Freaks, Fans, Fury and Fallibility

It's been a few weeks now since the jury in the case of State of California vs Michael Jackson found the accused not guilty on all counts. It caused something of an uproar in America - in equal parts, unrestrained joy and scandalised outrage. And then there were those were cautiously pleased with the verdicts. Regardless of what they were personally inclined to believe about MJ, they assessed that the prosecution had not presented a case proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If Americans are to continue to have faith in their legal system, "Not Guilty" was pretty much the only verdict that would be acceptable. The due process of law must be respected, even if it sometimes appears to fly in the face of what is emotionally felt to be "justice". I have watched enough of "The Practice" to understand this sentiment, and to ultimately, sympathise with it. (I know, it's sad to take instruction from a TV series, especially one which got unwatchable towards the end; but for a couple of seasons, the show made a few pretty good points about access to justice).

For myself, this case is interesting from so many perspectives, perhaps underlying the inherent pruriency in each of us.

Michael Jackson - wacko or sly? Watching his interviews, you know at once that Michael Jackson is undoubtedly not like most people. Of course, his lifestyle (and fame and fortune) alone is unlike most people's. But where he really differs from you and me is in his mind. I don't know enough to say that he is crazy or deranged, but the man clearly is odd. I don't think he realises how strange much of his behaviour seems to the rest of the world (the Bubbles thing, dangling his baby from the balcony, buying the remains of the Elephant Man, the horrific painting of himself surrounded by boy cherubs). And yet, there is a certain shiftiness about him when he talks about his facial surgeries (or as he claims, his lack of surgery), his relationship with Debbie Rowe and the origin of his children. It was almost like he was cultivating a deliberately obtuse demeanour that we were SUPPOSED to see through. Perhaps he knows he is seen as strange and doesn't understand why, but is willing to play along with it as part of being Michael Jackson, being strange in ways that are understandable to him. If he ever allows himself to receive therapy, the medical records should make for great reading some day in the future, when the patient confidentiality period has lapsed.

Michael Jackson - pedophile? In its purest, original form, the term "pedophilia" is Greek for "lover of children". "Love" here is taken in a romantic/erotic context. The term pedophile has become pathologised as pedophilia is treated in the DSM as a mental illness. Even certain dictionaries define a pedophile as one who engages in sexual activities with children. But its literal meaning has nothing to do with the actual act of sex, so we can talk about MJ being a pedophile without saying that he has had sexual contact with children. It appears obvious that he IS a pedophile, in that he loves children (technicallly, only boys) romantically. Even unbiased commentators (for instance, J Randy Taborelli who wrote The Magic and The Madness, a respectful biography of Jackson) report MJ's behaviour around Jordan Chandler in the early days as that of a man in love. He cried when Chandler's mother blocked access to the boy, became desperate and begged to see him. He wanted to be the the boy constantly. There were other boys before and after Jordan Chandler, MJ's "special friends" who followed him on tour, attended functions with him and were seen holding hands with him as they posed for the press. But Jordan Chandler might well have been the love of his life. The upshot is this - Michael Jackson becomes infatuated and falls in love with young boys (and often of a certain type - exotic features, olive skinned and handsome), so yes, he is a lover of boys - hence a pedophile.

Michael Jackson - child molester? Has he acted on this love he has for boys? The evidence we have is simply not enough for an outright "yes" or "no". I have read the graphic allegations made by Jordan Chandler on The Smoking Gun; they do seem convincing, but I wouldn't put money on it myself. The recently concluded case surfaced more graphic details (appealing to the prurient in us all, no doubt). Again, the problem is that these are words that require us to "believe", and we only ever need to believe when we cannot KNOW. I happen to believe that he has molested at least one boy at some time, but I do not know it. Do I believe beyond a reasonable doubt? That's another matter altogether. I did not follow the case closely enough, so I can only say that my belief might not be founded on all available evidence.

What was really going on with the jury? In post verdict interviews, a few of the jurors seemed to have based their "reasonable doubt" on the fact that the accuser's mother had come across as unreliable and a bit of a nutcase. I suppose one has to credit the defence for deflecting the burden of proof from the boy onto the mother, who is far less sympathetic. But did the jury acquit because they did not believe the mother, or because they simply did not like her? We are all human, and we allow our feelings towards other people to cloud our judgement of what they do and say. Staying objective is difficult, but necessary. I just wonder if the jury managed it.

Not guilty by reason of celebrity? One has to admit that a few of the jurors appeared rather star-struck. One juror attended the post-verdict celebration party thrown by the Jackson family, which does seem rather inappropriate. Might this have influenced their decision? First OJ Simpson, now Michael Jackson. Does celebrity bring with it an inbuilt defence? I think any juror would be affected by the fact that the defendant is a celebrity - it might make them more anxious to be neither overly-critical nor overly-lenient. When the defendant is well-known, he cannot get a "jury of his peers" because his celebrity is a factor which affects their perception of him, and of the case. An unknown man accused of the identical crime as Michael Jackson would not have been regarded in the same way by the jurors - and might not have received the same verdict.

The true-believing fans - deluded or convinced? Apparently, there was a group of loyal Jackson fans that came from all over the world and camped outside the court house for the duration of the trial. I am endlessly fascinated by the psychology of fandom. Do they believe in his innocence because they are such great fans of him as a musician? I imagine it must be difficult to reconcile the creative output of the musician that touches their soul with the criminal acts he was accused of. Or are these staunch believers of his innocence also fans of the person (or at least the persona of benevolent do-gooder and child-saver that was Jackson's public face before the weirdness crowded out everything else)? For me personally, one can be a fan of an artiste's output, without necessarily believing him to be beyond all reproach. Richard Wagner was a known anti-Semite and I "hate" him for that, but every time I listen to Tristan and Isolde or the great love duet in Sigfried, my breath is taken away anew and I am again humbled by Wagner's genious. I don't know if I might feel differently if he was a child molester, as there are boundaries and deal-breakers for us all. Are these Jackson fans clinging to his innocence because the allegations are so unthinkable?

Public outrage - reasoned or over-reacting? Outside of the Jackson fansites which are of course numerous, public response on the Internet seems to be predominantly one of disbelief and outrage. Some were upset because they work with or have experience with child abuse victims - the verdict seemed a blow against what they obviously feel strongly about. Yet they seemed to have taken these less personally and reacted more mildly than others. Many people, or at least those who are vocal on the Internet, believe with an absolute certainty that he is guilty and has gotten away with his crimes on the strength of his celebrity and the imputed stupidity of the jury. In the first flush of their fury, strong words were being bandied about and some even wished fates much worse than death on Jackson and the jury. The die-hard believing Jackson fans were termed "floons" (as in F Loons, no prizes for guessing what the F stands for). A herd mentality also began to take root, resulting in tendency to believe every scrap of negative gossip and conjecture about Jackson. There was something unmeasured about much of this. The beast of public opinion is a strange one; it seemed to me that the communal activity of posting on an Internet message board seems to have enabled and fueled their fury, even more than the verdict itself.

Michael Jackson - What next? Who knows? I hope he gets help. Even those closest to him have acknowledged that he didn't have a normal childhood, that he was never allowed to grow up with a view of the world that in any way resembles the views of others. He has likely jeopardised his already fragile musical legacy, but that seems inconsequential now given the many lifes in disarray because of this case, the accuser and his family chief among them. They are so young, with so many years ahead of them and will forever have this high-profile event in their past. Jordan Chandler received millions as part of the out of court settlement 12 years ago; but has lived as a recluse and will probably never have true anonimity. Perhaps most disturbingly for me, Jackson has children that might be growing up in an environment even less conducive than the one he had as a child. If nothing can be done for Michael Jackson anymore, can something not be done for them? When the freak-show ends and we lose interest in the shocking, lurid details of his weirdness, there are still lives other than his to be lived.