InvincibleMJ
Proud Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2007
- Messages
- 2,760
- Points
- 48
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
I agree with you completely. Clemente's points are all over the place, just like the actual claims. Sneddon and the likes of him were\are all over the place. It looks like nobody gave the psycology of things a thought. They give him the "pedophile" title but never go into essential details. What kind of pedophile? Who are his victims? preteens or teens? How come he doesn't have hundreds of victims considering he had access to thousands of children? What's his modus operandi? I think a pedophilia expert could have been disastrous for the prosecution.
I think Clemente throws the "preferential" term a lot also because to laymen it sounds like a person who would wait for "the one" for years when it's quite the contrary - they have just as many victims as the situational offenders, if not more.
Now what I find alarming is how, by the look of it, Clemente doesn't realize profiling is a tool and not a solid proof. He's doing to worst thing a profiler can do, which is to take a person and make him fit the profile, leaving the essential things that don't fit out of the story so the profile would work. And this is a guy who works for the FBI.
Clemente read his textbooks in school and is trying hard to find a category to fit MJ into but he fails. He called MJ a "preferential child molester" in one of his posts. That's a textbook expression. According to such textbooks there are two types of molesters. One is the situational molester:
I think even most of his haters realize that MJ was not an aggressive person so it would be harder to make the world believe in this version.
The other is the preferential molester:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/pedophiles/2.html
As you can see this does not fit either, because preferential molesters are the type of molesters who have many, often several hundres of victims. I guess this is why Clemente in his posts sneakily tries to boost the number of MJ's supposed victims. He always says how "MJ fell in love with dozens of boys". Even with Wade and James the number of his alleged victims would be too small for a so called preferential child molester and that's why the likes of Clemente have to cling on claiming more victims than there are accusers. That is why haters are so desperate in trying to convince people like Brett Barnes or Corey Feldman to turn on MJ. They love to base their whole case on armchair psychology but they surely realize that for MJ to really fit into the "preferential child molester" profile he should have a lot more alleged victims, at least dozens if not hundreds.
I guess Clemente would emphasize the parts about buying gifts as what makes MJ fit the profile, but picking out small elements like that while ignoring the rest is ridiculous. If buying gifts and being generous is alone considered as a proof of child molestation than this world is doomed. MJ was generous with everyone - not only children, but his adult friends as well. He gave gifts to everyone all the time. Katherine said once that he was like that from an early childhood - always giving to others. And BTW people like Lousie Palanker gave Gavin more than MJ - so is she a preferential child molester as well?
What Clemente does is the opposite of what he should be doing as an expert if he was a good and unbiased one. He takes a profile where he sees at least some minor element as "fitting" (eg. buying gifts) and does not care if the rest doesn't fit at all, but rather he will try to twist MJ's image so that he could make him "fit". He's throwing around false information with no evidence at all, such as "MJ fell in love with dozens of boys". Absolutely unprofessional! Those of his followers who do not know much about these cases and are easily impressed by Clemente's credentials may buy into such tactics out of ignorance about the cases, but people who know the cases will not.
It's also funny when he says that he's been convinced because the grooming and the victimization process have been so similar in the 1993 and 2003 cases. In fact none of these 5 cases against MJ are similar. Yes, they take some headline stuff like wine, porn etc. to try to make it seem like earlier allegations, but when you dig deeper then you will see that this would be an absolutely patternless "molester". One kid says he started to molest him at 13-14, the other says that's when he lost interest. One kid claims mild acts, the other claims anal rape. One kid claims a lengthy "grooming" process, the other claims he's been molested on the first night. Etc. etc. So when an expert bases his expert opinion on claims which are not even true and even deliberately twists info for his agenda then that of course heavily compromises his credibility.
I agree with you completely. Clemente's points are all over the place, just like the actual claims. Sneddon and the likes of him were\are all over the place. It looks like nobody gave the psycology of things a thought. They give him the "pedophile" title but never go into essential details. What kind of pedophile? Who are his victims? preteens or teens? How come he doesn't have hundreds of victims considering he had access to thousands of children? What's his modus operandi? I think a pedophilia expert could have been disastrous for the prosecution.
I think Clemente throws the "preferential" term a lot also because to laymen it sounds like a person who would wait for "the one" for years when it's quite the contrary - they have just as many victims as the situational offenders, if not more.
Now what I find alarming is how, by the look of it, Clemente doesn't realize profiling is a tool and not a solid proof. He's doing to worst thing a profiler can do, which is to take a person and make him fit the profile, leaving the essential things that don't fit out of the story so the profile would work. And this is a guy who works for the FBI.