Random things about this case...

[Puffin]

Thank you. I didn't know that site and I'm reading it now. I just wonder what their sources are, sometimes; for example, they state that Misskelley was not interrogated for 12 hours but I wonder what their source is - if they found official documents, consulted people who were there and remember, etc. It's not on the Callahan site either, not that I can see at least. I'm not saying it's not a good side, but it would be immensely helpful if both sides could cite their reasons and evidence for certain facts.

Whether you believe in guilt or innocence aside, the WM3 Truth site makes good use of backup documentation more than most sites around. They almost always link back to a document on Callahan's.

It's also fairly common knowledge to most who are familiar with the documents on Callahan's that Misskelley implicated himself in the murders within about 4.5 hours of being at the WMPD. Not after 12 hours of being interrogated.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/jmtimelog.html
http://callahan.8k.com/images/jessiem/time_log_02.JPG

 

[kyleb]

I decided to Google around to see how far and wide the 12 interrogation myth has spread, which lead me back to WM3 Truth. They have an entry titled A Short History of the 12-Hour Interrogation which provides examples of recitation of this myth from CNN, the New York Times, BBC News, Roger Ebert and various other mainstream sources throughout the article. A couple even embellish the story further to 14 hours, and one cited in the comments even goes so far as to claim 17 hours of interrogation.

Now I'm not a Christian by any stretch, nor a fan of organized religion at all. However, particularly given the facts surrounding this case, a verse from the Gospels comes to mind as a fitting response to all who've perpetuated myths such as that of the the 12 hour interrogation:

You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

 

[EntreNous]

Nor I.

She has been quiet lately, hope she is doing well.

She is doing great, just had to go take care of something. She'll be back soon, brilliant as ever!

 

[Nova]

As for tearing, while that's certainly common in cases of rape, a lack of tearing does not preclude the possibility of rape.

Absent the use of professional lubricant and a very relaxed partner, tearing is almost certain. Even more likely with the victim is 8.

***

Veidt, when I write that Misskelley's confession was coached and/or coerced, I don't necessarily mean deliberately. I'm not in the minds of the interrogators and most of the interrogations was not taped. However, I don't think there's any question that JM invented his story from pieces of info provided by LE.

 

[Veidt]

I don't think that, nor did I suggest as much. For demonstration purposes I'll say: I feel like people here will either partake in thorough consideration of the body of evidence as a whole, wave their hands at it wildly to defend their positions of faith, or neglect careful consideration to sit on the fence while imagining it to be some sort of high horse. Now I haven't accused you of anything with that statement, but given the fact that you're the only fence sitter who's recently been participating in this thread, my inclusion of that third category is an obvious allusion to you, much like your claim of "one side will forever parrot police documents" was an obvious allusion to me. Granted, I would never suggest you will forever sit on the fence while imagining it to be some sort of high horse, as I'm in no place to say what your future holds, and hence can't rightly justify that disparaging insinuation.


Your statement made it clear that you were not aware of the police records which were provided as sources (bolding mine):



As I demonstrated in my responseto your curiosity, WM3 Truth does cite their sources when they initially address the timeline of Misskelley's first confession, with links to official documents at the Callahan archives. Did your academic background not teach you that claims substantiated by sources can be repeated later without repeat citations, and hence one must read an argument from the beginning to end before assuming claims were made without proper citation?

Furthermore, your claim that people who don't believe the aforementioned documents will find a way to refute them assumes that such a means exists, or perhaps can be willed into existence. Did your academic background not enlighten you to the fact that while anything can be disputed with at least faulty arguments if not legitimate ones, some things simply can't be refuted?


I'm nearly certain that I'm far newer to this case than you, but given your arguments I've have serious doubts that you've assessed the evidence to anywhere near the extent which I have. That said, I just put considerable time into addressing your contentions in this thread, and I hope you might might respect the fact that I'd prefer to see how you respond to that before I take the time to work my way through your arguments here.


Yet rape does not require ejaculation, internal or otherwise, and the rape described by Misskelley suggests only external ejaculation. As for tearing, while that's certainly common in cases of rape, a lack of tearing does not preclude the possibility of rape.


Nor have I suggested any such an argument.


Nor do I have any interest in doing anything of the sort, which is why for example I've acknowledged the fact that there's no conclusive evidence of sodomy in this case, any why I've never claimed any of the boys were raped. That said, what is one to make of your claim that Echols and Baldwin "barely knew" Misskelley, along with your lack of acknowledgment of the evidence to the contrary which I presented to you. Can you explain that as anything other than cherry-picking?

I'm seriously baffled by what is either your lack of reading comprehension or your persecution complex. :waitasec:

If you want to say that I'm on some kind of high horse - fine. By any means, do it. It's your choice if you want to be rude and attack me for my opinion. At the end of the day, I still think that too much weight is being placed on proving theories than trying to collectively put an effort into bringing justice and closure to the victims and their families. But thanks, I think I'll keep sitting on my fence.

I criticised the fact that on the timeline thingie on the site, they do not link directly to the sources elsewhere on their server. This would make it easier to read along and check the documents they're referring to for reference while doing it. I was not attacking the legitimacy of the site and I don't understand why you are so offended by the fact that I dared suggest that the site's structure is not easy to navigate. Which it isn't. It was an off-hand remark and the JM confession documents were an example of something that was not linked in a clear manner. Perhaps it was a bad example, but the way their site is organised IS confusing. I understand that, though, because when you're hosting hundreds of files it's hard to keep them mapped and all the places where they are reference linking to them, etc.

Again - I don't understand how you cannot understand my comment and yet you can twist my meaning completely. I said that BOTH SIDES have a tendency to be dogmatic in what they are saying. You perceive this to be an attack on you, and yet, you yourself refer to something I said about it in which I said that some people will certainly refute official police documents by saying the police was lying. Why did you choose to believe that the parroting was directed solely at you, when I was referring to circumstances like that also? And for the 100th time, the JM confession was an example because it was what was being talked to when I posted that, and I have already said that perhaps it is not the best example. What do you want me to do, bash my against a wall and beg forgiveness for using what you think is a bad example? :banghead: You're a grown person, I'm sure you can find other such examples that are better suited to what I was talking about, where one side will bring up police records and some evidence and the other side will bring up LE mistakes and other pieces of evidence. This goes back to my original point which is that, IMO, many (I did not say all) people are far more focused on what contributes to their own views than on trying to piece it all together collectively and finding the truth. My education taught me just fine and it is clearly better than yours as you cannot read a simple post and understand it.

And finally, please stop assuming that everything I am saying is an attack towards you. If you want something singled out just for you, though, here it is: you are being one of the very few posters right now who is actually taking everything personally and being seemingly offended by what others are saying. I'm entitled to my fence and to be appalled by the reactions this case gets from people, here on WS and elsewhere. Others here are entitled to their views about the WM3 being innocent. If you disagree with anyone, go get some fresh air and then respond in a calm, civil manner and understand that nobody is attacking you directly. I know that debate can get heated online but a) it's unfair to be so obsessed with what I'm saying because the WM3 discussion over the Internet does not belong solely to you and b) this case is not about you so if you disagree with anyone, by any means educate them and say your peace, but stop reading personal attacks where they don't exist. Your tone is consistently aggressive to myself and other posters too, I've noticed. If I'm on a high horse, you must be on a skyscraper because you keep talking to other people who have the opposite view or are even undecided as though you are the holder of ultimate truth. If you know so much be humble and tell people why you disagree, rather than acting like everyone else is a bunch of troglodites who is out to get you specifically.

By the way, I'm going to stop replying to your messages from now on. As I said, I'll be around to read it and may reply from time to time - but not to you. Like I said before, I don't have much time and energy to devote to this case (sadly) so the last thing I want to do on my spare time is argue with a random stranger over something I never said to begin with.

 

[kyleb]

Absent the use of professional lubricant and a very relaxed partner, tearing is almost certain. Even more likely with the victim is 8.

I suspect you mean personal lubricant. Regardless, there's a difference between almost certain and actually certain, and claim such as your "experts proved the sodomy never happened" require the latter. Furthermore, there's really no way for any of us to rule out the possibility that lubricant was used to rape one or more of the boys, experts or otherwise. Granted, there's really no way to prove Misskelley's claims of rape either, so that whole issue is a wash.

when I write that Misskelley's confession was coached and/or coerced, I don't necessarily mean deliberately.

Coercion is deliberate by definition, and I've yet to see anyone provide evidence to substantiate such claims. As for coaching, that's plainly obvious, but how much was actually Byn Ridge and Gary Gitchell putting words in Misskelley's mouth rather than simply getting Misskelley to repeat what specifics he'd first mentioned himself before the tapes were rolling is largely a matter of supposition.

Furthermore, when you write of "Misskelley's confession" you're only acknowledging the first of many times Misskelley confessed, leaving me to wonder what your take is on the many others times Misskelley confessed. Specificly, Misskelley's confession to Dan Stidham on June 11 of 1993 would be a good place to start. Notably:

STIDHAM: It’s possible. I think that says “three teens were in water. Damien hollered at three boys, client,” C,, which is short for client, “and Jason hid in weeds. Damien hit blonde-headed boy and then other two started hitting Damien.” And the other two would be reference to other victims. “C, ” being client, Mr. Misskelley, “and Jason came out and all started fighting.”

Paragraph 4 states that: “C,” again referring to Mr. Misskelley, “started hitting boy in Scout uniform. J,” which would be, uh, stand for Jason, “started hitting the other boy.”

Paragraph 5: “Damien hit the blonde-headed boy with stick, unconscious, bleeding a little bit.”

Paragraph 6: “Damien then went to Jason and other kid. Damien started hitting this boy and Jason went over to the blonde-headed boy and stuck his dick into the boy’s mouth.”

Paragraph 7: “Client,” it actually says ‘C,’ but it’s obviously reference to the client, “kept hitting boy Scout and knocked him out unconscious, still breathing. C,” being client, “was sure he was still breathing.”

Paragraph 8: “The C,” client, “went on to Damien and helped Damien hit the other boy.”

And then it goes to page two. Paragraph 9: “Damien went to Boy Scout, pulled his pants down and screwed him in the *advertiser censored*.”

Paragraph 10: “After Jason screwed blonde boy in the mouth, he screwed him in the butt. After he screwed him in the butt, he cut off blonde-headed boy’s penis.”

Paragraph 11: “After that, client realized it was time to stop. Client stopped hitting other kid. Client went over to Boy Scout, he was saying ‘help us, help us.’”

Paragraph 12: “Client told Damien ‘it’s time to stop.’ Damien said, ‘No, we’re going to,’ —— I can’t read my own writing.

HOLT: You’re taking it down pretty fast weren’t you?

STIDHAM: Yes, and of course, my handwriting is not the best. It says, ‘No, we’re going to hide this,’ or ‘We’re going to like this,’ I think, is actually what it says. “Client helped Boy Scout up, Damien knocked client and boy down. Client told Damien and Jason to stop hurting boys.”

Paragraph 13: “Client walked away ten to fifteen feet and then came back.”

Paragraph 14: “Damien screwed Boy Scout again. Jason stabbed one of the little boys in the face.”

Paragraph 15: “Client and Damien and Jason tied all boys up with their own shoestrings. Client choked Boy Scout until he quit moving.

Paragraph 16: “All but the blonde was still alive. Client didn’t choke blonde.”

Paragraph 17: “Damien and Jason threw them in water. Saw boys kicking around in water.”

Paragraph 18: “Client was afraid to go back and help, so he left.”

And then the final page doesn’t have any numbers with a paragraph. “No one ever mentioned killing anybody in cult. Damien would try to say voodoo stuff and try to,” it says, “try to dogs, cats and snakes from the dead.” I’m not sure exactly what that means. “Damien stuck his tongue in the skull of a bird.” And that’s the end of my notes.

If there's any evidence to to support the notion that Stidham misrepresented Misskelley in the aforementioned notes, please share. Also, I'm still hoping you might acknowledge the evidence that Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley were all fairly well acquainted with each other prior to the murders. Is that too much to ask?

 

[Puffin]

Another favorite of mine...

"Jessie has the mind of a five year old." Good 'ole Stidham

Poor thing, I bet he still hasn't learned to tie his shoes. Hope they buy him the ones with velcro straps instead of laces. It would be embarrassing to be a 40 year old man and have to ask someone to tie your shoes.

 

[Veidt]

Absent the use of professional lubricant and a very relaxed partner, tearing is almost certain. Even more likely with the victim is 8.

Snipped by me (I won't comment any more on the JM confession because here I can see both scenarios and I don't wish to engage in any more drama). Also, warning, this post is graphic.

This is true. Tearing and fissures are not likely in a scenario between two consenting young adults with lots of commercial lubricant and relaxation. It can happen but these factors really lower the risk, and when there is, it's rarely serious enough that people need surgical intervention or anything of the kind.

However, in a rape scenario, especially with a child? Yep, there would have certainly been traces. I can't see a way it wouldn't. There would be AT LEAST minor tearing/fissures and I assume that medical professionals would be able to detect that something of the kind had recently taken place. There could also be traces of other substances, such as pre-*advertiser censored* if a penis and not another object was used. Maybe even something had been used as lubricant, like saliva.

It strikes me as pretty impossible that forced anal penetration in such a scenario (no consent, child, no lubrication or at least no commercial one, etc etc) would leave no traces.

AS I SAY ON MY SIGNATURE (I forgot to say it on this post again, my bad) THIS IS MY OPINION ONLY. IF ANYONE NEEDS SOURCES ON ANAL SEX BETWEEN ADULTS, I CAN PM THEM AS I SAY IN THE BEGINNING OF THIS POST.

 

[kyleb]

ever, in a rape scenario, especially with a child? Yep, there would have certainly been traces. I can't see a way it wouldn't.

Well, the child being knocked unconscious, by with the hilt of a survival knife for example, would remove the issue of resistance to rape. And again there is the possibility of lubricant usage which can't rightly be ruled out, particularly given the fact that the bodies which were found submerged creek and had apparently been underwater since the night before. <modsnip>

 

[Veidt]

Well, the child being knocked unconscious, by with the hilt of a survival knife for example, would remove the issue of resistance to rape. And again there is the possibility of lubricant usage which can't rightly be ruled out, particularly given the fact that the bodies which were found submerged creek and had apparently been underwater since the night before. If you have any experience with child rape to justify your claim of certainty regardless of those possibilities, please share.

It would remove the possibility of resistance, that is true. But it would not remove the following differences between child rape and a consensual scenario between adults:

a) The anatomy of a child is different than that of an adult;
b) A rapist, as opposed to a consensual partner, would not be careful and attentive to pain, easing in, etc.;
c) I cannot think that a rapist would be extremely gentle.

If even in a scenario between adults it is recommended that they are careful, that they communicate pain with each other (pain = sign that stopping or slowing down is in order, it's your body's response to something it cannot handle), don't do anything rough on their first times, use lots of lubricant (especially commercial lubricant), and so on... it's because there is a reason to. That reason is that otherwise tearing and fissures may happen. Even if they are not the kind that causes any major pain or bleeding, I assume that such injuries could be noticed upon close inspection.

I don't know whether being submerged would wash away any and all traces of lubricant and any other fluids. Penetration would, I assume, push them inside so... (ew). But really, I doubt very much that most perps would go out with a bottle of commercial lube and use it. :facepalm: Either way I'm not sure about the fluids etc but I believe that at least tearing would be present.

Finally, I am saying this for the sake of the other posters. I would be glad if you didn't try to make personal attacks on me, especially when they are serious accusations. Also, thanks for triviliazing child abuse to the point where to you it's ok to use a way to mock posters that you have no reason to assume are into it.

AS I SAY ON MY SIGNATURE (I forgot to say it on this post again, my bad) THIS IS MY OPINION ONLY.

 

[HastingsChi]

Well, the child being knocked unconscious, by with the hilt of a survival knife for example, would remove the issue of resistance to rape. And again there is the possibility of lubricant usage which can't rightly be ruled out, particularly given the fact that the bodies which were found submerged creek and had apparently been underwater since the night before. If you have any experience with child rape to justify your claim of certainty regardless of those possibilities, please share.

I know this thread is basically they are guilty because Kyleb says so, but you might want to polish up on your knowledge of anal sexual intercourse and anal rape because your post has no medical basis and is patently inaccurate.

 

[kyleb]

Finally, I am saying this for the sake of the other posters. I would be glad if you didn't try to make personal attacks on me, especially when they are serious accusations. Also, thanks for triviliazing child abuse to the point where to you it's ok to use a way to mock posters that you have no reason to assume are into it.

I'm sorry, I should have phrased my question better. I didn't mean to imply you are a rapist of any sort, or have ever been raped for that matter. I was simply considering the possibly that you might work in a field where you help children who have been raped, and hence have at least some notable basis for your claims of certainty. At this point it seems pretty obvious that isn't the case though, particularly given the fact that your elaboration is littered with "I cannot think", "I assume", "I don't know", and "I doubt very much".

your knowledge of anal sexual intercourse and anal rape because your post has no medical basis and is patently inaccurate.

My knowledge on those topics is admittedly meager, and all second hand at best. Regardless, if you can demonstrate notable qualifications on such matters yourself, or cite any sources to substantiate your claim of inaccuracy in what I've posted on this topic, please share.

 

[Veidt]

I'm sorry, I should have phrased my question better. I didn't mean to imply you are a rapist of any sort, or have ever been raped for that matter. I was simply considering the possibly that you might work in a field where you help children who have been raped, and hence have at least some notable basis for your claims of certainty. At this point it seems pretty obvious that isn't the case though, particularly given the fact that your elaboration is littered with "I cannot think", "I assume", "I don't know", and "I doubt very much".

Really? That was not at all the tone of your comment. Besides, if I were someone who worked in the field as a doctor or LE worker of any type I would have stated such from the start and also get myself verified as an LE insider. Furthermore, yes, I used "I think", etc as a way of pointing out the fact that this was what I, as someone who is not a medical doctor but can think logically, believe is the most likely option. Even if I were a professional, here on WS you can only claim that you have expertise on something if you get yourself checked and verified as insider.

I think that in writing and re-writing my last post or maybe during one of my edits to add that disclaimer, I must have deleted a paragraph in which I mentioned that I had tried to confirm my assumptions about anal tears and fissures but that anyone who wanted links would have to PM me as they are NSFW, and even joked that it had been hard to find reliable information since most google hits were yahoo questions and anti-gay sites.

If you perhaps took some to think before you posted, you wouldn't be offending people. The implication that I knew child abuse as a rapist or as someone who had been raped was pretty clear in your comment IMO and if that's not what you intended you should have watched your tone, or tried so hard to discredit what I - and several other people - are saying and which is merely based on logic and simple anatomy.

Your similar (but less offensive) comment towards HastingsChi sounds just as sarcastic to me. I'm amazed that you saw how your tone was taken before but did the exact same thing again.

 

[kyleb]

When someone makes an authoritative claim of "certainly" or "patently inaccurate", I expect the individual to be able to back such a claim with notable qualifications, either of their own or of someone they can cite to substrate the claim. I'm disappointed that you're so quick to misinterpret my motivations here, particularly after you'd noted the importance of citing sources in this very thread just a few days ago.

 

[Veidt]

When someone makes an authoritative claim of "certainly" or "patently inaccurate", I expect the individual to be able to back such a claim with notable qualifications, either of their own or of someone they can cite to substrate the claim. I'm disappointed that you're so quick to misinterpret my motivations here, particularly after you'd noted the importance of citing sources in this very thread just a few days ago.

*Sighs*.

1) Can you tell me where I used the phrase "patently inaccurate"?

2)

I think that in writing and re-writing my last post or maybe during one of my edits to add that disclaimer, I must have deleted a paragraph in which I mentioned that I had tried to confirm my assumptions about anal tears and fissures but that anyone who wanted links would have to PM me as they are NSFW, and even joked that it had been hard to find reliable information since most google hits were yahoo questions and anti-gay sites.

and as you initially admitted, my tone was not that of giving an expert, first hand opinion

I'm sorry, I should have phrased my question better. I didn't mean to imply you are a rapist of any sort, or have ever been raped for that matter. I was simply considering the possibly that you might work in a field where you help children who have been raped, and hence have at least some notable basis for your claims of certainty. At this point it seems pretty obvious that isn't the case though, particularly given the fact that your elaboration is littered with "I cannot think", "I assume", "I don't know", and "I doubt very much".

(Bold mine)

4) On my last post I offered to PM the links I found on anal tears and fissures if anyone wanted them (see above). I extrapolated what information I have about anal sex between consenting adults to a non-consensual scenario involving a child. I'm using something called common sense.

If you want some SFW sources:

- This is a description of protocol for doctors in male rape cases, keep in mind that this is not specific to children (whose body is different) and that in cases involving children the protocol may be different for that reason. Additionally, this notes that some injuries can be the result of common activities but can be strong indicators of rape as well. In a child, it's very possible (IMO etc) that they would be even more of an indicator. http://phrtoolkits.org/toolkits/ist...rture-and-ill-treatment/perianal-examination/

- This is hosted on answers.com but seems to come from a book which according to Google books is recent. It also mentions anal tears. Keep in mind that on that paragraph they are discussing girls, and it seems to me that anal rape is more likely on boys than girls (though it can obviously happen to both): http://www.answers.com/topic/rape-and-sexual-assault

- This protocol for examining people mentions them too. Note that "anal tears" are included both in the children section and the male rape section: http://helid.digicollection.org/en/d/Js2664e/12.html .

You could probably find more if you devoted some time to it. Many results seem to be about adult women, or at least adolescents.

5) Regarding sources

I criticised the fact that on the timeline thingie on the site, they do not link directly to the sources elsewhere on their server. This would make it easier to read along and check the documents they're referring to for reference while doing it. I was not attacking the legitimacy of the site and I don't understand why you are so offended by the fact that I dared suggest that the site's structure is not easy to navigate. Which it isn't. It was an off-hand remark and the JM confession documents were an example of something that was not linked in a clear manner. Perhaps it was a bad example, but the way their site is organised IS confusing. I understand that, though, because when you're hosting hundreds of files it's hard to keep them mapped and all the places where they are reference linking to them, etc.

You are starting to be really exhausting. I don't have time for your petty sarcasm. You yourself cited no sources and are not verified as an insider, so your opinion is in no way more or less valid (going by your own standards). I guess it's the pot calling the kettle black.

Either way - I will not engage with you any more. If we ever communicate here again, the moment that this stops being directly related to my post I will immediately stop replying to you. I realize that this is a forum and that everyone is free to communicate with each other (for example, in this thread you replied to my post about rape which was a reply to someone else) but I am also free to choose to ignore a user who tries his/her best to derail discussions, comes across as rude, fake-apologizes when confronted but shows no signs of trying to improve the very tone that people took issue with, etc. I'm quoting so much from my old posts because I'm tired of repeating myself over and over. If you didn't understand it the second or third time, too bad. I also reported your previous post about rape to a moderator as I felt that it was snide and offensive.

 

[kyleb]

Can you tell me where I used the phrase "patently inaccurate"?

I can tell you were Chi used the phrase, and where you took issue with me after I asked Chi to substantiate that claim.

and as you initially admitted, my tone was not that of giving an expert, first hand opinion

No, that was [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9050519&postcount=252"]my response[/ame] your second post on the matter. Your first was the one which did have an authoritative tone, which is why [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9050264&postcount=249"]I responded[/ame] to it as I did.

I extrapolated what information I have about anal sex between consenting adults to a non-consensual scenario involving a child. I'm using something called common sense.

Common sense says that such extrapolation is no grounds for certainty.

If you want some SFW sources:

None of which tell me anything I didn't already know, let alone support the notion that child rape must result in tearing.

You yourself cited no sources and are not verified as an insider, so your opinion is in no way more or less valid (going by your own standards). I guess it's the pot calling the kettle black.

Your guess is wrong, as haven't made any authoritative claims on this matter.

 

[Veidt]

I can tell you were Chi used the phrase, and where you took issue with me after I asked Chi to substantiate that claim.

Your similar (but less offensive) comment towards HastingsChi sounds just as sarcastic to me. I'm amazed that you saw how your tone was taken before but did the exact same thing again.

No, that was my response your second post on the matter. Your first was the one which did have an authoritative tone, which is why I responded to it as I did.


Common sense says that such extrapolation is no grounds for certainty.

It strikes me as pretty impossible that forced anal penetration in such a scenario (no consent, child, no lubrication or at least no commercial one, etc etc) would leave no traces.

None of which tell me anything I didn't already know, let alone support the notion that child rape must result in tearing.

Please go read the sources.

Your guess is wrong, as haven't made any authoritative claims on this matter.

Neither have I. If you think my tone (look who's talking) is authoritative, I don't know what to make of your claims. Even when they are ones I agree with you speak with utmost certainty, never cite sources, and nowhere does your comment state that it's your opinion only.

Well, the child being knocked unconscious, by with the hilt of a survival knife for example, would remove the issue of resistance to rape. And again there is the possibility of lubricant usage which can't rightly be ruled out, particularly given the fact that the bodies which were found submerged creek and had apparently been underwater since the night before. <modsnip>

Yet rape does not require ejaculation, internal or otherwise, and the rape described by Misskelley suggests only external ejaculation. As for tearing, while that's certainly common in cases of rape, a lack of tearing does not preclude the possibility of rape.

<snip>

Nor do I have any interest in doing anything of the sort, which is why for example I've acknowledged the fact that there's no conclusive evidence of sodomy in this case, any why I've never claimed any of the boys were raped. That said, what is one to make of your claim that Echols and Baldwin "barely knew" Misskelley, along with your lack of acknowledgment of the evidence to the contrary which I presented to you. Can you explain that as anything other than cherry-picking?

Again, as I said: I believe that there would most likely be tearing, I can't see a way in which there would be no traces at all, even minor ones that could perhaps be found during an examination of the bodies. Even if for some reason there was no tearing and no traces of rape whatsoever, it seems like perhaps the most likely and simplest explanation is also the one that should be investigated first.

You can stop now with the personal attacks. Good night.

 

[kyleb]

I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your arguments, and there's no reason to take it personally. On the other hand, your claim that I "never cite sources" is demonstrably false attack on me, see [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9020324&postcount=219"]here[/ame] and [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9046634&postcount=246"]here[/ame] for notable examples to prove as much from this thread.

As for your belief that there would most likely be tearing, I share that belief with you, and have never attempted to suggest otherwise. What I've taken issue with is [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9046634#post9046634"]Nova's[/ame] completely unsubstantiated assertion that "experts proved the sodomy never happened", as such a claim is flatly absurd absent any evidence to back it up.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Another favorite of mine...

"Jessie has the mind of a five year old." Good 'ole Stidham

Poor thing, I bet he still hasn't learned to tie his shoes. Hope they buy him the ones with velcro straps instead of laces. It would be embarrassing to be a 40 year old man and have to ask someone to tie your shoes.

Yes, not intelligent enough to be interviewed without confessing to a crime he didn't commit, but intelligent enough to make that confession cleverly fit the facts of the case ... does make me :waitasec:

Which one is it?

 

[kyleb]

Yes, not intelligent enough to be interviewed without confessing to a crime he didn't commit

That reminds me of a funny story about how Misskelley's lawer and a psychologist claimed they got Misskelley to confesss to robbing a convince store.