Michael Jackson--Innocent or Guilty...

The Michael Jackson case will be hashed and rehashed hundreds of times in private and in the media for the duration of his trial.  What is tragically lacking are the facts regarding pedophiles and sexual abuse of children.  

Your station 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 your listeners about sexual child abuse 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 or in business. 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 sexual abuse perpetrator. 

Pedophiles 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. They go to great lengths to present themselves as exemplary people, who love children more than most people. Anyone who sees through this façade is met with admonishment and rebuke for being critical, irrational, racist, out to get the person, and/or jealous. The perpetrator is the family 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 an interview at your convenience.

Dorothy M. Neddermeyer, PhD

Specialist in Sexual Abuse Prevention and Recovery

480-704-0603  www.gen-assist.com

dorothyneddermeyer@gen-assist.com 

►Reprint Rights◄

Log in to become a member of Dorothy M Neddermeyer's Fan Club!

Comments on this article:

» left by john bitler from u.k. (3 years 239 days ago.)
interesting to read. Was always puzzeled by how the perpetrator justified his or her actions to themselves, how they
Respond to this comment

» left by Lisa Garrow from uk Scotland (3 years 213 days ago.)
I am doing an essay for english on the michael Jackson case and i would just like to say thankyou for producing this article it has helped a lot although i am still not sure if he is iinocent or guilty xxxxx
Respond to this comment

» left by michael wand from UK (3 years 188 days ago.)
I think that Michael Jackson is more mentally ill than a paedophile, nevertheless, he ought to be sent to prison so as to put the message out to others of the same ilk, that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated.
Respond to this comment

» left by JP Belisle from Canada (3 years 169 days ago.)
You said: "The unbelievable reality is that a person who sexually abuses children may seem very average and ordinary to the world". That is Michael Jackson??? He's weird but I presumed him innocent and the contrary was never proven, not even close.
Respond to this comment

» left by MayC from Melbourne, Australia (1 year 202 days ago.)

this was a very interesting article and the new information i learned came quite a shock to me as it corroborates with mj's persona
however, i cannot easily pass the fact, of the motives of the accusers of m.jackson
it was evident that their motives were money driven, as especially, their reputations and credibility were effectively attacked over the course of the trial
i guess the only people who will know at the end are the two people in the room :( !?
Respond to this comment

» left by Dorothy M. Nedderermeyer from Phoenix, AZ (1 year 201 days ago.)

MayC. Thank you for you comments regarding this article. Your closing statement is the exact reason sex offenders are free to sexually abuse children without much worry of being apprehended. If we open our eyes to their deceptive ways, we can KNOW they are guilty. My book outlines exactly how we are fooled by their cunning MO. MJ has a very cunning MO and the world has bought into it.
Respond to this comment

» left by Ardnahc1 from Jaffna (313 days 13 hours ago.)

I have done sooo much research into the Michael Jackson case, and i believe you bring up an excellent case...however we CANNOT treat MJ like an ordinary person. He has been brought up in a completely unique lifestyle and childhood that CANNOT put him in the same category as other pedos. Im sorry, but your view is completely bias; it is only attacking mj. You have NOT taken into account the situation of the accusers. Everyone, always focuses on Michael Jacksons history with children; never the accusers family and their history of EXTORTION, because no one is interested in them. Everyone only knows about MJ.
Respond to this comment

» left by Dorothy Neddermeyer, PhD from Arizona (313 days 8 hours ago.)

The mere fact that MJ had adolescent boys in his bed while watching TV and or sleeping is inappropriate and therefore damaging. He is a 40+ year old man. Would you allow your adolescent boy to be in bed with an adult male watching TV or sleeping? I HAVE taken the accusers into account. And it still comes out that MJ is a sex offender. Your rationalization of MJ's MO is precisely why perps are able to abuse children for many years. He gives children who need medical attention money, then he befriends the child and family. The child and family are in awe of MJ's befriending them, after all he could befriend anyone, but he chose them. After befriending them the inapproiate relationship begins, but MJ knows he has already established a source for reasonable doubt. He has given the family money and if he is accused of inappropriate behavior (sexual abuse) with a child, he has reasonable doubt to wave in the air. They ONLY want to EXTORT money. You might have researched the MJ cases, but you haven't worked with sexual abuse survivors or perpetrators for 33 years. I have. The ruses, cons and distortions, perps use to create reasonable doubt and/or to discredit the victim is endless.
Respond to this comment

» left by Ardnahc from Jaffna (310 days 15 hours ago.)

Yes, true i havn't got much knowledge about this. Thats why im taking your account so seriously..you are very educated...especially in this area.
However, there is a documented report, where a boy, (back in 1995), was manipulated into saying mj had molested him, however we find at the end he was lying, and the man behind it all was a disgruntled ex-employee of mj.
"the michael jackson scam" can be found and watched on youtube.
True, just because of this case, it doesn't mean mj is not guilty in the recent trial. However, i just cannot ignore the fact that this family has had a history of lying under oath, and has received welfare payments from the government of which they were never entitled to. I cannot ignore the fact and how suspicious the following is. After the "living with michael jackson" where the boy was present next to mj....many rumours sparked up about MJ and molestation, around the WORLD. It is fishy that it was only after all this, that the boy claimed the molestation occurred. Straight after all the rumours??....wouldn't MJ steer clear from that for a while at least???
I think the fact that the boy turned against MJ was due to humiliation at school because of the appearance on the documentary and the related rumours. The jury members even said that the boy sounded rehearsed; also the mother and the brothers statements were inconsistent. They even said the number of times the boy was molested varied from the police reports to when they went to trial.
I also cant ignore the fact that the same lawyer that was ready to dismiss MJ in '93 was present in this case as well. The same person who followed families home, (ie Sydney AUS), to try and develop a case to convict MJ. I think thats a little overboard; and that it may be true that this guy had a personal vendetta against MJ for some reason. Thats why he built this case on what many pple call with unsubstantiated evidence. He was the same person who back in '93, was claimed by the accuser, that he was going to spread this story, as rapidly as possible, to damage MJ's rep as most as possible. I also think its a little co-icidental that the police raid of mj's house, was on the day of his number ones release.
The prosecution team even got previously involved boys, where there was mac culkin, wade robson, and another who said nothing innapropriate ever happened with them. Then there was one who didnt turn up, (from the '93 case), and one that said he was innapropriately tickled.
Jay Leno, George Lopez and Vernee Watson-Johnson, all elite and successful in their profession, (which indicated mj couldn't have influenced them with money), all testified and said that they have been involved with the family and had their own suspicions about their credibility.
I cannot understand how all this evidence and more can be so simply dismissed, against only one fact and that is that he sometimes shares a bed with children, and has an unusual connection with them. However, in my belief, i think that his connection with children can be explained, and that it, in my mind, is not sexual.
Would you convict someone, despite all the evidence that supports him ??
If you were a parent, would you accept 'hush' money as compensation for your child's human rights ('93 case)?? Wouldn't you fight for your childs rights??
I can recommend to you Aphrodite Jones, who herself believed mj was a pedo, but she was able to observe and get a hold of the evidence shown in the trial, and she was shocked and had completely changed her views about him.
She wrote a book "the mihcael jackson conspiracy" where she breaksdown and writes about the facts and the evidence. She was unable to get a publisher as no one did pro-jackson books, so she had to self publish; its prob why it is not too well known.



Respond to this comment

» left by Dorothy M. Neddermeyer from Phoenix (310 days 6 hours ago.)

For every argument you make that proves MJ is innocent, I can poke holes in it and furthermore, can tie it in with what is MJ's well constructed ruse to engage with children for his sexual gratification--legally that is called sexual child abuse. You need to read the official definition of sexual abuse.

"Incest and sexual abuse is both sexual 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 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 his/her age or the relationship, it is abuse. Inces [sexual abuse] can occur through words, sounds, or even exposure of the child to sights or act that are sexual but do not involve him/her. If the child is forced to see what she/he does not want to see/hear, for instance, by exhibition, it is abuse. If a child is coerced or conjoled into an experience that is sexual in content or overtone that is abuse...."

I read the book written by the '93 victim's uncle, who has first-hand info and believes the boy was sexually abused. There are many ways to intimidate plantiffs into settling for money or for settling because emotionally they are depleted or unable to continue the grind. The time, emotional expenditure and money to go through a trial of this magnitude is enormous. The fact Aphrodite Jones could not get a publisher is not evidence that MJ is innocent. I couldn't find a publisher for my book, If I'd Only Known...Sexual Abuse In or Out of the Family: A Guide To Prevention.

The issues that you use as evidence that MJ is innocent are all constructed by MJ before he started befriending children for his own needs. How many 40+ men do you know who befriend children as their companions, friends and playmates. Yes, we can say that MJ has a different lifestyle, etc. etc. etc. BUT that doesn't give him the right to exploit or sexually abuse children. There are hundreds of celebrities who spend thousands of dollars each year for children in need. They do not befriend them and have them as playmates. I bet a million dollars if your neighbor did what MJ did, he would be in jail. I rest my case. MJ is guilty of sexually abusing boys.
Respond to this comment

» left by Adnach1 from Jaffna (284 days 9 hours ago.)

Okay, all i am asking is would you believe this particular family, in this particular case. This family, has previously lied under oath (look up jc penney case). The mother has also unlawfully received welfare money from the government and was sued. A magazine publisher even said that after publishing a story about gavin, the mother kept coming back saying she didnt make enough money from it, and that their family was struggling. This magazine publisher felt sorry for this family, and wanted to help them, however, it was soon before she found out about their cunning ways; that they were well off with government payments. A key phrase that was used by every juror was "inconsistency." They changed even the number of times they claimed mj molested the kid. The stories of the mother and the rest of the family didnt match at times either.

Your saying that mj constructed this whole thing; why can you dismiss the idea that the family had meticulously crafted this whole thing too (they've done it before!)

You read the victim's uncle's book; what makes you think that would be an accurate account and that it wasn't at all money motivated and bias??
Wouldn't you think an elite journalist like Aphrodite Jones would be more trustworthy for an opinion?

You say your books weren't published, but were they being prejudicial like in aphrodite jones case??

Did you know that a chef at mj's neverland ranch, was found guilty of lying when he claimed he saw mj's hand down macauley culkins pants??
He said that he was given $20,000 by a tabloid magazine, if he would say that.

The 1993 case, there is a TAPED RECORDING of the accusers father talking over the phone and saying that he is going to "win big time" (the news report can be found on youtube), and much more.

I agree with you completely, grown ups should not spend their time with children. Sri Lanka is loaded with pedophiles. These people are rich and they prey on poor families with small boys and take them in then help them. At the beginning i thought that there was no doubt that mj was guilty. I know about this situation myself too! i live in Sri Lanka! BUT...thats before hearing mj's side. How do we know that it isn't true that this family had not conned up this plan just to bring mj down ??
They have done it before. They have no reputation to maintain. They already have a lawyer willing to represent them. And they wouldnt be the first people to accuse him.

Your asking me the million dollar question...i'll bet you a million dollars that if you were a juror at that trial, you wouldn't have convicted him either.
I rest my case. MJ is innocent until proven guilty.
Respond to this comment

» left by Dorothy M. Neddermeyer (284 days 8 hours ago.)

You just lost a million dollars. If I were on that jury or if I had been a consultant/witness for the prosecution MJ would have been convicted. One woman on the jury was interviwed a few weeks after the trial. She stated she knew he was guilty, but didn't want to see MJ in jail. How sad is that? She didn't want to see MJ in jail, because she had memories of him as a little boy follicking on the stage singing. Has MJ sexually abused anyone since? I would bet my million dollars on that. After the trial he went to Sri Lanka where there are hundreds of child sex rings pimping children. Yes, our laws state that a person is innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn't mean the person is innocent. While a realize some people are wrongly convicted, some people also get away with their crime. MJ has gotten away twice. I know other sex offenders who have gotten away too, but they are not famous or wealthy. They simply constructed an iron clad ruse to deflect any way reports of his perpetration. I rest my case. MJ is guilty as charged.
Respond to this comment

» left by Adnach1 from Jaffna (284 days 8 hours ago.)

i must apologise for my previous post that i did exceptionally quickly....i read it over and it was very incoherent!
But i'm sure you can understand most of it...hopefully
Respond to this comment

» left by Adnach1 from Jaffna (284 days 8 hours ago.)

ummm.....excuse me?!
Are you making these things up now??
i would like to see a reference where the juror said that....i know your lying with that
and also mj has actually never been to sri lanka before???!!
Its a small wartorn country...it wud have actually made massive news here
I can see that you are a bit up yourself to think that you were the key thing missing for the prosecution team!
Respond to this comment

» left by Adnach1 from Jaffna (284 days 8 hours ago.)

So the taped recording means nothing..
Aphrodite Jones' book means nothing..
The family's history of trying to get money (JC Penney etc) means nothing..
The family's history with other celebs mean nothing..
The juror's comments on the family: 'inconsistent, rehearsed, suspicious, ridiculous, unsubstantial...means nothing
The fact that you have contradicted yourself by saying that pedos (inc mj) appear normal in everyday life means nothing...
The fact that MJ has never hidden his connection and love for children means nothing...
The fact that the allegations came about after world-wide rumors were sparked..means nothing
Past cases of accusers proven lying...just for money...means nothing

Its SOOO obvious that MJ was behind this all! How could i have thought otherwise????

the fact that the family accepted money in 1993, and you claim was due to emotional hardships of the lengthy trial...money makes everyone feel emotionally better doesn't it?? If i was raped, i would rather the money than to fight for my rights...SURE??!!...what kind of BULL is that????



Respond to this comment

» left by Dorothy M. Neddermeyer (284 days 8 hours ago.)

You willingness to continue to discuss this case is evidence that the more you attempt to make MJ innocent, the more information there is to bring to bear that he is guilty. The key missing prosecution witness was indeed someone who is an expert in sex offender MO. I wasn't saying it could only be me. Your bet that if I was on the jury I would have voted to aquit, is simply and utterly wrong. You can't speak for me, and therefore, I spoke for myself. I erred in stating MJ moved to Sri Lanka. He moved to Bahrain, June 29, 2005.

You ask if my book was prejudicial? Of course the answer is NO or I would not have written it. It did, however, tell the unabridged truth about the most frequent perpetrators, who are 80% family members, and 19% are sex offenders outside the family known to the child, their multi-leveled ruses and MO, including interviews with convicted sex offenders regarding their ruses and MO. It is the lack of education and common myths about sex offenders, which allows perpetrators to continue to abuse children. The majority of sex offenders abuse 100 or more children before they either die or are convicted and serve jail time. Unfortunately, without any rehabilitation, 80% of sex offenders reoffend after incarceration. This is tragic, because the majority of sex offenders can be rehabilitated. My success rate with sex offenders is 100%. The process, I use is the same as I use for sexual abuse and physical abuse survivors, because all sex offenders are either sexual or physical abuse survivors or both. A sex offender is acting out their own childhood abuse trauma. It is like a moth to the flame. MJ is probably one of the few sex offenders who could not be rehabilitated. The reasons why are too complicated to explain here.
Respond to this comment

» left by Dorothy M. Neddermeyer from Arizona (279 days 9 hours ago.)

MayC: Making accusations when you have only one fact is interesting. I have a long list of facts to back my statements regarding MJ, not to mention 33 years of working with sex offenders in the healing process, which has given me well balanced knowledge of their MO and what prompts a sex offender to abuse children. I did not delete any posts and furthermore, didn't know they could be deleted. Is it possible the owner of this website deleted it? Your apology is not necessary, although it is warrented. I am not here to discredit anyone's beliefs, I am here to educate. As an educator I am ethically and morally bound to use accurate and well-founded information.
Respond to this comment

» left by Ardnahc from Jaffna (255 days 10 hours ago.)

Your "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.
Respond to this comment

» left by Dorothy M. Neddermeyer from Phoenix (255 days 5 hours ago.)

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.
Respond to this comment

Was this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or Question: