Prior Sexual Abuse ... Key To Case?

Burke has a girlfriend (or did, anyway) and posted in his profile that he likes women. I don't think he's gay. This Keith person must be, but just because he came on to Burke doesn't mean Burke's gay too.

 

Patsy seems to take a very light view of this stuff.

 

Uhhhh, I don't think that's what he meant, Moab. Grip, joystick, got it? Funny what a guy will name his penis.

 

Tril,
The importance of that section of the interview is that it shows that Burke was no stranger to sexual "show and tell" games. People who claim that Burke, as a 10 year old, would have had no interest in anything sex related, are wrong. And I don't think that makes Burke "strange" in any way. I think most young kids get "curious" and play some type of game like this at some time in their life.

 

a couple of years ago when my middle daughter was 5 and the next door neighbor boy was 7.....I walked in her room and caught him on top of her with his pants down. They were in a see through tent thingy. I had been cooking in the kitchen......I never let them out of my sight again. No more playing in the bedroom. He was always odd...reminded me of a small pee wee herman. But even at 7 years....he was doing this. I also seen him be mean to his little brother when his mom wasn't looking. They've since moved (whew) but I can remember thinking he may be a serial killer or some twisted person when he gets older......

 

BluesStrat, I agree on all counts.

Sexual experimentation among kids is common and often does no harm. Only in rare cases does it exceed harmless child's play.

I posted this quite a while ago, but I think it fits here too.

http://www.dodgeglobe.com/stories/092299/nat_boy.shtml (The story is several years old, so the link doesn't work anymore, but it's something to go on if anyone wants to do a search.)

9-year-old boy admits leading gang rape of 8-year-old sister

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) -- A 9-year-old boy has admitted to instigating and participating in the gang rape of his 8-year-old sister, police said Tuesday.

The boy persuaded his sister to enter an abandoned house and ''to some degree directed the activities of the others,'' the St. Paul Police Department said.

Seven boys -- ages 6 to 13 -- are suspected in the attack. Police questioned three Monday at an elementary school and the other four Tuesday.

The victim and her attackers were ''playmates,'' police said.

Police said four of the boys raped the girl, including her brother.

''It's a bad situation,'' police spokesman Michael Jordan said. ''It's a terrible impact certainly on this little girl and possibly some of the boys.''

No arrests have been made. A photo lineup was planned for Wednesday for the victim to identify her attackers.

The attack occurred on Sept. 7 or 8, but wasn't reported to police until last week by the victim's mother.

Originally, the girl had told police that one of her brothers heard her cries and tried to help, but at least two of the suspects stopped him. That brother then left to get an older brother, who was able to rescue her, she told police.

After questioning seven boys who were in the vacant house at the time of the attack, police determined that her brother had been involved and had told her not to tell her mother what happened.

And another case:

http://www.channel3000.com/news/2235457/detail.html

Fond Du Lac Boy, 9, Accused Of Assaulting Young Girls
Alleged Assaults Take Place In Homes, Cars, Fort

FOND DU LAC, Wis. -- A 9-year-old boy accused of sexually assaulting three girls of ages 5 to 9 may also have had sexual contact with four others, police say.

Police Capt. Bill Macowski said Thursday that after the initial investigation, officers received information that the boy may have had sexual contact with four more girls, of ages 4 to 7.


A Fond du Lac police report says the boy told investigators he was disgusted by his behavior, but couldn't seem to stop. He also blamed the girls for the sexual contact.

The boy has been referred to juvenile authorities on three counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child.

Police first received a report of the boy sexually assaulting a 9-year-old girl last March. But after receiving conflicting information, investigators closed the case.

Then on May 14, police received another complaint about sexual contact between the boy and a 5-year-old and 8-year-old girl.

The report says the sexual contact happened at the children's homes, in a fort they built, in cars in the parking lot of their apartment building and near garbage bins.

"These kids all play around each other and I think it just needs to be handled before other incidents happens and then it becomes a bigger issue," neighbor Erica Ojeda said.

 

It's a gigantic leap to go from 2 little boys having a pee outside to them being completely naked out of sight under a porch that doesn't exist. I'm not saying it was totally innocent, I wasn't there, but little boys do this all the time. Doesn't mean there was anything perverted going on.

I think it's interesting, however, that Patsy describes the other boy as being "little," and then gives his age as older than Burke! What does she mean, that he was physically small? In which case it's irrelevant. Weird responses as usual per Patsy.

Heymom

 

WY,
I was going to start listing funny penis names, but quickly realized I would be here all day and still not scratch the surface. So I'll just leave you with:

Mr. Johnson is coming for dinner.

:2mchinfo:

 

Nowhere in the interview does the housekeeper who witnessed the event say they were peeing. That came from Patsy, who wanted to play it down. Even then she mentioned that Evan was showing Burke his "works."

Patsy didn't think she'd heard if Burke had his pants down? What? Wouldn't that be something a mom would ask the witness, or her son himself? And if she did ask, wouldn't she remember the answer?

 

TeeHee

 

Is there a source to this interview with the housekeeper? I don't know what she saw or said she saw.

Patsy didn't know much about what her kids did, did she? I sure would have known. But she wasn't there at the time, and I doubt seriously if she ever talked to Burke about it. Just doesn't sound like her.

If it were my kid with a stranger, I would definitely tell him it's not appropriate to display one's private parts in any way. That's why they are called "private!"

 

heymom, I didn't word my post properly. I should have said that nowhere in the interview with Patsy did DeMuth say that the housekeeper indicated the boys were peeing. (I don't know of any available transcript of a LE interview with this housekeeper.)

It's unclear if Burke had his pants down too. If he did, DeMuth doesn't say it. We don't know what the housekeeper may have told LE about that.

Regardless, there's Patsy, playing dumb. I don't buy that she didn't know one way or the other.

 

I think that it's important to differentiate between child "sexual" contact, and simple curiousity. There is a BIG diffence.

Precisely becuz "private parts" are taboo, most kids have a natural curiousity about parts that they aren't allowed to see. It's NOT generally sexual in nature ... they just wanna see what the fuss is all about.

There ARE exceptions, of course. And I would think that the exceptions most often occur in kids who have been sexually abused. For instance, a young kid WITHOUT sexual knowledge has no reason to have an interest in putting a penis in a vagina (or elsewhere). It would never occur to them. Looking, touching, and feeling is just natural curiousity ... insertion is NOT.

Kids without sexual knowledge from an adult (or elsewhere) would have no idea that such a thing is even POSSIBLE ... much less have an interest in such a thing.

Just something to ponder.


...YumYum

 

YY, what you posted is probably considered true by many people, yet DeMuth found the "pants down" incident significant enough to question Patsy about. Why do you suppose that was?

When DeMuth asked Patsy, "Would Burke also have his pants down, or not?" I think he must have already known the answer (the housekeeper surely would have revealed this when she told LE about the incident), and the truth must have been yes, because otherwise the incident would hardly be irrelevant to the interview. I think DeMuth merely wanted to hear how Patsy would respond. When she replied, "I don't think I heard that," he must have sensed she was lying.

As for your "insertion" opinion, no one here, as far as I recall, has suggested that a juvenile inserted his penis into JonBenet. An object such as the paint stick, or a finger, was most likely used.

 

Kids compare bodies. Everything is new to them. That's why sisters and brothers have separate rooms. Little boys go to the bathroom in school together. Believe me, they look. Nothing nefarious there. Nothing gay or hetero...just kids being curious, as Yum Yum said.

Was Burke the one molesting JonBenet? Call it experimenting, playiing doctor...we just don't know. Statistically, he and JAR are in the group with the highest percentage of molestation of female children--brothers. But that's not evidence. It was JAR's suitcase found with the child's book and his semen stained duvet, which Smit believes some fibers on JonBenet came from, by the way. Did JAR molest JonBenet? His bedroom was right there with hers. According to JAR's COLLEGE AGE FRIENDS, he talked all the time about how much he loved her and how beautiful she was. Is that natural, with her being 6 and he 20? I just don't know.

If Burke was the one doing the "exploring" with JonBenet, does this mean he killed her? Was involved? Again, there are elements of the crime and evidence that could be interpreted that way...but it's not conclusive to me. So I don't know.

What about those '98 interviews? Haney asked Patsy if she'd been abused? He asked her if her sisters had been abused. If they were limiting their questions to suspicion of Burke, why would they ask that? Burke sure didn't abuse them.

I believe your neighbor's kid, Joejame, was being abused or needed better supervision. Like Yum said, kids don't know about adult sex unless they have been exposed to it. Did you call social services? In families with chronic abuse, they move around a lot to keep it from getting discovered. It's very sad.

 

Tril ... I was making a general comment about child sexuality versus simple curiousity. It was not related to the Burke issue specifically. It was intended suggest that those differences should be kept in mind while considering the BDI scenarios.

As KK suggests, when very young children act in overtly sexual ways, I believe that it is IMPERATIVE that we seek out the source of the unusual sexuality. I do NOT believe that it's a naturally occurring phenomenom in children. It is highly suggestive that such a child is actually a VICTIM of sexual abuse him/herself. The source of that abuse may be the parent, neighbor, clergy, or whoever ... even an older friend (who may also be a victim of such abuse).

Let's assume that Burke HAD been abusing JonBenet. My very first question would be, "Where did Burke get these ideas ... is he a VICTIM of sexual abuse himself. And if so, by whom?" I would also want to know whether Burke was a WITNESS (as opposed to being a direct victim) to sexual abuse ... or overt sexual behavior. Since sexual acts for kids of 9 years old (and younger ... remember, this was ONGOING abuse) is unusual, he had to have witnessed such behavior directly. Maybe he saw JAR or Melinda with their girl or boy friends. Maybe he watched Mom and Dad. Maybe he saw JonBenet being abused. Maybe HE was abused.

We don't have answers to ANY of those questions. Nor do we have ANY evidence that Burke had ever acted in a sexually overt way ... although some are making that flawed assumption.

The long and short of it is that IF Burke was sexually active with JonBenet or ANY other kid, then you MUST look at the possibility that he was being abused himself, or had witnessed abuse ... and statistically, you'd need to look at close family members as the most likely source of that abuse. As KoldKase pointed out, Patsy was asked whether there was a history of sexual abuse in her family. Those are EXACTLY the right questions to ask.


...YumYum

 

Shirley Brady

deleted

 

Radio interview 1999

deleted

 

Last Post-Spade

Yes, this it what it really comes down too. I will add "BY VERY EARLY" in the wee ..Wee....WEE...hours of the 26th, a plan of action between "MANY" was already discussed, gone over, carried out and displayed and in progress, before the 911 call was made. I think even that was rehearsed. Burke being there asking questions, was not in the plan. John Scolding BR was not in the plan. The home was "To be Cleaned up and then invaded with outsiders." To MESS it up again! Part of a well thought out plan indeed. Why do you think there was ONLY one dective left at that home for hours? It was one against the crowd Patsy was "Told" to call. This post by Spade really is the bottom Line. It was over before it "Offically" began. Everyone up their already knew the score. That's why we all see the things we do in the photo's the lies, the "I DON"T REMEMBER"S" that don't add up. Not everything went perfect and this was "A first Timer" of all the friends there, as in murder, for these people. Other posters on this Thread have discussed Prior injuries to JBR and how a 9 year old could think of these things? Well, I had a friend who once told me of a situation. Her 2 cousins, male and female were found by her playing dolls, but had their pants down and undies off. GROSS. They were 7 and 10. The R's had NO door on their Loft floor bedroom. A small child could have crawled up those loft stairs, once, twice, more and heard things, maybe even glanced up a few times to see. Maybe their were mag. or movies in that room that were viewed as well. The Juvie perp may have just used things other that his "Works" to experiment. It could be 2 of them were listening. How does a 6 year old let this happen and not tell. Well, if it was an adult, she would of told someone of the pain, it would have been really bad. Or a doctor would have said this injury is "Adult" in fashion. The Doctor of JBR said it was a juvie actions he saw the impreshions to be. My 8 year old God -child, Who I LOVE SO MUCH, so this is hard for me to share but I feel it is relivant. She was raped 5 years ago by a 60 year old man. He stopped because it "Couldn't" get far. Her doctor told us it was next to impossible for an adult to enter a 8 year old. Also, If he was really aggresive he could have ripped her open and then would have entered her Cervix. Once the cervex would have been invaded, posiblally causing uterin damage so severe, she would have never had children. Naming no names, I feel strong on this basic Idea and evedience by the doctor to back it.