By Accident Or On Purpose Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?

[s(he) be(lie)ve(d)]

http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/111312p18.shtml

The prevalence of sibling sexual abuse in American society is not well documented. Researchers estimate that the rate of sibling incest may be five times the rate of parent-child sexual abuse (Finkelhor, 1980). These rates are based on reported incidence, and incest is known to be underreported. Sibling sexual abuse has been dismissed as “child’s play” in many cases and/or as a normal aspect of sexual development. More recent research has documented the traumatic, long-lasting, and damaging effects of sibling incest (Carlson, Maciol, & Schneider, 2006; Weihe, 1997). When sexual acts are initiated by one sibling without the other’s consent, sibling incest is, most often, a serious and secret problem.

Numerous factors converge to assure that in many instances—perhaps most—sibling sexual abuse remains undisclosed and unaddressed. Victims often do not see themselves as victimized, and families as well as professionals fail to recognize the abuse. The secret remains hidden, camouflaged by play and tangled in the complex dynamics of abusive sibling relationships. Incestuous behaviors are too often invisible in stressed, chaotic families. Additionally, professionals who fail to recognize indicators and opportunities to foster victim disclosure may overlook the presence of sibling incest.

 

[Userid]

Yes, sexually.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

76.8% of people who sexually abuse children are adults

https://americanspcc.org/child-sexual-abuse/

 

[Userid]

http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/111312p18.shtml

The prevalence of sibling sexual abuse in American society is not well documented. Researchers estimate that the rate of sibling incest may be five times the rate of parent-child sexual abuse (Finkelhor, 1980). These rates are based on reported incidence, and incest is known to be underreported. Sibling sexual abuse has been dismissed as “child’s play” in many cases and/or as a normal aspect of sexual development. More recent research has documented the traumatic, long-lasting, and damaging effects of sibling incest (Carlson, Maciol, & Schneider, 2006; Weihe, 1997). When sexual acts are initiated by one sibling without the other’s consent, sibling incest is, most often, a serious and secret problem.

Numerous factors converge to assure that in many instances—perhaps most—sibling sexual abuse remains undisclosed and unaddressed. Victims often do not see themselves as victimized, and families as well as professionals fail to recognize the abuse. The secret remains hidden, camouflaged by play and tangled in the complex dynamics of abusive sibling relationships. Incestuous behaviors are too often invisible in stressed, chaotic families. Additionally, professionals who fail to recognize indicators and opportunities to foster victim disclosure may overlook the presence of sibling incest.

Those are adult siblings. Not nine year olds.

 

[Cottonstar]

76.8% of people who sexually abuse children are adults

https://americanspcc.org/child-sexual-abuse/

That isn’t the proper justification. This doesn’t address family abuse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cottonstar]

In a news conference in the spring of 1998, then-Chief Mark Beckner said Burke was not a suspect. In a May 1999 press conference, then-DA Alex Hunter reiterated that Burke was not a suspect.

Only James Kolar, who never worked the case, and who self-published his book, advanced the BDI theory, predicated on sibling rivalry and "SBP" - childhood Sexual Behavior Problems, based on a book he had read rather than any actual evidence that Burke displayed symptoms of that affliction.

The golf club incident that supposedly illustrated Burke's violent tendencies was related to Pam Griffin by Patsy Ramsey as an accident that occurred in Charlevoix.

The so-called scatological issues are also based on one incident according to Nedra Paugh, when Burke was six and his mother was in Boston being aggressively treated for Stage IV cancer.

The books BDIers point to as indicative of Burke's behavior problems are "The Hurried Child - Growing Up Too Fast", which more accurately describes JBR with her bleached hair, heavy make up, and provocative pageant costumes and poses. The second book, "Why Johnny Doesn't Know Right from Wrong" is about schools who give children the "wrong" books to read, and the necessity of parents reading the proper ones to their offspring and setting a good example, thus giving them a "moral education". How these somehow implicate Burke in the minds of BDI proponents is a mystery.

What we really have here is one DA's investigator (for seven months in 2001) who self-published a theory based on no evidence in a blatant attempt to make money on the murder of a child, and one network's ratings grabbing "docuseries" based on that book. No real facts, no real evidence, just money for all the participants, including CBS's script-following "experts".

"When Burke was 4 he was the apple of his parents' eyes. He could do no wrong. He got the full treatment of gifts, clothes and trips and you name it. But then when JonBenet came along, especially as she got older and her destiny was to be in the pageant system, that attention that Burke had switched from him to JonBenet.”

"I think Burke had a bad temper. It's like he had a chip on his shoulder. He had hit JonBenet. Before the murder, I would have to say, it was probably a year and a half. They were playing in the yard and apparently he hit her with the golf club, right here (points to area under eye). She (Patsy)says the kids were playing, Burke lost his temper and hit her with a golf club."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Userid]

That isn’t the proper justification. This doesn’t address family abuse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It encompasses abuse in general, so how do you know it doesn't address family abuse? Are you insinuating that the figure deliberately omits family abuse only, and what are you basing that on?

 

[s(he) be(lie)ve(d)]

Those are adult siblings. Not nine year olds.

Clearly you didn't read the article or the snip or you would have known your reply is inaccurate.

 

[Userid]

Clearly you didn't read the article or the snip or you would have known your reply is inaccurate.

Just re-read the snippet actually. Age isn't addressed. The only (I stress, only) sentence in your snippet that addresses age is the following sentence: "Sibling sexual abuse has been dismissed as “child’s play” in many cases and/or as a normal aspect of sexual development."

And this sentence doesn't clarify anything one way or the other; it's simply an observation as to how sibling abuse is dismissed. A teenager or adult sibling can use the same "child's play" excuse.

 

[Userid]

From your article (which is a weak source): "Many children fail to identify themselves as victims of sibling incest. Older brothers or sisters may take advantage of the sexual naïveté of younger siblings to initially trick them into incestuous behaviors. Sexual behaviors are frequently couched in the context of play, and young victims are likely to find these activities pleasurable."

This is clearly speaking about older siblings; if not adult siblings, teenagers. Since they don't specify, I'm sure they are considering 16/17 year olds, etc.

Just read the article: nowhere in this article is age (of the offender) ever addressed and no doubt the study includes (i.e. lumps together) teens and adult siblings (not just children offenders), as I inferred earlier.

 

[s(he) be(lie)ve(d)]

Just re-read the snippet actually. Age isn't addressed. The only (I stress, only) sentence in your snippet that addresses age is the following sentence: "Sibling sexual abuse has been dismissed as “child’s play” in many cases and/or as a normal aspect of sexual development."

And this sentence doesn't clarify anything one way or the other; it's simply an observation as to how sibling abuse is dismissed.

So all encompassing only applies to your posted info. This article is talking about all child sexual abuse victims, especially those that don't report. Minimizing those victims, does not prove your point. Nice try though.

 

[Userid]

So all encompassing only applies to your posted info. This article is talking about all child sexual abuse victims, especially those that don't report. Minimizing those victims, does not prove your point. Nice try though.

I'm not minimizing the point of the article; I'm minimizing your argument that sibling-on-sibling sexual abuse with 2 children under the age of 10 is more common than an adult committing sexual abuse on a child. That's ludicrous.

 

[s(he) be(lie)ve(d)]

From your article (which is a weak source): "Many children fail to identify themselves as victims of sibling incest. Older brothers or sisters may take advantage of the sexual naïveté of younger siblings to initially trick them into incestuous behaviors. Sexual behaviors are frequently couched in the context of play, and young victims are likely to find these activities pleasurable."

This is clearly speaking about older siblings; if not adult siblings, teenagers. Since they don't specify, I'm sure they are considering 16/17 year olds, etc.

Just read the article: nowhere in this article is age (of the offender) ever addressed and no doubt includes teens and adult siblings, as I inferred earlier.

I've given you other examples, per the norm you don't read them or you again minimize them and really it does you no credit. In fact it helps to explain the under reporting.

 

[Userid]

I've given you other examples, per the norm you don't read them or you again minimize them and really it does you no credit. In fact it helps to explain the under reporting.

I read your snippet. I literally just finished reading the article. Neither were compelling and was from a weak source.

It's asinine of you to claim I'm "minimizing the victims," so if you want to comment on someone's credibility, I'd look at your own after making such a baseless accusation first.

 

[s(he) be(lie)ve(d)]

Those are adult siblings. Not nine year olds.

BR was twenty seven days away from being ten. Boys start puberty between the ages of nine to fourteen. Medical fact, that nine and ten year old boys get erections and have wet dreams. That nine year old thing only applies in this case with the laws as they pertain to prosecution.

 

[Userid]

BR was twenty seven days away from being ten. Boys start puberty between the ages of nine to fourteen. Medical fact, that nine and ten year old boys get erections and have wet dreams. That nine year old thing only applies in this case with the laws as they pertain to prosecution.

Point being? That isn't indicative of sexual assault and you know it.

 

[s(he) be(lie)ve(d)]

Point being? That isn't indicative of sexual assault and you know it.

Absolutely right, it isn't indicative of sexual assault. Hey, we agree on something...LOL! It also adds credence to not impossible that he could have or did.

 

[singularity]

Point being?

The last time I posted in this section it was in the midst of an identical discussion. BDI threw up some imaginary statistics(passed off as simple fact), then when the real statistics were posted,claimed that the statistics don't matter. Now they're doing it again as if the previous discussion had never taken place.

The circles BDI run in get smaller by the day. Not a surprise though as there's no real evidence in support of the theory. Also not a surprise that you're now being accused of "minimizing victims". This type of thing is becoming the norm unfortunately. If you're not BDI, you are labeled an advocate of the Ramseys, a troll, or you "minimize victims".

 

[Swirlz]

The presence of fibers from John's shirt were found in JonBenet's underpants.

 

[Userid]

Absolutely right, it isn't indicative of sexual assault. Hey, we agree on something...LOL! It also adds credence to not impossible that he could have or did.

No, it really doesn't though. It simply gives credence to the fact that he was normal developing boy.

 

[Userid]

The last time I posted in this section it was in the midst of an identical discussion. BDI threw up some imaginary statistics(passed off as simple fact), then when the real statistics were posted,claimed that the statistics don't matter. Now they're doing it again as if the previous discussion had never taken place.

The circles BDI run in get smaller by the day. Not a surprise though as there's no real evidence in support of the theory. Also not a surprise that you're now being accused of "minimizing victims". This type of thing is becoming the norm unfortunately. If you're not BDI, you are labeled an advocate of the Ramseys, a troll, or you "minimize victims".

Thanks Singularity -- yeah, to say I'm "minimizing victims" is outrageous, but not unexpected unfortunately. It has become the norm, like you say. People have to resort to such tactics when their argument falls flat.