.

One can kick and talk a bit while barely conscious but not necessarily enough to put up a violent struggle.

how dare you, kyle, diminish an agonising rape down to a logical fallacy

That's a vulgar misrepresentation of what I've said here, as is the insinuation that I'm "clinging to the idea Misskelley's confession was 100% accurate" when I've never imagined as much.

It's painful to share these things, I still feel very much ashamed about them.

There's no reason to be ashamed of what was done to you, the shame of it all falls solely on the person(s) who did it whether they've ever come to admit as much or otherwise, and the more one shares such experiences the less painful it becomes to recall them. Furthermore, as we as a society become more comfortable in discussing the details of such injustices the more capable we become in preventing them.

But, to be blunt, I don't see anywhere Misskelley saying any of them stopped to apply lube or try to calm the children.

Yet as much could've been done while Misskelley was too busy subduing Michael Moore to notice. Or perhaps he did notice but forgot over the course of his month of crying fits between the murders and his initial confession. Or maybe he remembered but simply never bothered to mention that detail. Then again, it also could be there was no actual anal penetration but simply what looked like it from Misskelley's angle. Such possibilities can't rightly be ruled out, regardless of how much one might want to.

 

[Ausgirl]

regardless of how much one might want to.

^ I wish you'd quit this with sort of puerile jab. It renders an otherwise decent post too annoying to bother with.

 

[Ausgirl]

Okay. Here's all the references to anal sex I could find in Jessie's two June 3 statements. I think it's pretty clear that what he's describing is not ambiguous, nor is he describing it as being seen from an ambiguous angle.

Note that Jessie says one of the boys was kicking and crying out -after- he was unconscious. Okay. And also apparently after Jessie left. :facepalm:

Note too, he states that Michael Moore was NOT raped. Yet MM has the same anal distention noted in autopsy, and attributed by experts to natural postmortem distension.

So is this proof of rape? Or is this -entire- confession a big ol' load of horse puckey?

I'm opting for the latter.


Statement 1:

*A30 MISSKELLEY: and then he started screwing them and stuff

*A58 MISSKELLEY: Then they tied them up, tied their hands up, they started screwing them and stuff

DETECTIVE RIDGE: Were the boys conscience (sic) or were they
*A130 MISSKELLEY: They were unconscious then
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Unconscious
*A131 MISSKELLEY: And after I left they done more.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: They done more.
*A132 MISSKELLEY: They started screwing them again.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Okay, how were they screwing them when you saw them?
*A133 MISSKELLEY: They, Jason stuck his in one of them's mouth and Damien was screwing one of them up the *advertiser censored* and stuff.

*A136 MISSKELLEY: Jason was screwing him while Damien stuck his in his mouth and got a *advertiser censored*.

*A137 MISSKELLEY: Damien, he was holding him down like, and Jason had his legs up in the air and that little boy was kicking, saying, 'don't, no' like that.


Statement 2:

DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Which, which boys were raped?
*B44 MISSKELLEY: Uh, the Byers and the. . . the Branch.

DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Ok, did you, did you see the Moore boy, was he raped?
*B46 MISSKELLEY: No.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Alright, who raped those two boys?
*B47 MISSKELLEY: Jason and Damien.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Do you know which one raped which boy, or how did that happen?
*B48 MISSKELLEY: Damien raped the Myers by hisself and and Jason and Damien raped uh the Branch.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Alright, give that to me again now.
*B49 MISSKELLEY: Damien raped uh the Myers by hisself and Jason and Damien raped the Branch.
*B58 MISSKELLEY: Yeah, they, they, one of them stuck their thang in one of the boys mouth while the other one got the other one up the butt and stuff.

 

[kyleb]

Note that Jessie says one of the boys was kicking and crying out -after- he was unconscious.

Note Misskelley didn't actually state whether the "don't, no" was cried out or whimpered, nor does he describe the intensity of the kicking, and people who've been severely beaten tend to drift in and out of consciousness.

And also apparently after Jessie left.

Note that people trying to minimize their involvement in acts they confession to is a common occurrence. Also worth considering is the possibility that at any point throughout Misskelley's many confessions, half-wit that he is, he could've been mixing up the boys' names.

Note too, he states that Michael Moore was NOT raped.

Exactly, as I alluded to earlier in response to your suggestion to the contrary in my since deleted post, and in that regard note Michael Moore's while autopsy report says "The anus was dilated and showed no external evidence of injury" and "The mucosal surfaces of the rectum were slightly hyperemic", and while the one for Stevie Branch describes the same conditions the Christopher Byers' autopsy reports his anus was "markedly dilated" and the mucosa "diffusely hyperemic and injected" and goes on to note various injuries to the surrounding region.

So is this proof of rape? Or is this -entire- confession a big ol' load of horse puckey?

Absence of proof is not proof of absence, and the notion that a confession must be either 100% true or "a big ol' load of horse puckey" is false dichotomy.

 

[21merc7]

Also of note, is the reversal of roles here:

*A133 MISSKELLEY: They, Jason stuck his in one of them's mouth and Damien was screwing one of them up the *advertiser censored* and stuff.

*A136 MISSKELLEY: Jason was screwing him while Damien stuck his in his mouth and got a *advertiser censored*.

ETA: He may not have a high i.q., but if remembering a sight as such, would remember correctly and not reverse. He would remember what he saw correctly each time he speaks of it.

 

[kyleb]

Note the context which suggests the reversal of roles was in two different instances with two different boys:

*A132 MISSKELLEY: They started screwing them again.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Okay, how were they screwing them when you saw them?
*A133 MISSKELLEY: They, Jason stuck his in one of them's mouth and Damien was screwing one of them up the *advertiser censored* and stuff.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Okay, and the one that they were cutting the penis off of, did any of them, or cutting the penis or whatever was being done, did they have sex with him at all?
*A134 MISSKELLEY: No
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Did any one of them?
*A135 MISSKELLEY: Jason did
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Jason did?
*A136 MISSKELLEY: Jason was screwing him while Damien stuck his in his mouth and got a *advertiser censored*.

 

[kyleb]

Also, the notion that anyone could remember correctly what they saw every time they speak it is flatly absurd, particularly in the case of a half-wit like Misskelley, more so in the case of someone who was drunk and stoned at the time of what they witnessed as Misskelley said he was, an yet further so when one is traumatized by the experience as the many reported crying fits of Misskelley between the time of the murders and his initial confession suggest he was.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Also of note, is the reversal of roles here:

*A133 MISSKELLEY: They, Jason stuck his in one of them's mouth and Damien was screwing one of them up the *advertiser censored* and stuff.

*A136 MISSKELLEY: Jason was screwing him while Damien stuck his in his mouth and got a *advertiser censored*.

ETA: He may not have a high i.q., but if remembering a sight as such, would remember correctly and not reverse. He would remember what he saw correctly each time he speaks of it.

AS much as it pains me to comment here on this thread, I agree. If he saw it he would remember what he saw. Not flip it around.

 

[Cappuccino]

There is no evidence that any of the three children were raped, and the medical evidence leans strongly towards not. Bearing that in mind, I'm afraid I find the whole idea of people desparately trying to convince themselves that three murdered children were raped in their last moments a bit sad and a bit creepy.

Why would you want to believe that they were raped? Are you really that desparate to be right?

 

[kyleb]

Bearing that in mind, I'm afraid I find the whole idea of people desparately trying to convince themselves that three murdered children were raped in their last moments a bit sad and a bit creepy.

What's sad and creepy is people trying to insist absence of proof of rape proves absence of rape, in this case and so many others.

Why would you want to believe that they were raped? Are you really that desparate to be right?

It's not like anyone made a thread full of spurious arguments insisting they were raped.

 

[reedus23]

Instead of arguing in circles, I'm curious, how many actually believe the children were raped? Not talking about evidence or lack of evidence. Just, based on everything you've read, do you believe they were raped as described by JM? Obviously, all opinions are subject to being changed with more learned or discovered.

I'll start. I don't.

 

[gheckso]

I don't either.

 

[primitivefuture]

I don't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ausgirl]

Not me!

Mind you, NOT ruling out the possibility of other forms of abuse, recent or otherwise.

But deffo not raped, as Misskelley described it.

 

[kyleb]

how many actually believe the children were raped?

I accept the fact that it might have happened, and have no compulsion to take a position of faith regarding it one way or another.

 

[Userid]

Instead of arguing in circles, I'm curious, how many actually believe the children were raped? Not talking about evidence or lack of evidence. Just, based on everything you've read, do you believe they were raped as described by JM? Obviously, all opinions are subject to being changed with more learned or discovered.

I'll start. I don't.

Since there is no definitive evidence that they were raped, I also lean toward no -- I say "lean" because I can't for the life of me reside myself to the notion that no signs of rape wouldn't be left, whether they were conscious, unconscious, half-conscious, etc.

The one big "however" for me, though, is why were they naked then?

 

[BD1]

Since there is no definitive evidence that they were raped, I also lean toward no -- I say "lean" because I can't for the life of me reside myself to the notion that no signs of rape wouldn't be left, whether they were conscious, unconscious, half-conscious, etc.

The one big "however" for me, though, is why were they naked then?

If the reason for them to be naked wasn't for some kind of sexual abuse (which I find possible, up to and including some method of rape) I think they may have been forced to take their clothing off as a means to control them. There were 3 boys. I believe it is possible there were fewer attackers than victims, and to help ensure no one would run, making them get naked might have been a tool used.

 

[reedus23]

Appreciate it everyone. I fully understand one saying they don't think they were raped as JM described doesn't mean it didn't happen or that one's opinion can change or they can't be convinced otherwise. I was just trying to distinguish how much of the discussion was debate/anylysis/hypothesis versus one's feelings based on what is known.

Again, many thanks to all.

 

[Userid]

If the reason for them to be naked wasn't for some kind of sexual abuse (which I find possible, up to and including some method of rape) I think they may have been forced to take their clothing off as a means to control them. There were 3 boys. I believe it is possible there were fewer attackers than victims, and to help ensure no one would run, making them get naked might have been a tool used.

I actually think the fact they were naked gives more credence to the "satan sacrifice" theory, if in fact they were not raped. There would be a sense of ritual in making them strip, drowning them, tying their limbs (to keep their bodies as compact as possible to avoid detection/floating?), and placing them in the water.