Tom Mesereau Educated and Analyzed

“If Michael was a pedophile, he was a loving pedophile.” As Mesereau is listening to these comments he slightly nods his head in the affirmative.
220px-Tom_Mesereau_LF2

Recently we saw some excellent work by Jim Clemente on an episode of The Lip TV. Just to give some background, Jim Clemente’s qualifications include, but are not limited to:

FBI Supervisory Special Agent with 22 years of Criminal Investigations experience;
FBI trained Profiler with 12 years of casework, research and instructional experience;
Expert Witness in Sex Crimes Investigations and Behavioral Analysis; and
Adjunct Professor: University Of Virginia.

He has vast experience with child sex offenders and and is in a position to debunk all those myths about child molesters. In fact, he spends a tremendous amount of time educating the public about seemingly nice guys who are actually child predators. So when Tom Mesereau, Michael Jackson’s attorney in the 2005 child molestation trial, appeared on Jim’s show and started to give his stock reasons why he believed Jackson to be innocent Jim quickly stepped in and explained why those reasons weren’t valid. See the video below.

We now also have an interesting statement analysis of Tom Mesereau’s appearance from renowned analyzer Mark McClish. What is statement analysis? It is looking for clues as to the real meaning behind what people say by reviewing the words they use, the order they use them in as well as some body language reading. First, a bit of background on Mark:

Mark McClish was a federal law enforcement officer for 26 years. He started his law enforcement career in 1983 with the U.S. Secret Service Uniformed Division. During the two years he was with the Secret Service he was assigned to the White House. His main duties were protecting the White House complex. He would also on occasion provide protection for President Reagan when the President traveled.

In 1985, he was hired by the U.S. Marshals Service and served as a Deputy U.S. Marshal in Springfield, IL. This change allowed him to focus more on investigations and less on protection. He worked numerous federal fugitive cases and assisted local law enforcement in apprehending state fugitives. He also worked on a “Warrant Apprehension Narcotic’s Team” which was a national drug task force.

In 1990, Mark was promoted to the position of Inspector/Instructor at the U.S. Marshals Service Training Academy located at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, GA. He taught at the Training Academy for nine years serving as the lead instructor on interviewing techniques. He used this time to study deceptive statements and conduct research on deception. Based on his findings, he created the Statement Analysis techniques for detecting deception in a verbal and written statement. While assigned to the Training Academy Mark was also the lead defensive tactics instructor for the Marshals Service.

Mark left the Training Academy in 1999 and took a position as a Supervisory Deputy U.S. Marshal in Greenville, NC. He supervised four offices located in Eastern NC. He also spoke at law enforcement conferences and conducted Statement Analysis seminars on behalf of the Marshals Service.

Mark retired from the Marshals Service in 2009 and started Advanced Interviewing Concepts. His company provides interviewing skills training and assists investigators in analyzing statements. Mark currently gives presentations and seminars on Statement Analysis throughout the U.S. He has spoken at numerous conferences and has trained a variety of law enforcement agencies and military organizations. He is the author of the books I Know You Are Lying and Don’t Be Deceived. He also developed the Statement Analyzer which is software that will analyze a statement for deception.

As you can see, Mark has a lot of experience in the field. If you have ever checked out our links page, you might have come across the in-depth statement analyses that Mark has done of several of Jackson’s interviews and videos. It makes for fascinating reading.

Mark has studied the above video featuring Tom Mesereau closely and this is his analysis:

Mesereau was in the attorney mode. He gave all his answers from an attorney’s point of view. He never once said, “I don’t think Michael molested those boys.” Instead, he would say things like,

– “He was found not guilty on every single felony count and every single misdemeanor count .”
– The jury “exonerated him.”
– “A 13-year-old will lie much more than a 5-year-old.”
– “This guy was innocent.”
– Witnesses were “adamant that no improper behavior ever went on.”

All of these are true statements. However, they do not speak for what Mesereau believes.

The closest he came to saying he did not think Michael did it was in the following Q&A.

Q. “I would never want to try to get you to say that Michael Jackson was guilty or a bad person.”
A. “He was a wonderful person and he was completely innocent of these horrible allegations.”

This is the perfect opportunity for Mesereau to say, “I would never say either because he was a wonderful person and he did not do this.” However, he stuck to the legal term “innocent.” We know he is innocent because the jury found him not guilty.

Notice the order things are mentioned. The host first mentions Jackson being guilty then secondly mentions him being a bad person. This is because the molestation allegations are the big issue not whether Jackson was a good person. Therefore, the host mentions the allegations first. Mesereau reverses the order and first talks about Jackson being a good person. If he believed that Jackson did not molest these boys, we would expect him to mention that first.

Lastly, the host talks about the difference in some pedophiles. He states, “If Michael was a pedophile, he was a loving pedophile.” As Mesereau is listening to these comments he slightly nods his head in the affirmative. His body language indicates he is agreeing with the host!

Interesting stuff, wouldn’t you agree? While we can’t be sure whether Mesereau agrees consciously or unconsciously, you can be sure that one day his opinion will change.

Thank you to Mark McClish from Statement Analysis® 

Check out  The Evidence Keeps Adding Up