Thursday, June 15, 2017

US Dep. Marshal Michael Rivera Sentenced



As the trial of Bill Cosby awaits a verdict, it is a good reminder for Sex Crimes units to have training specific to sexual abuse victims.  

In some cases of adult victims of childhood sexual abuse, the language can mirror deception due to the powerful disassociation that can take place.  

In the Cosby case, some of his victims have been analyzed here.  

See Barbara Bowman's statement here for more understanding into the language of victims.  



AP:  Michael Rivera, 30, was convicted in February of misdemeanors that included surreptitious intrusion and creating and attempting to create sexually expressive images. He was found not guilty of more serious felony charges.
Rivera was sentenced to three years  and ordered to get sex offender treatment while in prison.

He spoke out on his own behalf.

Does he take responsibility for his actions?

This has been a theme of late.  

The words we state are not reality, but a verbalized perception of reality.  

Someone can take responsibility for his own actions, while another can state that he is taking responsibility for his own actions.  

His words are important and reveal a commonly used technique within human nature:  


“I violated a norm of our society, but I am not that same person. I understand there may be people here who have ill feelings towards me, but above all, I ask for the forgiveness of the victims. I am not the same person that I was.”


Investigators allege Rivera secretly recorded girls and young women as they tried on clothes in dressing rooms from the summer of 2015 to 2016. He was caught peeping on a 15-year-old girl, who saw his phone peering beneath her fitting room door at a Target store.

Authorities who searched his computer and electronic devices determined he took similar actions at several other Bismarck stores. He was sentenced in May in federal court to seven years in prison on child pornography charges, and he’ll serve the federal sentence first.

Two young women who were peeped on said at the hearing that they now often feel uncomfortable when a man is looking at them and fear going into dressing rooms.

I don’t know how to go into a dressing room again without feeling violated,” one of the minor victims said.

The girls said they felt cheated because Rivera was acquitted on 11 felony counts that corresponded to his recording of minors.


“I violated a norm of our society, but I am not that same person. I understand there may be people here who have ill feelings towards me, but above all, I ask for the forgiveness of the victims. I am not the same person that I was.”

The claim of being a different person has now become popular in our society, even to the point of over riding truth.  The girls who felt cheated may have felt further negative emotion when hearing him tell them that it was not him but a different person.  

The identification is based upon one's own testimony.  This, itself, has turned the world of psych evaluations upside down, as a psychological diagnosis was generally based upon  more than  self reporting.  

Consider the context of the statement, including child pornography. 

Child pornography is evidence of crimes already committed. 

                  Child Pornography and Voyeurism 

The subject gains sexual gratification from seeing children sexually abused. 

The subject gains sexual gratification from exploiting girls and women, in secret. 

Note the impact upon the children is acute and difficult to quantify. 

What shows up in the language of an adult who was victimized in childhood?

What might they experience?

There is a pattern. 

The child may or may not show outward signs.  Child protective caseworkers are generally highly trained in conducting legally sound interviewing.  

Male and Female victims generally react differently and the language reflects this reality.  

 Some do not show significant outwards signs until adolescence.  This is often a precarious time where the victim embarks upon a pattern of  self destruction.  It is of no assistance when popular media, including music, uses sexually explicit lyrics, often degrading to females in general, that the victim is exposed to during adolescence, when music has a particularly strong impact.    Promiscuity, substance abuse, self harm, and suicide may suddenly arise and seemingly without warning. 

Those who survive this period often show signs of recovery including going to college and working successfully in a career. 

The second period of possible crisis is when the adult female victim has a child.  The language often reflects a hyper-vigilance than can be a hinderance to the child's own growth as mother becomes over protective.  


Then there is a third period of crisis that often occurs when the victim's natural hormonal health begins to decline, including at menopause.  This, too, is reflected in the language where we often see descriptive words that suggest depression, including "tired" as well as reactions to such things as holidays suddenly triggering new and surprising emotions.  

The natural strength and vigor of youth appears to be outrun by the abuse.    

The subject, sometimes in her 40's, may refer to herself while growing up (in recall) as a "child" which such statements as,

"When I was a child, I learned..."  This is especially note worthy in statements that appear unnecessary, such as, "when I was growing up, I learned..."

 Some use this word where "little girl" or "kid", or even "while growing up" is used.  Once explored for possible abuse, there is about an 80% likelihood of the abuse being sexual.  

The term comes from common use of "child molester" and "child pornography" as we don't say "kid molester" and "kid pornography."

The impact of the abuse also often surfaces later in life with compromised immune systems, where the victim struggles to overcome illnesses.  The often decried "chronic fatigue syndrome", (which changes names and descriptions,) is used when doctors do not find anything wrong in the general testing.  This further isolates the victim. 


Michael Rivera used distancing language in the most complete way. 

It was not him.  

It was a different person. 

This is no comfort to victims and recidivism is likely.  

He sought to please himself at the expense of others, including children as well as the victims of his voyerism.  At its core, selfishness is his priority.  

This is why he added about others having negative feelings towards him. 

He asked for forgiveness.  

But look at his statement again:


“I violated a norm of our society, but I am not that same person. I understand there may be people here who have ill feelings towards me, but above all, I ask for the forgiveness of the victims. I am not the same person that I was.”


He expresses concern, but not for his victims, but for himself.  He used his statement to acknowledge people have negative feelings towards...him.  

He asks for forgiveness, but offers no empathy for those he harmed.  

Yet, why should he ask for forgiveness?

The other person is the one who should be asking.  His repetition of the same shows that at his core, his concern is for him and him only.  

His sexual gratification came at the expense and even deadly cost, to his victims. 

Human sexuality was designed for the procreation of mankind, but done in a mutually complementary manner, both giving and receiving pleasure.  

The perversion of such is to take and then to immediately and completely distance himself from it.  It is to take, and be unconcerned about the consequences to others. 

Consider how victims would feel when they hear him say, "it wasn't me."  

To become unnaturally sexually aroused, it is very likely that Rivera was abused in childhood.  

Yet, he had a choice whether to act upon it, or not; he was not under compulsion.  

This is why, particularly in past cultures, general self discipline was a priority for parents to instill within their children.  The ability to deny oneself, even in small ways, becomes a personality trait later in life.  Even seemingly arbitrary ways, teaching a child personal control, whether in sports, or eating habits, or any other way, strengthens the ability to control oneself later in life.  

Those who demand and receive instant gratification in childhood will struggle to turn this pattern around in life.  

Should that demand for gratification be illicit, within itself, it will pose a danger to society.  




15 comments:

Anonymous said...

"I violated a norm of society" —> Not my norm.
Society —> A network of arbitrary & complex rules...who can follow them all?
"A norm" —> Just one out of a vast array, so chill.

Michele said...

"I violated a norm of society" - not "I committed a crime" but violated a norm. He's reducing what he did to a norm, making it even less important because it's not a "crime".

Anonymous said...

Is it significant that he asks for forgiveness "of" the victims, as opposed to forgiveness "from" the victim?

Trigger said...

"I violated a norm of society"

He is not addressing his actions or crimes against children. He is minimizing.

He should have said, "I violated a child for my own sexual gratification. It proves that I am a sexual predator."

This guy shows no compassion or remorse for his victims.

He asks for forgiveness for what? Violating a norm of society? Breaking laws?

This guy needs serious therapy for his sexual addictions. He is cunning and deceptive.







Anonymous said...

He referrered to them as victims, which is for our benefit as society however for him he's done nothing wrong and nothing aberrant. Child sex offenders know what they're doing is illegal, but to them it isn't wrong. "Wrong" and "illegal" mean two different things to them. In their minds what they're doing isn't abuse; only sick monsters abuse children (or peep in on girls in the dressing room).

LC said...

He is asking for the forgiveness -OF- the victims, not From them.
Is he somehow disassociating himself or absolving his responsibility?

tania cadogan said...

I ask for the forgiveness of the victims
Could this be read as he wants the victims to be forgiven?

The victims made the complaints against him, testified against him resulting in the guilty verdict.
Does he want them to be forgiven for pressing charges and testifying against him resulting in him doing jail time, the loss of his character and good name, perhaps even him having to pay finacuial recompense etc?

As LC pointed out, he doesn't ask for forgiveness from the victims or by the victims.

Anonymous said...

He knows in the eyes of society he's done something for which he should ask for forgiveness. But for he himself, these girls were a simple means to satisfy his sexual urges so he owes them nothing. They're objects to him, not people deserving of dignity or respect. He "understands" some people will have anger towards him for violating a "norm" of society (which is patronizing language and shows how little regard he holds towards others). But their "forgiveness" has no bearing on his own selfish view of his right to satisfy desires. He dismisses everything public about this and the the reactions of the public as essentially not his problem. It's our problem.

Bobcat said...

Whatever time he serves separated from society will not be enough. He will harm others.

Bobcat said...

Anon @ 4:33

You're right. It is our problem.

Trigger said...

"I am not the same person that I was"

Still no acknowledgement of the hurt and pain he caused these children. This guy's focus is all about his "feelings" and how he wants to convince others to see him as a different "person." His image is important to him, not his victims.

Ode said...

I violated a norm of our society, but I am not that same person. I understand there may be people here who have ill feelings towards me, but above all, I ask for the forgiveness of the victims. I am not the same person that I was.”

Follow the pronouns

I violated " a norm " of OUR society, but I am not the same person.

I of our society. I understand.
He comes from a society that this violation isn't a violation,
His behavior is norm. He within the trade of CP? he with connections.

He isn't on the stand for touch, for physical rape, his 11 counts
electronic intrusion, voyeurism

But I am not the same person. His retrospect: I am not a sex offender
His deeds do not justify a punishment from this jury.

He does not say, I am not the same person as I was then. Not at first.
His brain works on comparison, tit for tat, he adds as then in the end.

He his mind, his deeds, charges, is the least of sex offenders
could haves to a innocent kid/s, woman, man.

My gut tells me he has done much more to minors, then these charges.

His counterpunch to his victims, BUT I am not a sex offender.

His arrogance is mocking the lives he destroyed then and now.

It's everywhere today, no longer hidden, the agenda is full of participants.
The slow baste of our nation, to legalize pedofilia.

The all boundaries are omitted, ageless, sexless, genderless, fractured personalities push is the foundation of the legalization of exploitation of children globally.

Bobcat said...

OT: Danny Gratton's comments regarding final interactions with Otto Warmbier.

Otto Warmbier's roommate in North Korea describes the day Warmbier was arrested

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/no-words-were-spoken-otto-033235795.html

Gratton, a sales manager from England, spent four days in North Korea with Warmbier, according to a Thursday Washington Post article. During that time, Gratton said, the two bonded over drinks.

"Otto was just a really great lad who fell into the most horrendous situation that no one could ever believe," Gratton told The Post. "It's just something I think in the Western world we just can't understand, we just can't grasp, the evilness behind that dictatorship."

Warmbier was accused of entering a staff-only section of his hotel during the second night of his stay and removing a propaganda poster from a wall. North Korean officials said they had footage of the incident, and during an emotional court hearing Warmbier eventually confessed to stealing the poster. He was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

"I've got nothing from my experiences with him that would suggest he would do something like that," Gratton said, rebutting Pyongyang's allegations. "At no stage did I ever think he was anything but a very, very polite kid."

When the two attempted to get through an immigration officer at the Pyongyang International Airport on January 2, 2016, two North Korean officials reportedly took Warmbier. At the time, Gratton believed it was merely a routine procedure or a tactic designed to intimidate an American; however, he told The Post it ended up being "the last physical time I saw Otto, ever."

"No words were spoken," Gratton said. "Two guards just come over and simply tapped Otto on the shoulder and led him away. I just said kind of quite nervously, 'Well, that's the last we'll see of you.' There's a great irony in those words."

"Otto didn't resist," Gratton continued. "He didn't look scared. He sort of half-smiled."

Though Gratton expressed doubts on Warmbier's charges, he maintained that even if Warmbier had intended to steal the propaganda banner, the ramifications for the act was disproportional.

"No one deserves that. He was just a young lad who wanted a bit of adventure," Gratton said. "Every once in a while they single out someone to make a point, and this was just Otto's turn. It's so sick and warped and unnecessary and evil."

Anonymous said...

http://www.neonnettle.com/news/2293-dying-mi5-agent-admits-to-killing-princess-diana-in-deathbed-confession

Dying Mi5 Agent Admits to Killing Princess Diana in Deathbed Confession

Read more at: http://www.neonnettle.com/news/2293-dying-mi5-agent-admits-to-killing-princess-diana-in-deathbed-confession
© Neon Nettle

tania cadogan said...

"The Royal Family had evidence that she was planning to divorce Charles." "She knew too many Royal secrets. She had a huge grudge and she was going to go public with all sorts of wild claims." "My boss told me she had to die – he’d received orders directly from Prince Philip – and we had to make it look like an accident." "I’d never killed a woman before, much less a princess, but I obeyed orders. I did it for Queen and country."

Except that they were already divorced,, she had already done a major interview blasting and damning the royal family thus the 'damage' was already done.

Given his alleged claims why did they simply not give her an overdose since she had already tired suicide and was mentally unstable, a more certain way than a car crash which, given the vehicle and security would not guarantee success and that she only died due to not wearing a seatbelt just as the driver and dodi died, her bodyguard who did wear a seatbelt survived.

Had she worn one she would in all likelihood have survived.

Is there proof he was indeed an Mi5 agent and he did what he claimed?