Because of recent articles I have participated in, as well as some particular comments that have been made to me I thought it was time for an article. I first want to point out to many of you that don't know me or think you know about me. I am a child abuse advocate, I am 110% against any form of child abuse, I feel sexual abuse is the most falsely accused form of child abuse, I feel people who falsely accuse should be treated just as if the person who was convicted of a false abuse charge. I am founder and President of Baby James Foundation, I was a victim of sexual, verbal, emotional, and physical abuse. Although, my physical abuse as a child wasn't as severe as the other forms of abuse I encountered as a child. I was as well a victim of domestic violence with my second husband.
Now that you know me the point of this article. This article is going to be about Pedophiles, I don't want you to confuse them with a molester or sex offender. Not all sex offender's are molesters, not all sex offenders are pedophiles. To help with clarifying this here are some definitions for you.
Sex Offender
A sex offender is a person who has been criminally charged and convicted of, or has pled "guilty" or Nolo contendere to, a sex crime. Crimes requiring mandatory sex offender registration may include child sexual abuse, downloading child pornography, rape, and statutory rape. The term sex offender is a broad term, with sexual predator often being used to describe a more severe physical or repeat sexual offense. In the United States, United Kingdom, and other countries a convicted sex offender is often required to register with the respective jurisdiction's sex offender registry. These registry databases are frequently accesible to the public through the internet. Sexual offenders are also sometimes classified into levels[1]. The highest level offenders generally must register as a sex offender for their entire lives, whereas low level offenders may only need to register for a limited time. As a label of identity it is used in criminal psychology.
Molestation
Sexual abuse, also referred to as molestation, is the forcing of undesired sexual behavior by one person upon another, when that force falls short of being a sexual assault. The offender is referred to as a molester or molestor or abuser or sexual abuser. The term also covers any behavior by any adult towards a child to stimulate either the adult or child sexually. When the victim is younger than the age of consent, it is referred to as child sexual abuse.
Pedophilia
The term pedophilia (or paedophilia) has a range of definitions as found in psychology, law enforcement, and the vernacular. As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children.[1][2][3] According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is specified as a form of paraphilia in which a person either has acted on intense sexual urges towards children, or experiences recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children that cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.[4] The disorder is common among people who commit child sexual abuse;[5][6][7] however, some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia.[8] In strictly behavioral contexts, the word "pedophilia" has been used to refer to child sexual abuse itself, also called "pedophilic behavior".[6][9][10][11][12]
In this article I am focusing on Pedophiles. The characteristics of a pedophile are...
- Popular with both children and adults.
- Appears to be trustworthy and respectable.
- Prefers the company of children.
- Feels more comfortable with children than adults.
- Is mainly attracted to prepubescent boys and girls.
- Can be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.
- "Grooms" children with quality time, video games, parties, candy, toys, gifts, money.
- Singles out children who seem troubled and in need of attention or affection.
- Often dates or marries women with children that are the age of his preferred victims.
- Rarely forces or coerces a child into sexual contact. Usually through trust and friendship. Physical contact is gradual, from touching, to picking up, to holding on lap, to kissing, etc.
- Derives gratification in a number of ways. For some, looking is enough. For others, taking pictures or watching children undress is enough. Still others require more contact.
- Finds different ways and places to be alone with children.
- Are primarily (but not always) male, masculine, better-educated, more religious than average, in their thirties, and choose jobs allowing them greater access to children.
- Are usually family men, have no criminal record, and deny that they abuse children, even after caught, convicted, incarcerated, and court-ordered into a sex offender program. The marriage is often troubled by sexual dysfunction, and serves as a smokescreen for the pedophile's true preferences and practices.
Are often, but not always, themselves victims of some form of childhood sexual abuse. - Even if the pedophile has no children, his home is usually child-friendly, with toys, books, video games, computers, bikes, swing sets, skateboards, rec room, pool, snacks - things to attract children to his home and keep them coming back. Usually the items reflect the preferred age of his victims.
- A female pedophile usually abuses a child when partnered with an adult male pedophile, and is often herself a victim of chronic sexual abuse.
A pedophile can act independently, or be involved in an organized ring, including the Internet, NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association), and other pro-pedophilia groups. - Some pedophiles recognize that their behavior is criminal, immoral, and unacceptable by society, and operate in secrecy.
- Some are quite open and militant about their practices and advocate the normalization of pedophilia under the guise of freedom of speech and press, and uses innocuous language like "intergenerational intimacy."
Some of you have commented on my own articles of such individuals as described. Remarks have been castrate them, lock them away forever, death sentence. Frankly I don't disagree with any of those remarks of a pedophile.
Now all of a sudden Michael Jackson is dead and the same people who commented on those articles views change. How can a view change from one pedophile to another?
Lets take a look at Michael Jackson and really think about the characteristics of a pedophile. He admitted to inviting disadvantage children to his ranch, children slept in the same bed as him, his exact words has been "my greatest inspiration comes from kids.", he claims to change his look because of troubled youth and father's insults, he claims the mother of his first two children bore them as a gift, the last child was a surrogate mother, he again admits many children slept in the same bed as him, denies sexual contact with any of the children. Now lets go to 1993 when he had allegations of his sexual abuse. He sends his children to a friends house for confidentiality agreement. He then admits to paying the accuser a settlement his words was "didn't want to go through a long, drawn-out affair, like O.J." Now why would anyone pay a large sum of money to someone if they didn't really touch the child? If this was anyone else it wouldn't of even been possible to do.
Why would a man tell his children they have no mom, yet she bore them as a gift, when he was married to them? Why would a man put a mask over their faces? The worse part of it all is why hang them over a balcony? That is neglect my friends, if it was me or you and we hung our child over a balcony we wouldn't have our child. Wait we shouldn't have our children with the system today who knows what we would have. I as well would like one person to show me any reason why Deborah Rowe, the first two children's mother, is such an unfit mother? Only thing I have found is that she first terminated her rights, then hired an attorney to fight it, a judge realized he didn't give the children an attorney as was suppose to so her rights wasn't terminated, and at one point she sided with her then husband testifying for him on the molestation charges. Other then that this woman has done nothing, in fact she has been having visitation to these children. So why should this woman have to prove she is fit to raise them when Michael Jackson didn't have to prove nothing? All he had to do was slap money out there and pay them off. If you can show me anything where she abused her children then we will talk. I did find she didn't know if she was going to fight the custody that "she wants what is best". That there tells me she is a loving mother. Unlike Michael telling his children they had no mother, and that they was a gift. He shouldn't of had those children a long time ago. While I agree Katherine Jackson is a good person, mother, grandmother look at her age? She is 79 years old what happens when she is gone? Then lets look at Joe Jackson if he abused Michael as he claims then isn't there a concern here?
Now the whole reason for this article and I realize I got off topic here. I really don't understand a few individuals. I have wrote article after article, talked to people after people and it really amazes me some of the things that are said. First I get told when I respond that "I feel an my abuser's will some day pay if not here on earth their time is coming" They are all for that and agree with me. To be honest with you this is the one thing that has helped me cope as well as even forgive the ones that I have forgiven that has abused me. I realize there are three children involved that is even more of a reason to be concerned. For a child to say he has no mother it is already clear he needs some psychological help. I am sure more will come out showing signs as well from these children. The question will anyone look at the children as children and not Michael Jackson's children? Anyone that has told me there are children involved sure hasn't talked to me about children they have about Michael Jackson's children. My view a pedophiles children that should of never had these children. That isn't even showing the clear evidence that this man has put these children in danger. How? Hanging them over a banister is in danger.
Here is a video that don't only show the custody issue between grandmother and mother, but Michael hanging his child over a bannister, and yet no one seemed to act on it as a danger to the child.
Â
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 139
I don't think he was. He was not a child molestor it was never proven. Just because someone is different or "wierd" does not mean they are a criminal. I am a Christian and I watched everything on him over the years and he is innocent in my opinion.
Then why pay them off?
One can be afraid of false testimony, for sure. If public opinion has already painted you a child molester, then a greedy person could go to court and lie about you. Or threaten it. It's very very possible. Michael was very vulnerable to accusations because he was so ridiculously rich and lived so ridiculously stupidly around children.
I remember Elton John once said something like that, about a conversation he'd had with Michael - that you can be innocent and yet be found guilty in court, and Michael was terrified of that (he could have been lying to Elton, of course).
Renee- I think there is an even more important question than "why pay them off"?
How about, "why accept payment?"
Why would a parent(s) accept a very large sum of money over having the man that abused a child brought to justice?
To me... that makes it seem like the parents were doing nothing but trying to get money.
If you take an abused child to get the psychological treatment they need alone it is outrageous. You accept money for a car accident, why not for abuse? What about medical claims?
It's probably just a difference of way of thinking, just like it probably was for MJ and you on why he would pay off.
I could never, ever accept a large sum of money for a case of abuse. If money came out of the prosecution, then sure, fine. But not a settlement.
All that does is allow the criminal to go free and continue the crime. If my child was abused, I accepted a pay off, then found out that scum abused another child, I would feel like I was just as guilty.
To me it's like say, "Well it's ok that you commited one of the most horrific acts an adult can make toward a child because well you've insured their finanical future and we'll be able to pay for those years of psychological treatments. So don't worry about spending time in prison. Its ok now that I've got money."
I agree with you I would want them to pay big time for their crime. I just don't think just because the family took the money meant that it didn't happen. He was as well the one that offered the money in the beginning. The family didn't offer the bargain. Understand what I am saying?
I get what your saying Renee, and I do agree. I was merely trying to present another point of view.
Just like you can assume that there was something more sinister in Michael Jackson paying them off, other people can assume that there was something more sinister on the parents end for taking a pay off.
Paying the family off might have been cheaper solution for MJ. Between the insane amount of time a legal battle might have taken and the cost of representation.
You can as well look at it that the parents thought accepting the money was saving their children more pain then testifing, going through trial, so forth.
He showed all the characteristics of a pedophile to me.
Then why pay them off?
First of all Renee, if your child was molested would you accept a payoff? I know you wouldn't even if it was 22 million dollars, so why did the child in questions father accept the payoff? Could it be that no molestation ever took place and it was a scam to extort Michael Jackson? You say on the one hand that the parents might look at it as the money was saving their children more pain from testifying. Would YOU take the money?
Secondly, Michael Jackson never paid off anyone. The entire charade was negotiated by Michael Jackson's insurance company AGAINST Michael Jackson's wishes. The insurance company paid the 22 million, not Michael Jackson.
When your reclusive and avoid contact with the public and have an insurance company that insures you for claims that arise I would think that you would avoid the issue at all costs and even if you disagreed with the insurance companies decision to pay someone off you'd allow them to go ahead since you had paid regular and enormous insurance premiums for years and weren't paying the 22 million dollars out of your own pocket.
The fact remains, he was never convicted, his houses were searched, computers, videos and images taken and nothing was ever found that could have convicted him. There were no witnesses that ever came forward but there were a huge number of witnesses that came forward to defend him.
This is what happens when you are a star and the world watches your every move. You get convicted by people unwilling to make reasonable decisions. The media manages your opinion and you fail to realize that EVERYTHING you know about Michael Jackson stems from the media.
Right now every star in the world; Diana Ross, Cheryl Crow, Elizabeth Taylor, Quincy Jones, Alicia Keys, Jamie Foxx, Ciara, Lou Ferigno, Larry King, the O'Jays, and many, many others are providing current interviews standing up for the integrity and generosity of Michael Jackson.
Lastly, he taught us that being friends with a child is far better than being friends with most adults.
Just because I wouldn't doesn't mean someone else wouldn't accept payment.
That's true but there's a whole lot more to my comment that you haven't addressed and when one looks at the evidence carfully, without an agenda, and you have one being that your presence on Gather has more to do with pedophilia than any other single subject, the evidence in favor of innocence or that we just don't know is overwhelming.
You stated that he exhibits all of the characteristics of a pedophile. That is a very poor and entirely ineffective way to judge people. The FBI not too long ago paid 5 million dollars to a guy that had all the characteristics of a serial anthrax mailer. They even arrested him, but he was innocent.
I'm certain you wouldn't want your ability to parent your children to be based on your income level or level of education or even your past history with drugs, alcohol and jail. That judgment would say you have all of the characteristics of a criminal when all of us here on Gather know you as a kind, gentle and caring mother.
See I don't really care what people think of me first of all. Number two never had a history with drugs. Yes I had a history with alcohol and took care of the problem.
What you say does have some truth to it. You as well think that I judge everyone that has a sex offender charge as a pedophile and sick individual. When I as I have said before agree that sex charges has the greater false accusations.
With that said lets say for one minute you are correct. Are you saying he still has never abused a child? His balcony episode showed me that this man doesn't really care about kids or he wouldn't put them in danger like that. Worse of all by his own hands. He never got one thing out of the incident where you or I would of had our child taken from our hands and I agree should be.
Say for instance you are driving home tonight and you see some lady hanging her child over a balcony. What would you say? What do you honestly think would happen to her?
Maybe the whole episode of that is really what helped me make a judgement on him I don't know. I as well don't agree to a man putting other children in his bed that isn't even related to him. Then lets talk about all the other children. Have they been investigated properly? Did they receive pysical and psychological examinations?
OK, no drugs, sorry about that.
Let's examine hanging a baby over a balcony for seconds. Not much different than hanging a baby over a couch or a crib I think. The media generates our opinions Renee. That picture, a still picture and a video, were seen across the world by everyone. If you or I did the same thing and it was also seen by the whole world it's unlikely anything would happen. In fact, if you saw me do it and called the police it's unlikely they would do anything either and neither would CPS. It's not really abuse. It might be poor judgment.
We all forget that the media shapes our opinions.
I'm not going to change your mind and neither will you change mine but it's still good to discuss these issues and I'm glad you posted this. What I'd like you to recognize is that there are a lot of people here that don't necessarily see him as a pedophile.
To address his proclivity for sleeping with kids in his bed, the truth is, he was a child himself. He never had a childhood and never grew up. I think you'll probably agree that children are often times better friends to us than other adults are. They are loyal and they love people no matter what they look like and no matter whether they're rich or poor. Children aren't ruined by the world around them until they grow up and become adults. I think Michael Jackson exercised a certain wisdom in choosing children as friends.
The truth is, none of us really know and in a climate of doubt we have to err on the side of caution rather than convict someone in the court of public opinion without sufficient evidence. Even murderers aren't convicted because someone thinks they might be guilty.
In regard to Michael Jackson, I just don't know and neither do you.
You are right we I won't change your mind and you won't mind. But you can say I just may of educated someone by this.
As far as hanging a child over a banster it is abuse. It is called endangerment which is neglect which is abuse.
As to the hanging the baby over the balcony...
I think that every time a father throws his child up in the air (and most of them do this) it is far more dangerous than what we saw Michael Jackson do that day.
I don't even compare the two as the same thing.
Still reading, but I have to jump in here and AGREE with what Marilyn said about people throwing their children up in the air like rag dolls.
. . . continuing on with the reading of these EXCELLENT comments . . .
It's hard to compare him to any lists - he was so very very very unusual in all ways. If I was to say he was or wasn't I'd need a crystal ball.
I don't know one way or the other if he was. He was definitely an injured soul, probably due to his own experiences and childhood, so that could account for a lot of his odd behavior.
As for why he'd pay them off... he had a lot of money. That's often an attractive thing to people who don't. He could have weighed his options and decided that it would be easier to stop protracted proceedings and give away some money to 'resolve' the situation. (Not as if it was ever resolved, since after it was all over and done, the speculation continued on and on.) Oh, and the facemasks - I think that's a good thing, actually, and not at all abusive. He was protecting them from the paparazzi, which I find admirable. Too many celebs parade their kids out for everyone to see to whomever offers the biggest bucks. THAT is sick.
Regardless, I think we do have to be careful about casting judgment on others when we don't know the full story. I know you're sensitive to these issues because of your own experiences, but at this point, it's true that God is MJ's only and final judge.
I didn't say the face masks was abusive, I said holding a child over a balcony was. You go out and try to hold a child over a balcony and see what happens to you.
Are you saying because of my childhood then I have a right to abuse a child? That I shouldn't speak for my actions that I have done wrong in my life?
Not a bit, no! Please don't twist my words like that, Renee. Keep in mind that you know nothing of MY past here. I'm merely saying that I don't necessarily think he abused anyone. I'm not a bad person for disagreeing with you; after all, Gather is (among other purposes) supposed to encourage conversation between people with differing viewpoints. And that's precisely what you're doing here. Just be aware that some of us won't agree with you.
As for the first part, you said this:
"Why would a man put a mask over their faces?"
I agree that it doesn't come right out and say it's abusive, but there's a definite implication.
KD West wrote something here on Gather that sums up my thoughts to a strikingly accurate degree. Here it is:
"It is not surprising, then, that with unimaginable wealth available (at least to me in my financial status), such a person would revert to the emotional status of a twelve or thirteen-year old, build a private amusement park, delight in sleep-overs with "peers", buy all the toys available, and revel in activities (drug usage, etc.) which help one to avoid the pain of immediate reality."
I wasn't twisting words you said
He was definitely an injured soul, probably due to his own experiences and childhood, so that could account for a lot of his odd behavior
All I asked you was if it gives reason to do it. I didn't say I did or did not know about your past. I didn't say you was a bad person either. Am I not encouraging conversation by asking you questions why you felt as you did?
Renee- I think the reason Sherry felt that you were twisting her words is because you stated: "Are you saying because of my childhood then I have a right to abuse a child?"
No where at all did Sherry allued to the idea that Michael Jackson had a right to abuse children because of his own childhood.
She called his behavior "odd". She did not state that the odd behavior was something criminal such as child abuse.
I understand but I got the impression that she was saying he was this way because of his childhood. I was abused as a child as well and there comes a time you own up to your own actions and not blame your abuser for everything you do wrong.
That's assuming that he did anything wrong. Sherry does not believe that he did. The problem here is that you have it set in your mind that Michael Jackson did horrific things to children, and then you're trying to converse with someone who does not share that view point.
Pretend for ONE moment that you did NOT believe he did anything wrong. Pretend for ONE moment that he was simply an "odd duck" but his behavior was nothing criminal.
In that case, if you look at it from THAT point of view, then all that is being said is that his childhood formed his unusual (but not criminal) behavior.
No matter what I would say you don't blame your abuser's for your actions as an adult. I don't blame my abuser's for becoming an alcoholic like I did. I don't blame my abuser's for when I was arrested like I did. I had to take the blame for my actions as an adult. That I did and then I started helping myself.
Sorry, had to step out for a while, but Melanie essentially said everything I was thinking and clarified for me beautifully. Thanks Melanie!
I dont think he is. He did not change his look. He had a nose job agreed but he had a skin disorder which ate his skin to that extent. It was proven to be in the family . I guess he paid to protect his music career which greedy people would take advantage of. He was abused as a child too, that explains his love for children. Maybe he over expressed it.
So much he had children sleep in his bed?
He had something called vitiligo which kills the skin's pigment cells. It didn't eat his skin.
He had a lot more than one nose job. You don't get that scary looking with just one or two. I would bet that he had body dsymorphic disorder and it's said that he had as many as 14 surgeries.
Abused chicldren often grow up to become abusers themselves.
People keep saying that abused children grow up to be abusers but I know far more that indeed doesn't abuse.
Another thing I want people to understand the main point in this article is explaining the difference of a sex offender, pedophile, molestor. To me Michael Jackson had all the characteristics of a pedophile. No matter what he still abused in my eyes by hanging a child over a balcony.
It was truly "poor judgment" on his part Renee to hang his child over the balcony so that the FANS could see his child, and the media could take photos.
I'm horrified by people dragging their children around by one arm in the air, and like Marilyn said above, throwing their children up in the air like footballs or something. I SEE that as ABUSE, but more than anything else, I see that as an extreme form of IGNORANCE on the part of the parent or the person who is doing such things.
Yes very ignorant. I really can't help but think if it was someone else it would have been looked at differently.
"differently" ~ as in ignored, and not made a FEDERAL CASE Renee?
Federal didn't even look at it
System sucks again
Ok. But how can you be so sure?
How can I be sure what? That he had no brains and that I feel it is abusive to hang a child over a bannister? If you are scaring your child or putting them in danger like this it is abusive.
Here is one for you , a child runs in middle of a road, as many does. A father takes that child out in the highway in front of their home while a truck is coming. Puts them in middle of that road. Why? hmm to teach that child a lesson. Is this wrong? Is it anymore wrong then hanging a child over a bannister? Before it is said it doesn't happen I am a living case that it does happen.
After watching and reading about Michael Jackson's molestation hearing, I came to a specific conclusion:
Had I been on the jury, I would not have been able to find him "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" because there was reasonable doubt as to whether or not sexual contact occurred. There was no doubt that the behavior of which he was accused was abnormal and suspicious, but his guilt was not proved. Much of what made it easy to suspect him came from the earlier story of Jordan Chandler, the child whose parents received a settlement after he accused the singer of molesting him. Even without that, I wouldn't have let my kids spend the night alone with him, because he wasn't "not guilt beyond reasonable doubt" either.
Now, since his death, Jordan Chandler seems to be resending his story:
Jordan Chandler Admits he Lied About Michael Jackson
Apparently, the accusation was in response to pressure from his father to extort money from their wealthy friend.
I'd be shocked, but it's really hard to be shocked about anything Jackson related any more.
If an investigation was done on this like should be done in these cases we wouldn't be saying he is guilty or not. At the time this happened Jordan would of been 9. There are ways of finding out even if a child is coached by the parents if he is lieing or not.
I agree with you I would of found him guilty as well.
The Jordan Chandler story is a hoax. I find it funny that people are ready willing and able to accept as fact that the child lied but cant even fathom that he was telling the truth.
Hannah check your source. 5 seconds of trolling the internet would have told you the story to which you refer is false.
This is the only story I found where Jordan is claiming to make false allegations
First let me say that there are lots of cases (and I mean lots) where the defendant cannot or does not want to go through the litigation process and settles the case for that reason. Settling a lawsuit is not an admission of liability. I say this even though I personally feel Michael Jackson was a child molester and a sex offender and a pedophile, as you have defined those terms here.
I agree with you they do, but usually it is if they can not afford a good attorney or have support. You would think a man with the kind of money he had and with it being all over the place by then he would of fought it to prove he was innocent.
No, actually, it is not just people who can't afford a good attorney. Even large corporations with plenty of money and resources do this all the time. It is called making "a business decision." And it happens on both sides of the litigation "v": when the plaintiff knows it is going to cost more than the amount s/he can recover in the litigation, s/he will settle the case; when the defendant knows s/he can pay some monetary amount now in settlement that is less than what it will cost to defend the case through trial, s/he will settle. Believe me -- I've represented many clients on both sides, so I know what I'm talking about.
Second let me say that the reason the mother of the two children should have to show fitness as a parent is that she voluntarily gave those children away. When you show the world that you don't care about your children, the presumption is that they will not be safe when they are with you.
I can see your point here. All I was saying was why should she when he had those kind of charges and didn't prove nothing except money can buy your way out of anything.
Finally, I agree with you that Michael Jackson never should have had children and that hanging the baby over the bannister was abuse.
Thank you for your comments
Renee excellent article.
I remember growing up and listening to MJ. His Thriller album was like nothing I had ever heard and the videos were amazing. And what a showman MJ was back in the day.
Then things changed. No longer was the MJ I had grown up with and appreciated and loved his music around. He started with the plastic surgery and the skin whitening. disease my arse.
And then came the child abuse allegations. I admit I was shocked, saddened and hurt. I had grown up with MJ. Who can forget the cute little kid singing ABC with his 5 big brothers.
MJ was a couple years older than me but I remember being in college and his music brought us together white people liked it black people liked it and since I had never been around black people before I realized how much the same all of us are. We appreciated MJ and his music.
And his public destruction was a blow to us all.
then we get to the abuse charges. I was shocked and saddened and I followed the story and read the evidence.
And I know in my heart of hearts that he was guilty. And it saddened me. I felt that a part of my childhood and young adulthood died then.
I still see because I want to the handsome MJ in his early 20's or the child MJ singing with his brothers.
I dont profess to know why this happened or why I wish I did.
I will always have the memories of the fun his music brought me.
I could go on and on but if you look at the evidence and think of what you would think of the same actions if it were anyone but MJ.
If you next door neighbor had slumber parties and slept with kids he would have died in jail.
Unfortunatly in this country fame and money are by far more important than justice.
To be honest I was upset too. I had a crush on him at one time in my teen years. Even at that I still think he is guilty and I think people are looking at his money before anything else. You put any other person out there and they would smack him or her with guilty charges.
very nice pos, renee.a lot of very good points
Thank you
Your analysis is good. We may never know...
The oyster days
I am not a judge or jury, but apparently one never found Michael Jackson guilty of any of the "ALLEGED" things people thought about him. I believe that much of what we saw was edited and taken out of context. The man was different and strange and the media as well as others thrived on him....Well, they can't thrive for much longer. Too bad he will never know how many people really believed in his innocence or at least questioned the media's conviction of him....
It is alleged cause he paid them off
That's an opinion..not a fact...I am sure OJ Simpson tried to pay people off as well, but he ended up in court and eventually has gotten caught up with....it seems to me at some point MJ would have as well...
I abhor abuse of any kind and none more than sexual abuse for personal reasons...but I for one...see no proof...that he did many of the things people said he did...I would first have to see every interview played in FULL without editing or creative contexting....then, I would have to see some victims come forward for reasons other than monetary all these years later....regardless, I hope he can RIP as the man did have many issues...
So lets plaster these kids on the stand again. He is the one that agreed money over going to trial
No, but let's not assume guilt based on anything other than facts. We live in a country that is "innocent until proven guilty".....at any point do we question why a parent would take $$ over justice if things really happened? Mine sure wouldn't have....
We aren't going to agree on this Renee and that is okay with me if it is okay with you. I don't believe that MJ has or had a fair shot in the media...however, he is dead now and someone higher than you and higher than me will judge him....
This Article should make for interesting conversation.
This is FEATURED in Artistic Therapy.
I'll be back to READ and COMMENT!
Thank you I hope people read this and just don't comment
I'm back Renee, and still reading the comments. I did post some comments above. And, as I thought, this turned out to be a very INTERESTING CONVERSATION!
. . . continuing on with my reading . . .
Thank you Rene
HUGS Renee. You really did give us an EDUCATION with this Article ~ really.
Thank you
Even though I don't think it's commonplace to have kids sleeping in your bed all the time, I also don't think he was a pedophile. I say that because of how open he was about having kids sleep in his bed. Even though he didn't think it was unusual to have kids sleeping in his bed, I would still think if he was molesting them; he would hide this fact. ( especially after a trial) I also think it is possible that he paid them off, just because he was scared of being convicted; and going to prison- people who are innocent are wrongly convicted. I also wonder if people's perceptions would be different, if instead of michael; it was janet jackson talking about slumber parties- and kids sleeping in her bed. Would janet jackson be accused of being a pedophile under the same circumstances?
Ellen the problem I have with your scenerio is that most people and I think Janet Jackson included would realize that it is wrong to have slumber parties and sleep in the same bed with children. Whether there is any type of sexual molestation going on or not it not appropriate.
And I dont remember him being open about it. I didnt hear about it until the accusations started flying.
I don't remember him being open about it either.
I do think MJ molested those kids. But, I also agree with Ellen's point that if he had been a woman, we might see the situation differently.
Women who babysit kids (either their own or other people's) sleep in the same bed with them all the time and nobody really thinks anything of it. I used to babysit little kids and if I needed to lay down next to them in bed or let them lay down next to me in bed to get them to fall asleep, I would do it. And when their parents came home, they were grateful to me that I got their kids to sleep!
Okay Oxnard that point I do agree on.
Renee (Pres of Baby James Foundation) ~. has chosen to approve comments before they appear.
SAYS IT ALL !
and what does it say?
What it "would" have said, would probably have been rejected by you being as how you have made "that" decision, as it might not go along with exactly what you "want" to hear and promote. (I will give you credit for having so far printed the mention though) :-)
I always do Jerry. Just because a person chooses to approve comments doesn't mean they won't allow the comments. I do it for different reasons then that. Everyone has a right to their opinions. I have deleted a comment in the past but it was one person and 2 comments where they were just being hatred to other individuals. It makes it easier for me to keep tract of my comments. With my medicine I have problems keeping tract. I think just because a person asks to approve comments shouldn't be judged for that.
Renee ~ When you have to approve comments before they appear (for whatever reason you give), you have to understand that some people will take offense to it. It was extremely unusual to me when I first connected with you as a "friend", and I asked you about it if you remember. If this is a conversation that you would like to flow, why do you screen the comments? Really.
I have explained this already if you or anyone else has a problem with why I do it then I am sorry. Do you or anyone else take offence to a child in a classroom that has a tape recorder for similar reasons as I do this? I take offence that I am judged and individuals keep asking repeatly even after I stated why and you ask my real reasons I do it. No place do you see where I delete a comment, no place do you see where I don't comment back. I don't go through and ask you why you don't approve comments.
Okay Renee ~ Don't get upset. I don't want to upset you. If anyone here harrasses you, just REPORT THEM. It happens all the time here in Gatherland I've noticed. But, whatever you do, don't become so "fearful" that you miss out on the free ~ flow of LIFE.
You can get real RAW and FRANK with people if someone gives you a problem, but (being in a calm state of mind), never let anyone take you outside of yourself either. I've ran across a couple of people here in Gatherland that were downright RUDE and OBNOXIOUS. I attribute that to "immaturity" frankly.
I'll just try to understand why you do it ~ even though I can't possibly really know how you are feeling.
One thing that I do know Renee ~ is when you begin to shut yourself off because of nut~cases, you have to assess whether or not every one you come across has to pay the price for it. Should you allow someone to steal your JOY or your FREEDOM? Should you allow anyone to make you appear like the "strange one" or the "disconnected" one, or the "guilty one"? . . . Should you allow another person to make you have anxiety attacks? . . .
This brings me right back to this conversation about Michael Jackson actually . . .
Honest I don't care I do what I do for me. What does this have to do with joy or freedom I am talking what helps me with every day life. See I have a foundation an it has anxiety attacks that I can deal with. See I learned to live with my abuse. I can handle the nut cases trust me I dealt with many of them. Look at my parents, James' so called mother. Do I need to go on? You think gather nut cases are going to harm me?
No, Renee I don't think Gather nut cases are going to harm you -- that's my point.
It's your preference to moderate every single post on your Articles. Ok. I understand ~ it is for "you", and that is really all that matters.
I have to say gather is the least of the places that has ever done anything to me or anyone with the foundation including the kids. I however can't be to cautious for the kids sake. It is my job through this foundation to protect those children as much as I can through my end, when it comes to the foundation. No one else will I will, I made them this promise a long time ago.
It still isn't even the reason I do it. I can honestly sit here and say that if I didn't since I wrote this article on the 2nd and today is the 15th that I probable wouldn't of even came back here. It isn't because I don't care it is because I just don't remember. I have a note book sitting right next to me right now telling me what sites and what to do on a daily bases. Luckily I have individuals through the foundation that goes back through again. Its hard to explain, and its hard for people to understand if they don't have the problem. Some says I am on to much medicine. Maybe I am but this to much medicine is keeping me alive and able to get up and play,feed, with my son daily. I am able to now be able to sit here and have a conversation with my family. Fact is I am able to sit here and have a conversation with you. Whatever reason I do it or anyone else, which I am not the only one, is for me and no one else. You got that one so right, it is for "me". That is one thing that took me some time is to start doing for "me"
HUGS to you my Friend.
I think that yes, according to criteria as listed above (and I've found this information in my own textbooks and numerous web-sources), I do agree that it *is* possible he might have been a pedophile.
What I don't "get," is the fact that children's parents accepted money from him, in lieu of trying to make sure he was prosecuted for what he allegedly did. Now, my take on that is- sounds awfully suspect, either way. If it were one of my kids, I wouldn't have bothered going through the court system or been willing to settle out of court for money- I'd have taken care of the scumbag who abused my kids my OWN way.
I guarantee there would be hell to pay for doing something like that to one of my kids. I can't fathom accepting money from someone after they'd done something like that to my child. If I couldn't get my hands on the person, I'd make SURE they were prosecuted and rotting til their last breath in prison. I would *never* accept the money.
Yes, Michael Jackson was odd- I can't even begin to dispute that- but I just don't see him harming children, if he *did* (which there is no way of knowing for sure NOW), then he should have gotten a bigger punishment than paying the families off.
Now, all that being said- I despise abuse of *anyone* in *any* form. It's pretty much known that Michael Jackson's father was extremely abusive to him (which would NOT excuse any abusing behavior on Michael's part), but I think it may be likely that because of the severity of emotional, mental and physical abuse he recieved as a child- he obviously was a tormented soul and had a lot of pain, those types of things manifest themselves in different ways.
And since he wasn't actually proven to be guilty and the man is dead now, why can't the media just let it go? He was followed by the media all of his life, and even in his death, the drama continues. If I'd have been him, I wouldn't have been a pedophile, but I probably would be considered "bizarre" by the media and the rest of the world. That's a lot of issues to have to deal with in anyone's lifetime, and to try to deal with them in public- that's downright impossible for anyone.
My concern is his children. The way he lived and was with his children I can only imagine what they went through. I keep going over and over in my head the vision of the balcany. That child had to be terrified.
According to most reports, his children appeared to be happy and well-adjusted. I haven't seen any conflicting reports on that so far...
I don't know how old the child was in the balcony photo, but it's entirely possible he (the child) didn't even realize what was going on and wasn't aware enough to be afraid. I don't know... simply a guess.
I think his children are in far more danger in contact with his father, than they ever were with him or would be with their biological mother(s). I think the man has no shame, no remorse over how he used his kids for a meal ticket, and he can blame himself for how screwed up a couple of them were (Michael especially.).
I do hope that the kids end up someplace safe with someone who will love them and care for them properly, and no be focused on getting their (the kids') inheritance from Michael's estate and future earnings.
Not sure that their bio Mom(s) would be the best option either though, because, what kind of mother just willingly hands over her children adn her rights to her children???
The answer to your last question. What do you feel about a person who knows she can't care for a child and gives it up for adoption? I look at it the same way.
Another situation I signed my kids over to my first marriage for several reasons. First he filed a false report against me that was unfounded to get the kids. He could afford and attorney and I sold all I could to keep paying for mine till I had nothing. He kept stringing out the emergency order of protection for a year. Finally I said enough is enough I will sign them over if I can visit my kids. So that is what we did. I as well knew deep down the children was better off with him. He made more money, I was in an abusive relationship I didn't want my kids involved in. You see me now raising James and my fight. I love all of my children and very proud of them. So what kind of mother am I?
Renee... I "gave" my 2 oldest sons to their Dad when we divorced, for financial reasons (I couldn't, at the time, afford to take care of them) and the fact that I wasn't in the right place emotionally/mentally at the time. I'm not talking about cases of handing a child over because of something like that- and I did *NOT* give my rights up to them, would *never* do that and am very much involved in their lives.
That is way different than basically handing a child over, agreeing to never see your child and taking several million dollars in exchange.
And adoption is a completely different topic altogether- I totally support adoption. I think that is the most selfless sacrifice a mother can make. I am also in support of mothers giving custody up if they know that they can't handle raising their children or whatever- it's an unselfish decision that is often looked badly upon. BTDT.
Again, I am referring to a woman who basically "sold" her children and rights to them, from all outward appearances. There had already been so much controversy surrounding Michael Jackson by the time she married him and had his kids, that I doubt that she had no clue that something was wrong there- yet she took the money and left her kids with him.
There was as well said someplace that she was a surrogate for him even though he was married to her. He stated they was a gift from her to conceive the children. Last I knew gift don't get paid. None of us know why she gave up the rights to the children. It has been said that she signed them over then changed her mind. Then found out her rights wasn't actually terminated. To me this is a woman that did care about her kids why she originally signed them over I don't know. I am hoping James' bio egg donor signs him over on this next court date for good. I would look at her a little different then I have so far if she used her head and realized she can't care for him with her mental state. What I am trying to say here is no one knows why she did it.
Its now being said that Michael Jackson wasn't even their father. That the children was artificially insemination. That their father was Michael's dermatologist
I hope that things go through for James' bio to sign him over. I can only imagine the frustration you must feel! *HUGS*
And you're right, no one knows for sure why she did what she did, likewise, no one knows for sure what happened behind the scenes in Michael's life. It's all a big mess, it's all terribly tragic that any of it happen or that horrible things were alleged to have happened- whether true or not- it's sad that things got to that point, and I think his death was a tragic ending to a person who once had everything in the world going for him, except trying to fight demons from his childhood and no one got him help or tried to get him help until it was far too late.
I saw the thing about the artificial insemination... I'm not sure what bearing that has on anything tho, I mean, I don't know about laws and whatnot- but I'm assuming since the bio father isn't speaking up, then the courts will still handle things as if the children *were* Michael's bio children.
One more thing she said she would do is get a restraining order against Michael's father keeping him away from the kids. I think that needed done a long time ago.
I don't know about the laws either. You are right it is a big mess.
"
One more thing she said she would do is get a restraining order against Michael's father keeping him away from the kids. I think that needed done a long time ago."
Now that, I *completely* agree with. I don't understand how Katherine has stayed with the man all these years, that to me makes her just as guilty as him!!! :(
Samantha ~ Maybe Katherine stayed with her husband all these years because that is the way she was raised. They don't live together by the way, and haven't lived together for a very long time.
Many people would be horrified to find out that their parents stayed together for the sake of the kids and appearances, and long-held beliefs, while living in HELL.
Guilty of what?
I know my first marriage I stayed 12 years for the kids. I thought I was showing them how to love unconditional when actually I was hurting them.
Now this is honest TRUTH on your part Renee, and you and a million other women will probably all STAND and say the same thing that you just did.
Being BASE, no one deserves to be treated wrongly. FALSE APPEARANCES won't make it better or RIGHT, gritting teeth and bearing it won't make you a stronger or BETTER person, laying the burden on God and pretending that it is about "turning the other cheek" or "being the more righteous person" won't do it either.
Your words really sum it up Renee ~ "I thought I was showing them how to love unconditional when actually I was hurting them." . . .
The BEST thing a person (man or woman) can do for their children is to never pretend that something that is completely out~of~order is somehow IN ORDER. It brings about dysfunctional children that don't KNOW whether it is wrong or RIGHT to be in a very bad and/or abusive relationship. They become confused.... "My mother put up with it so it must be okay." ~ ABUSE IS NEVER OKAY ~ NEVER JUSTIFIED ~ NEVER GODLY ~ and never worth wasting years of your life over trying to pretend it will be better.
[just my thoughts on that].
My first marriage which I conceived children was not abusive. I married for the wrong reason main reason to get out of my abusive child hood. I stayed in because I didnt want to hurt them.
My 2nd married was very abusive. I hid my children from this. I don't want to discuss this cycle for myself and theirs.
As far as false accusations was a way my first husbands new wife could get my kids and another story I am not prepared to talk about for me.
I have been through the abuse all of it. My dad physically, I watched him stab my mom, I hid his drugs on a couch as a child. My mom mentally and verbally call her now I am a low life b****.My uncle molested me and his daughter which I heard about after I was standing my grandmothers bedside when she was dieing. Abuse isn't okay but see I have been on both sides of the fence. Abuse is one thing discipline is another
I won't jeopardize my kids by answering the statement "I thought I was showing them how to love unconditional when actually I was hurting them."
Hi Renee ~ I really wasn't expecting you to answer the statement about "showing how to love unconditionally"...I was really speaking in general, and not directing my thoughts on the matter of abuse to you (or about you) personally.
I'm really sorry to hear about all that has happened in your life. I know that you've been dealing with the "healing" process from all of it. I really hope that I didn't upset you.
Here are some ways of "I thought I was showing them how to love unconditional when actually I was hurting them."
You bail a child out of jail over and over again, hire the best of attorney's to get them out of trouble. What are you actually doing? You are hurting that child but not teaching them that you have to pay the price for your actions.
You have a child that keeps moving out of your home then back in. You keep allowing that child to move in what are you teaching them? That you will pick up their pieces when ever they fall. What will happen when you are gone and no longer can rescue them from what life throws them?
Now the above two was in terms of child but actually an adult child.
Lets now go for the younger child.
You find out your child hasn't been turning in home work, the teacher gives your child detention. You go into the school and let them know your child isn't serving detention that you will handle it at home. Again you are teaching your child that you will be there to pick up their pieces.
Your child wants name bran clothes so you work two jobs to get them that name bran clothes like the other kids. You are teaching them that all that matters is the name bran clothes. It isn't what is on the inside that really counts.
I can show so many more instances. In none of these am I meaning that a parent shouldn't help their child. These are for repeat over and over instances.
You didn't upset me, my past made me what I am today. I don't want you to be sorry for what happened to me. If what happened to me didn't happen I wouldn't have this foundation I honestly believe that. I wouldn't receive those phone calls just wanting to talk. I wouldn't have an adult calling me telling me their child is throwing things, hitting, screaming what do they do. I wouldn't be telling that adult to tell that child "Its okay to be angry just do it in a healthy matter" I can guarantee a counselor, preacher, so forth would tell them different response. I know I have seen it, a counselor wants to give more and more medicine. A preacher wants you to just forgive, when that child can't possible forgive without first knowing it isn't their fault what happened. To know they can be pissed at the world and it is okay. To get their feelings out.
A counselor is there for their shift, not 24/7. I am there any time they need me. Was a big reason why I went to cell phone instead of land line. When I say 24/7 I mean 24/7. I was laying in a hospital one time my cell rang and Eric answered it. He started explaining how I was in the hospital and couldn't talk. I got angry and told him to hand me it. Yes there has been times I just couldn't talk I was to sick.
I know that one got a little off track but I just wanted to bring out I talk to many and honestly I really don't think I could do this without my past.
It is very TRUE that our past shapes us for our FUTURE. ALL of our experiences and challenges in life are meant to strengthen us, shape us for betterment, and lead us to HIGHER ways of living. That includes how we respond, ACT, speak, RELATE, and "feel" about ourselves.
FORGIVENESSrequires a lot more than just the word. There is a "healing" and "understanding" element to "forgiveness".
It is GOOD that you are able to relay your "gift" of "HELP" to others.
This is a very interesting conversation. I like this post. Thank you.
Oh I gues now no one can say anything negative about Michael Jackson on this site. Like with Obama, during the election, you will be mobbed by the loons.
Guess not Terry because now I am a sinner for voicing my opinion.
"You're a sinner for voicing your opinion"?--Oh, did GOD call ? If not, I wouldn't take anyone else's word for it.
people can't make rocks, trees, hills, sunsets--that was God's job. But on 'sending folks to hell' and judging them as sinners, etc ( which is also God's job---) people volunteer for that duty all the time. Until they can make a sunset, I wouldn't trust them to properly judge us either.////
Thank you Lonnie. I truely believe people didn't read this article as they should of. This was meant to be an educational piece even though I believe what I do regarding him. If I would of added someone else's name in this piece it would of been looked at differently.
Again thank you my friend.
I read it Renee. And, what you shared with us in your Article was very educational. I'm glad that you wrote this Article.
However, with regard to the comments, people have a right to their opinions (Terry). And, most people are very careful about assassinating someone's reputation and character on a bunch of hearsay. I know you would hate for someone to do that to you.
We cannot know if Michael was a pedophile. Yes, you have a list of things that show someone MIGHT be one, but it was never proven that Jackson did anything wrong. Personally, I think he was both an injured soul and one with an innocense that did not allow him to see what others did - that something he was doing might be inappropriate. I think he cared deeply about children, but not in the sense of wanting them as sex objects.
Neither one of us will ever know for sure. You can believe what you do and I can believe differently.
And, since Michael is no longer with us in this world, his (and our) Maker will be the one to decide if he did anything wrong.
I listed the characteristics of a pedophile as well as other definitions in this article. I as well pointed out how he had those characteristics and events that has happened. This was to be an educational piece that people has blown all up because I mentioned a pop star. I again say if I mentioned someone else this would of been talked about differently. It has been proven in my past articles. I have had individuals say one thing here and yet I wrote an article on a pedophile in another article and that one needed castrated.
You are correct you believe one way I believe another. I don't see him as caring deeply for children by his actions. That is my opinion as I have a right to as you do or anyone else does.
Again this article was meant for educational and I really don't think many read the educational part of it.
One final thing even in the subject line I put was Michael Jackson? Never did I say is Michael Jackson. I left it up for all to voice opinion on their own.
Renee ~ It really wouldn't matter who you were speaking of in relation to "accusations". Accusations are just that -- "accusations".
People who have been accused wrongfully of anything will quickly recognize the necessity of FACT over FICTION.
They will also RECOGNIZE how hurtful it is to be accused of something that you have not done by people who weren't there, and don't know -- only assume.
BIASES are a MONSTER.
Good Discussion!
I as well understand what it is like to be falsely accused. I as well as some close individuals has been falsely accused. It all happens when people and they system don't look at the evidence either for or against and act on it.
Okay, Renee, knowing that, and taking what you just said . . .
Just tell us ~ are you saying point blank that Michael Jackson is in some way "guilty", and WHY? On what basis? On what FACTS?
What about the parents involved in the cases . . . are they "guilty" too? ~ or not? ~ and why not? . . . if you think that they are "not guilty".
I truly don't know. I won't even begin to assume anything, because I wasn't there, I don't know them (personally), I don't have the EVIDENCE before me, and I did not look deep into their EYES.
One thing is certain -- PARENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CHILDREN, and will be held accountable.
My opinion he is guilty. Why? Look at the characteristics of a pedophile. I am not talking about his kids or his parents. Although I feel his father was abusive.
Will parents be responsible?
Call my parents tonight one held a knife to me, one called me every cuss word under the sun, on chocked me, do I need to go on? So they are responsible?
Yes ~ your parents, as well as everyone else's parents are responsible for protecting their "children". Parents are responsible for keeping their children out of harm's way.
If you are a parent, you do not allow your children to spend the night at a grown man's house (whether he is a superstar or not).
In fact, as a parent, I wouldn't let my "children" spend the night at any body's house. Call me overly protective.
Looking at the characteristics of a pedophile does not make him "guilty". I'm going back up on the elevator to bring the characteristics down here . . .
Okay ~ I'm back down here with the characteristics that you've provided us with Renee:
The characteristics of a pedophile are...
Are often, but not always, themselves victims of some form of childhood sexual abuse.
A pedophile can act independently, or be involved in an organized ring, including the Internet, NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association), and other pro-pedophilia groups.
Renee ~ Some of the top few characteristics can fit a lot of people who are not guilty of pedophilia.
Pedophilia ~ is a very sick and twisted mind~set.
Proving that a person is "guilty" of pedophilia is a lot different from assumptions, accusations, and opinions.
I'm not in this area of the law, so I don't know the statistics on how many pedophiles have been wrongfully convicted, RIGHTFULLY CONVICTED, and/or otherwise on the loose without ever being tried. It would be interesting to know.
Again I never said they was actually guilty just because of the characteristics. I have other situations regarding Michael that makes me feel he is abusive period. Someone told me to just ask his kids. hmm just ask me when I was younger about my parents. Anyone remember the statement " a child learns by actions" When they grow up in this situation they don't know that it is wrong. A person needs to be aware of characteristics of all kinds of abuse. They need to know that the possibility is there.
I don't think the statistics is even possible on wrongly convicted. I think several of these will never come out that they was wrongly convicted. No more then the ones out there that should of been convicted and never has been. It would be interesting to find out.
"I have other situations regarding Michael that makes me feel he is abusive period." ~ Renee
What are those other situations?
Only God, MJ, and the child /Children really know for sure and if he did I'm sure he's paying for it now in death....
I honestly don't think he did it. I think he loved those children innocently like he wanted to be loved as a child. He did act odd. It was more pronounced because he was such a high profile person. The truth is that we will never know and now it's between him and God.
It was a mistake for him to hang his baby of the railing of a porch, and it could have resulted in a terrible tragedy, but it is in the past. The children seem to love their father and feel truly lost now that he is gone. Now that he is gone, they are what matters the most. Their welfare and well-being need to be addressed continually so that they may get through this horrible time with the least amount of difficulties. God bless them.
A mistake? If the child would of slipped from his hands and died would it of been a mistake?
One thing I want to point out and I am not saying this towards judging him but anyone. I am an abused child and I still love my parents, seems odd I know. But I would still love to have a parent like many have. As a child I would of never said anything negative about my parents. Hard for some to understand especially when they haven't been in the shoes of an abused child.
Renee ~ on this . . .
"A mistake? If the child would of slipped from his hands and died would it of been a mistake?" ~ Renee
It did not happen. Let's not worry about it.
On the last part of what you said, it is understandable for children who have been abused to still LOVE their parents. The spiritual dynamics of which are an entirely different discussion.
I didn't say it was understandable I love my parents but what they did is not understandable
That's what I meant Renee.
Since I don't know all the information about the accusations against MJ, I will decline to assume either way. But there are some things I think about him... if he was child molester he definitely wasn't the prototypical one. He seems more like someone who never became an adult themself. He seems to have been attracted more to the idea of being a child than anything else. I mean Neverland Ranch? That's not what a middle-aged man would come up with. But it is understandable to have that kind of psyche having had your own child twisted by abuse and growing up famous. Not that that makes sexual abuse excusable if he did it. But the impression I have of him is more of a lost, messed up person who didn't know how to behave appropriately. That's different than a creepy, malicious guy. So I think it's important to note that there are different degrees here.
And I don't know about that mother... I remember seeing her in interviews a few years back and she was openly talking about how the children were only ever meant to be Michael's children, not hers. She, frankly, seemed as nuts as him. She did marry him after all. But I don't think they ever even cohabitated. In any case, just because she is their biological mother is no reason to automatically assume she is the best place for them.