Michael Jackson--Innocent or Guilty?
Posted: Friday, February 04, 2005
by Dorothy M Neddermeyer
Genesis Consultants, Inc.
The Michael Jackson's sexual abuse case was hashed and rehashed hundreds of times in private and in the media since his trial. What is tragically lacking are the facts regarding pedophiles and sexual abuse of children.
The media could provide a much needed education about this rampant insidious crime. Studies reveal 62% of girls and 31% of boys will be sexually abused by age 18 and this statistic is considered to be low.
As a specialist in providing sexual abuse prevention and recovery, and author of If I'd Only Known...Sexual Abuse in or out of the Family: A Guide to Prevention, allow me to educate you about sexual child abuse, sex offenders and pedophiles. The unbelievable reality is that a person who sexually abuses children may seem very average and ordinary to the world. He or she may be a leader in the church, in the community, prominent business owner, a celebrity, or politician. Pedophiles seldom fit a classic stereotype and they are not necessarily uneducated, unemployed, impoverished or an alcoholic. Pedophilia has no boundaries with regard to education, socioeconomic status, career or cultural background.
Furthermore, we find sexual abuse and incest even more difficult to believe or accept when the person we like, admire, love, and/or marry is the perpetrator of the abuse. Therefore, that is precisely why Michael Jackson's family, fans and the uninformed can unequivocally believe he could not possibly be a child sexual abuse perpetrator.
Sex offenders are cunning predators, who have perfected their mode of operation. First and foremost they are experts at manipulation, thus escaping adult reality. They have a sense of entitlement and justify their behavior as loving; not harming the child. They expend great energy maintaining this illusion to themselves as well as others. They create a persona of goodness beyond reproach. Michael Jackson's defense attorney used this statement as a rational that MJ couldn't possibly have commited sexual abuse against the children he befriended.
The media could provide a much needed education about this rampant insidious crime. Studies reveal 62% of girls and 31% of boys will be sexually abused by age 18 and this statistic is considered to be low.
Furthermore, we find sexual abuse and incest even more difficult to believe or accept when the person we like, admire, love, and/or marry is the perpetrator of the abuse. Therefore, that is precisely why Michael Jackson's family, fans and the uninformed can unequivocally believe he could not possibly be a child sexual abuse perpetrator.
Sex offenders are cunning predators, who have perfected their mode of operation. First and foremost they are experts at manipulation, thus escaping adult reality. They have a sense of entitlement and justify their behavior as loving; not harming the child. They expend great energy maintaining this illusion to themselves as well as others. They create a persona of goodness beyond reproach. Michael Jackson's defense attorney used this statement as a rational that MJ couldn't possibly have commited sexual abuse against the children he befriended.
Sex offenders go to great lengths to present themselves as exemplary people, who love children more than most people. Anyone, who sees through this facade, is met with admonishment and rebuke for being critical, irrational, racist, out to get the person, and/or jealous. In short, the sex offender is the family and society's emperor with no clothes. "I know my son, and this is ridiculous," Michael Jackson's mother, Katherine Jackson, said in an interview broadcast on CBS "The Early Show." She said, "People, who believe Michael is guilty "don't know him." Jackson 's father, Joe Jackson, said his son was beloved around the world, but had trouble in the United States because of racism. He said, "The accuser's motives were clear: It's about money."
Even more frightening about sexual abuse and incest perpetrators is that within their pathology they do not hold beliefs reflecting society's moral and ethical values. Therefore, coupled with the child's innocence and trust of the abuser usually pressure or violence is not required. Thus, the perpetrator can unequivocally state, "I love children. Never-ever. I could never harm a child or anyone. It's not in my heart. It's not who I am."
Jane F. Giligun and Teresa M. Connor conducted a study of 14 male sexual abuse perpetrators ranging in age from twenty-one to fifty-four. All these men believed that they had deep and loving relationships with their victims. As one man said, "We had a relationship. Right or Wrong, it was a relationship."
I am not suggesting that everyone who goes above and beyond the call of duty for children in their care-for example school teachers, coaches, clergy, et al are pedophiles. However, insidiously, perpetrators demonstrate the right, moral and exemplary behavior to develop credibility and establish proof of their love of children. These actions therefore thwart any suspicion of wrongdoing, thus allowing the pedophile access to lure the innocent trusting child and/or parent into letting their guard down and their common sense and suspicions to blur.
However, in the Michael Jackson case there is another insidious aspect to his contact with children. Using the definition of sexual abuse, Michael Jackson's habit of soliciting young boys for companionship under the guise of helping them with a life threatening illness and/or sleeping with young boys, albeit according to him, he slept on the floor and the child slept in his bed, that in and of itself is sexual abuse. Having said the aforementioned, the definition of sexual abuse is necessary.
Traditionally, incest was defined as "sexual intercourse between two persons too closely related to marry legally--sex between siblings, first cousins, the seduction by fathers of their daughters." This dysfunctional blood relationship, however, does not completely describe what children are experiencing. To fully understand all sexual abuse, we need to look beyond the blood bond and include the emotional bond between the victim and his or her perpetrator. Thus, a new definition has emerged. The new definition now relies less on the blood bond between the victim and the perpetrator and more on the experience of the child.
"Incest is both sexual abuse and an abuse of power. It is violence that does not require force. Another is using the victim, treating them in a way that they do not want or in a way that is not appropriate by a person with whom a different relationship is required. It is abuse because it does not take into consideration the needs or wishes of the child rather, it meets the needs of the other person at the child's expense. If the experience has sexual meaning for another person, in lieu of a nurturing purpose for the benefit of the child, it is abuse. If it is unwanted or inappropriate for her age or the relationship, it is abuse. Incest [sexual abuse] can occur through words, sounds, or even exposure of the child to sights or acts that are sexual but do not involve her. If she is forced to see what she does not want to see, for instance, by an exhibitionist, it is abuse. If a child is forced into an experience that is sexual in content or overtone that is abuse. As long as the child is induced into sexual activity with someone who is in a position of greater power, whether that power is derived through the perpetrator's age, size, status, or relationship, the act is abusive. A child who cannot refuse, or who believes she or he cannot refuse, is a child who has been violated." (E. Sue Blume, Secret Survivors).
I am available for interviews, keynotes, or discussion panels.
Dorothy M. Neddermeyer, PhD
Specialist in Sexual Abuse Prevention and Recovery
480-794-1561 www.gen-assist.com
DorothyNed@gmail.com
Even more frightening about sexual abuse and incest perpetrators is that within their pathology they do not hold beliefs reflecting society's moral and ethical values. Therefore, coupled with the child's innocence and trust of the abuser usually pressure or violence is not required. Thus, the perpetrator can unequivocally state, "I love children. Never-ever. I could never harm a child or anyone. It's not in my heart. It's not who I am."
Jane F. Giligun and Teresa M. Connor conducted a study of 14 male sexual abuse perpetrators ranging in age from twenty-one to fifty-four. All these men believed that they had deep and loving relationships with their victims. As one man said, "We had a relationship. Right or Wrong, it was a relationship."
I am not suggesting that everyone who goes above and beyond the call of duty for children in their care-for example school teachers, coaches, clergy, et al are pedophiles. However, insidiously, perpetrators demonstrate the right, moral and exemplary behavior to develop credibility and establish proof of their love of children. These actions therefore thwart any suspicion of wrongdoing, thus allowing the pedophile access to lure the innocent trusting child and/or parent into letting their guard down and their common sense and suspicions to blur.
However, in the Michael Jackson case there is another insidious aspect to his contact with children. Using the definition of sexual abuse, Michael Jackson's habit of soliciting young boys for companionship under the guise of helping them with a life threatening illness and/or sleeping with young boys, albeit according to him, he slept on the floor and the child slept in his bed, that in and of itself is sexual abuse. Having said the aforementioned, the definition of sexual abuse is necessary.
Traditionally, incest was defined as "sexual intercourse between two persons too closely related to marry legally--sex between siblings, first cousins, the seduction by fathers of their daughters." This dysfunctional blood relationship, however, does not completely describe what children are experiencing. To fully understand all sexual abuse, we need to look beyond the blood bond and include the emotional bond between the victim and his or her perpetrator. Thus, a new definition has emerged. The new definition now relies less on the blood bond between the victim and the perpetrator and more on the experience of the child.
"Incest is both sexual abuse and an abuse of power. It is violence that does not require force. Another is using the victim, treating them in a way that they do not want or in a way that is not appropriate by a person with whom a different relationship is required. It is abuse because it does not take into consideration the needs or wishes of the child rather, it meets the needs of the other person at the child's expense. If the experience has sexual meaning for another person, in lieu of a nurturing purpose for the benefit of the child, it is abuse. If it is unwanted or inappropriate for her age or the relationship, it is abuse. Incest [sexual abuse] can occur through words, sounds, or even exposure of the child to sights or acts that are sexual but do not involve her. If she is forced to see what she does not want to see, for instance, by an exhibitionist, it is abuse. If a child is forced into an experience that is sexual in content or overtone that is abuse. As long as the child is induced into sexual activity with someone who is in a position of greater power, whether that power is derived through the perpetrator's age, size, status, or relationship, the act is abusive. A child who cannot refuse, or who believes she or he cannot refuse, is a child who has been violated." (E. Sue Blume, Secret Survivors).
I am available for interviews, keynotes, or discussion panels.
Dorothy M. Neddermeyer, PhD
Specialist in Sexual Abuse Prevention and Recovery
480-794-1561 www.gen-assist.com
DorothyNed@gmail.com
This Article has been viewed 3,583 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentsYour "well founded information" in my opinion does not account to MJ's life and situation. Every jury member found the child to be "rehearsed" The family were sued for welfare fraud immediately after the trial. The mother and son have lied under oath. They have been involved with other celebrities, who thought they were sus. Aphrodite Jones had first hand view of the evidence held at the trial...before writing her book on the mj conspiracy, (like that boy's interview with the police). Why are the family's dodgy background simply ignored? You may be an expert on sex offenders...but thats only half the story of the MJ trial. The other half that you have chosen to not account for, is MJ's side.
Yes, I have taken the family's dodgy background into account. In fact, the family background is one of the reasons MJ targeted this child, because, their background is murky and icky, therefore this is a perfect, 'reasonable doubt,' scenario for MJ if he were to be accused of sexual child abuse. It worked well didn't it? Every sex offender is cunning in their choice of victims in many ways. MJ has a well honed 'reasonable doubt' strategy in place before he targets a child. If your child was sexually abused by MJ, I know you would be singing a different tune. I wish you well in your beliefs may they serve you in the best way possible.
""In fact, the family background is one of the reasons MJ targeted this child, because, their background is murky and icky""D.MChris tucker (celeb comedian) was the one who introduced Gavin to MJ. It was Gavin's DYING (with cancer) WISH to meet Michael Jackson. MJ did not sought for that child.""How many 40+ men do you know who befriend children as their companions, friends and playmates."" D.MHow many musical geniuses do you know? How many musical artists do you know that has been successful since the age of 11? How many artists do u know that has sold over 750 milion cds?Janet his sister says in an interview that MJ used to scare her coz he used to speak to mannequins as a child... (thts how desperate he was to have friends, and someone to talk to as a child)Do you not believe that having a lost childhood is the reason to havn children around him constantly? He is oblivious of the fact that it is wrong to have children around him all the time because rumors tht can arise. If he WAS in fact molesting children, he wudnt be soo open to admit to sleepn in the same room as them. If he knew what pple thought of it, he wudnt say it, because he wud then kno tht it will hav a damaging affect on his career n all. But he is socially inept (because of the deprived childhood)"".. therefore this is a perfect, 'reasonable doubt,' scenario for MJ if he were to be accused of sexual child abuse. ""So are u saying MJ only chooses his victims, by gaining knowledge about their past? What about the 1993 case? Why did MJ choose him in tht situation?the biggest question is WHY WOULD MJ MOLEST A CHILD 5 TIMES, AT A TIME WHERE THERE IS GREAT SUSPICION OF HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH CHILDREN AROUND THE WORLD ??
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my stand on the issue of Michael Jackson's sexual abuse case. You ask a profound question--one that I have asked every sex offender each and every time I have worked with them in the recovery process.The reason a sex offender reoffends is because they can not stop themselves. Their behavior is driven by a compulsion they are unable to control. In the face of possible detection and jail, they can not control their compulsion. A compulsion is beyond the normal boundary setting behavior that a person who does not have a compulsion emgage within. It is the same as a moth to the flame. Moths do not learn from one another that if they fly too close to a light, they will be burned to death. Other more intelligent animals learn from their own or other animals experiences. Case in point, pigs, horses, sheep and cattle learn that they do not like an electric shock. Many farmers use electrified fences to keep animals away from certain areas. The electric fense is powered with a battery. The battery is equipped with a clicking sound, when it is on. After a few instances of being shocked by the electrified fense, the animal learns that the clicking sound and being shocked are connected. They learn to stay away from the fense when the clicking sound is apparent and when it is not apparent they know they can go to the area that was previously off limits. NOT so for creatures with lower intelligence, thus, the moth to the flame is a sure bet and thus, the heat lamps work to get rid of bugs.A compulsion blocks out the intelligence of the person. How does one acquire compulsive behavior? It is a coping mechanism as a result of early childhood emotional, physical or sexual trauma. All sex offenders have a history of emotional, physical or sexual trauma. This is NOT to say that all people who have been emotionally, physically or sexually traumatized are sex offenders. Every person has a plethora of choices in how to cope with trauma--some are compelled to act out rage in domestic violence, crimes, road rage, etc. Furthermore, this explanation is simply an explanation and does not condone the behavior.The key to preventing sexual abuse is to teach children how to protect themselves and to heal the offenders. Surveys reveal that sex offenders abuse as many as 100 children in their lifetime. 85+% of Sex offenders who were incarcerated reoffend. This is because incarceration does not heal the core wound that caused the compulsive behavior.Nor does registering sex offenders prevent sexual abuse. The most important defense against sexual child abuse is awareness. Society needs to step out of the deep denial. Case in point, the Michael Jackson case. Because MJ is a celebrity and because he does good work for children, he is considered exempt from the MO for sex offenders. And sex offenders rely on society's deep denial to continue their crimes. Case in point Michael Jackson.the biggest question is WHY WOULD MJ MOLEST A CHILD 5 TIMES, AT A TIME WHERE THERE IS GREAT SUSPICION OF HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH CHILDREN AROUND THE WORLD ??
As a victim of incest, and by someone that EVERYONE adored and respected, I can say that NO ONE really knows Michael Jackson or ANYONE for that matter. People are not always what they seem. Nor does a heinous act define someone completely. Things are more complex than that.Having said that, extortion can be a serious issue for the rich and famous. Just recently a couple of people tried to extort money from John Travolta right after his son died! So, I wouldn't put it past someone to accuse MJ of molestation, if it meant getting lots of money. And, lets face it, MJ was an easy target.What is my point? No one except the people involved know what happened! What I find so disturbing about these MJ accusations, is HOW SURE EVERYONE IS that he's guilty. There was no evidence. People are basing his guilt on the settlement and that he admitted to sharing his bed with kids. These are indeed bad choices on his part, (because of the suspicions they create,) but ARE NOT evidence that he is guilty of child molestation. I followed the trial and there was lots of room for doubt. The jury got it right. I know first hand the trauma done by child molestation, and wouldn't want any child to go through what I went through. But, that doesn't mean convicting someone who could be innocent! The media ran with this story, and the masses responded in kind. So everyone needs to stop acting like they witnessed his guilt first hand. Outrageous really.Your beliefs stated in the last paragraph is precisely why sex offenders like MJ develop plausible ruse to confuse the majority of people. MJ had a well honed ruse, that worked for at least 30 years, if not longer. It is a sad commentary on the American legal system and society.Ask yourself this question. If you were a parent would you allow your child to sleep in a 30 - 45+ man's bed, play games and watch TV unsupervised? How many 30 - 45+ year old men do you know who behave in such a manner and NOT have legal repercussions, if it is reported?MJ was NOT found guilty because the jury could not think of convicting 'little cute,' Michael Jackson, albeit he was an adult, who committed sexual abuse.
True to pedophile behavior MJ telegraphs that he is guilty of sexually molesting children and got away with it in his dance skit, 'Smooth Criminal.' Notice when he is dancing in shadow his left hand, which resembles an erect penis, comes up for a second. This wasn't a fluke--MJ meticulously choreographs his every move. Of course, he pays the price in the end.
MJ was innocent. End of story, there is so much evidence that he didn't do anything wrong. People trying to bring him down really makes me doubt humanity.
With all due respect, you are a few clowns short of a circus. The reason the courts and the public find MJ not guilty is because there was no evidence of his guilt- none in the raids, none in the testimonies, none anywhere. I firmly believe that anyone can be guilty of such a crime- hence my attention is not on an eccentric philanthropist but on my Sunday School teachers, neighbours, and husbands.If sharing a room or bed with children is in and of itself sexual abuse, then poor people, grandparents, babysitters, chaperones are all guilty- and various family arrangements worldwide are all child molesters.How Victorian. Stop your scaremongering.I go out on a limb to say that even IF Jackson were guilty, which after CAREFUL research of court transcripts, books, psychology, and tapes of witnesses, the kind of humiliation circus he went through was inhumane. What are you doing about the missing girls in your neighbourhood? Why have serial killers, proven ones, received more dignity during trial? Why do you still listen to Elvis who liked teenage girls? What about the Talmud with special rules for infant sex, Hindu infant marriages, Mohamed's six year old wife, and 12 year of virgin Mary and her baby?Knowing that the first family sued MJ for 20 million, then when he failed to give it to him said they would ruin his life forever, then came up with the story that could ruin his life, doesn't that give you a warning that this was extortion? MJ countersued for extortion. His insurance advised him to pay out. He WANTED to go to court. It couldn't go to court because the child would not testify against MJ. Later, as an adult, Jordie would not testify as a witness to the second round. The new family has a known history of charging people with sex abuse and fraud!You are the one with a sick mind.
True to pedophile behavior MJ telegraphs that he is guilty of sexually molesting children and got away with it in his dance skit, 'Smooth Criminal.' Notice when he is dancing in shadow his left hand, which resembles an erect penis, comes up for a second. This wasn't a fluke--MJ meticulously choreographs his every move. Of course, he pays the price in the end.This would have to be the biggest pile of tripe I have ever had the misfortune to read. Michael Jackson was innocent...End of story.You are entitled to your opinion, although it is naive.
All I want is the truth! I don't want anonymous people who claim they are "professionals" to tell me MJ was innocent or guilty. What I really want and desire is to have a REAL, legit description of how it all unfolded, when it took place, and how? That is if there is really anything that proves his innocence or guilt. All I get are other people's opinions and theories of what happened and I'm so SICK of it. If he did it, where is the proof? Why is it being hidden? Why hasn't anyone come forward about what really took place? I just want the truth. I want to know if it really happened. Everything is so confusing and I can't bare it. It's so hurtful to see MJ being accused of such a nasty crime when there is no proof. No one will provide it, but yet, everyone is quick to show and tell their ridiculous opinions of what took place when no one even really knows what happened. The bottom line is: The man is dead and I can't understand why even in death, people won't just let him rest. Excuse me if it appears that I'm speaking in tongues and you can barely understand where I'm coming from, but I just need to know if it really took place and if it did, then where is the PROOF!? Do they really have pornography that was taken from his ranch? Did they really find a little boy's underwear (size small) in his daughter's (Paris's) room? Did he really give the kids mixtures of alcoholic beverages disguised in diet Coke cans? Did he really touch the boys' in their private parts and fundle them while they were sleeping? Did he really expose them to pornography on the web? Where is the proof?! Where is it?! I can't sit here and go, "yeah, he has GOT to be guilty," when everytime I go to various websites in relation to him and these accusations I always, ALWAYS get different stories. So please tell me who to believe! Why should I believe you?! I don't know you any more than I knew Michael Jackson! Why should I go to the next site and believe any of the hogwash they put out! No one is backing up their stories with substantial evidence, so who are you to judge anyone that thinks MJ is innocent?! Why should you be allowed to try and derive people's opinions of the matter when you're no different than the next man that thinks he's guilty! You have no solid proof and neither do they! This is all some big conspiracy and the only souls that know what really happened are: the alleged victims, Michael Jackson, and GOD! Know one knows so I wish everyone would shut their traps until they come up with something better than some lame Profile Of A Pedophile description! I mean, WTF! That doesn't necessarily mean that he did it! You still can't provide me with the evidence we need to say that MJ was a pedophile, so why even bother telling people your lame profession and how you came to your pitiful conclusions. The guy next door could be a pedo and you may not even know it. He maybe watching your kids while you sleep and you just think, "oh he's a nice guy." PLEASE! You don't know what the truth is and I don't think no one will ever know.
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.