Linguistics

[akashana]

Sorry, not my intention. I was using the context from a previous post. I understand your point and I apologize.



There's no such word as 'defys'.[/QUOTE]

Ah, trite and boring semantics!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

MY BOLD

Really? You still can't see it? When it's that obvious? OK, let me break it down:

JB was sexually assaulted and murdered in her own home. If she was assaulted before, by anyone, even once, "a little bit molested" (cue Nedra), the possibility exists and is even likely that her molester was up to more of the same on the night of her murder. Ergo, prior sexual abuse is certainly relevant if one is truly seeking her killer and not just in denial.

Previous sexual abuse is a non-issue. Your inability to see that, your denial, is beyond my ability to resolve. Far as I am concerned, you seem to be stuck with the idea that JBR WAS being sexually abused by a family member, even though we really don't know.

Now, on the other hand, if BPD had acquired some corroborating evidence like inappropriate photos in family member possession, or witness testimony from remarks made by JBR, or Dr. Beuf charting issues, then yes you would have enough evidence IMO to have arrested the parents on murder charges.

I guess you believe the abusing family members were tidy and had JBR used to it, and this is where we part company because this is where the fiction simply outruns the facts.

The answer is probably within the facts.

<<<CAUTION: LOGIC INVOLVED>>>>

The DNA on the leggings corroborated the assertion that the DNA on the underwear was deposited during the crime.

 

[akashana]

No, you assume too much. I believe she was probably molested, but I've no idea by whom. It could be within the nuclear family, extended family, friends' circle, or even, as I have suggested, someone on the pageant circuit with access.

As far as having her become used to it, she was six. Hypothetically, if she was being abused by someone very close to her within her own home, it wouldn't have been hard at all to keep her compliant. That goes on all day long within families and statistics will back me up although I'm not going to go searching the internet on familial molestation. The whole topic makes me feel like I need a shower.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No, you assume too much. I believe she was probably molested, but I've no idea by whom. It could be within the nuclear family, extended family, friends' circle, or even, as I have suggested, someone on the pageant circuit with access.

As far as having her become used to it, she was six. Hypothetically, if she was being abused by someone very close to her within her own home, it wouldn't have been hard at all to keep her compliant. That goes on all day long within families and statistics will back me up although I'm not going to go searching the internet on familial molestation. The whole topic makes me feel like I need a shower.

My bold.

Wellll, you're off the jury with that one. Of course, I'm not making the jury pool either.

 

[joeskidbeck]

My bold.

Wellll, you're off the jury with that one. Of course, I'm not making the jury pool either.

Doesn't matter anyway. There will never be a jury pool to worry about.
:furious::furious::furious::furious::furious::furious::furious::furious::furious::furious::furious::furious::furious::furious::furious::furious::furious:

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No, you assume too much. I believe she was probably molested, but I've no idea by whom. It could be within the nuclear family, extended family, friends' circle, or even, as I have suggested, someone on the pageant circuit with access.

As far as having her become used to it, she was six. Hypothetically, if she was being abused by someone very close to her within her own home, it wouldn't have been hard at all to keep her compliant. That goes on all day long within families and statistics will back me up although I'm not going to go searching the internet on familial molestation. The whole topic makes me feel like I need a shower.

We could also speculate on cults, child *advertiser censored* rings, or a number of other aspects that are equally possible. There's been no great revelation that somehow places prior sexual abuse ahead of any of these other possibilities.

I believe that it is simply more popular to discuss this one possible aspect over others. People are able to draw from their own experiences and somehow believe it automatically relates to this case. The assumption is that all readers/posters are interested in only this aspect. I'm not interested in it because there's no great mound of evidence to support it.

Instead there is a great mound of evidence that this is a bizarre, violent child murder.

Please note the thread topic and also please note there are PLENTY of other threads dealing with this aspect or perceived aspect of the case.

 

[akashana]

We could also speculate on cults, child *advertiser censored* rings, or a number of other aspects that are equally possible. There's been no great revelation that somehow places prior sexual abuse ahead of any of these other possibilities.

I believe that it is simply more popular to discuss this one possible aspect over others. People are able to draw from their own experiences and somehow believe it automatically relates to this case. The assumption is that all readers/posters are interested in only this aspect. I'm not interested in it because there's no great mound of evidence to support it.

Instead there is a great mound of evidence that this is a bizarre, violent child murder.

Please note the thread topic and also please note there are PLENTY of other threads dealing with this aspect or perceived aspect of the case.

If you look back, you will see my original post which you commented on was that I thought the note writer was likely a woman reared or educated in the South. You posted you believed it was an Asian man with ESL and then asked me

"The only question I have now is why do you want to discuss sexual abuse so much?"

thus bringing up the topic on this thread yourself. I responded, you again commented, etc., which brings us to this point.

I am well aware this thread is on linguistics, but when asked a direct question, I quite naturally responded.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I am well aware this thread is on linguistics, but when asked a direct question, I quite naturally responded.

Quite naturally.

I think I forgot it was a thread on linguistics and the conversation was a carryover from another thread where it should've stayed I guess.

 

[CathyR]

I have known some people who were brilliant but had no common sense. So smart they are stupid in everyday things.
The War going on between two posters makes me say hey guys have you ever known someone like that? That could explain the large vocabulary of "educated" words. I am kinda lost in the thread here. Linguistics can say what...... about the ransom note. Please "dummy" it up for me.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I have known some people who were brilliant but had no common sense. So smart they are stupid in everyday things.
The War going on between two posters makes me say hey guys have you ever known someone like that? That could explain the large vocabulary of "educated" words. I am kinda lost in the thread here. Linguistics can say what...... about the ransom note. Please "dummy" it up for me.

OK I'll bite. I'm not sure I understand, but maybe I can help.

There's another thread on this forum on linguistics, could be a page back on the threads. It goes into depth about linguistics and includes a link to a case study by a professor of linguistics on the JBR murder.

According to this professor, there is enough material in the ransom note to establish a unique set of styles and patterns. I believe the professor stated that the odds any person could replicate the stylistics in the ransom note are very remote unless it is the acutal author. I think he said that PR is unable to match the stylistics of the ransom note. PR is incapable of writing the ransom note, basically.

 

[BBB167893]

The only question I have now is why do you want to discuss sexual abuse so much? It seems to me to be just one thing on a long list of what RDI wishes to be true:

1. JBR was previously abused by a family member.
2. PR wrote the note.
3. PR bought cord at the hardware store a few weeks before.
4. PR was drugged.
5. PR was at wits end.
6. The DNA came from an underwear factory.
7. PR, while drugged, deliberately altered her writing/spelling.
8. The GJ indicted PR/JR
9. The BPD arrested PR/JR
10. Family member DNA is found instead of unknown male DNA.
11. People believed fibers from JBR's own parent's clothing was significant.
12. People believed every tabloid story and talking head.

HOTYH, you can't possibly think that anyone WANTS these to be true.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH, you can't possibly think that anyone WANTS these to be true.

RDI inherently requires them to be true to support the position. If you check the preceding post you'll find there was a context.

I wasn't accusing you of wanting a small child to be abused. Surprised that you took the context that way and rolled with it though.

I'm insulted.

 

[BBB167893]

I wasn't accusing you of wanting a small child to be abused.

That's why I gave you a chance to clarify.

Not surprised if you took the context that way and rolled with it though.

Given the way some IDIs have started acting lately, how else was I SUPPOSED to take it?

I'm insulted.

I figured that's how you'd take it. Meantime, help me out with something:

I guess you believe the abusing family members were tidy and had JBR used to it

I'm not sure where you're coming from on this, HOTYH.