|
|
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
|
|
SYMPATHY FOR MICHAEL
I'm about to do the ballsiest thing I've ever done on this blog and I've done shit that's cost me my job. I'm about to defend Michael Jackson. And I intend to do it in a serious way. I also have no intention of arguing Jackson's guilt or innocence in the follow paragraphs, I'll just say that I'm sure that something is up at Neverland. That Michael Jackson is psychotic and has been for decades is beyond dispute.
This is all, of course, beside the point. The law, ideally, is based on certain precepts. Presumption of innocence. Equal protection. The right to face an accuser. Neat stuff like that. I'm sure everyone has heard of those before. I'm equally sure that everyone will forget them the second that this freak show hits the courts. As I write this paragraph, Jackson is expected to surrender at the Santa Barbara Airport to the Sheriff's Department, be booked, fingerprinted and released in $3 million bond. Jackson is accused of "multiple counts of child molestation." Unconfirmed accounts allege that the victim is a 12 year old cancer patient who was plied by Jackson with wine and sleeping pills.
And sadly, no one seems to be taking any of this seriously.
The Santa Barbara District Attorney, Thomas W. Sneddon and Sheriff Jim Anderson this afternoon held a press conference where they repeatedly laughed and joked with reporters. Remember, the only reason for the press conference in the first place is the alleged repeated molested of a 12 year old cancer patient. That the elected officials of the County of Santa Barbara, California don't think that this is serious is wildly disturbing. It's one thing for a jerk-off with a blog to make fun of something like this, but for the District Attorney and Sheriff to is quite another proposition.
It has been reported that Sneddon today bragged that it was due to his efforts that California law regarding molested allegations has been changed. The State of California may now compel a minor to testify about molested he or she suffered against the victim's will. Sneddon is reported to have said that the law was changed to prevent a repeat of the criminal investigation of Jackson in 1993/94. Jackson's accuser (whose name is widely reported outside of North America but I will not name here) refused to co-operate with investigators following a settlement with Jackson worth anywhere between $15 and 40 million. Perhaps I'm the only one who finds a grown man gloating about compelling a 12 year old cancer patient to publicly disclose the most traumatizing facts of his already brutal life distasteful. I've always been called "too sensitive."
If, in fact, this is an accurate depiction of current California law (which seems to be in dispute), the child in question will not be compelled to testify in person in Jackson. This would be done either by closed-circuit television or on videotape. That seems like a morally sensible and right thing to do but for one thing; Article Six of the United States Bill of Rights. It reads as follows:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." (emphasis added)
One may argue that closed circuit television and videotape is a adequate means of confrontation of a witness. I would argue that neither existed in 1789, but stenographers did. For constitutional purposes that was not adequate. Conviction required direct testimony from the accused. I think this a neat little intellectual argument, but also beside the point.
The media coverage of the last 36 hours has focused on the 1993/94 allegations. A history of those events should be reviewed. The victim's father, a Beverly Hills dentist was pitching, of all things, a screenplay to Jackson's production company. The father allowed his son (then in the custody of his ex-wife) was allowed to stay in Jackson's home on multiple occasions the negotiations proved unfruitful, a civil complain was threatened. When no civil settlement was forthcoming, a criminal investigation was launched. In December, 1993 enough information had been obtained to effect a warrant to search two of Jackson's residences and photograph his genitals. The complaintant's families refused to co-operate with the District Attorney's office once the aforementioned civil settlement was reached in early 1994. There is more than enough for reasonable people to believe that the events of 93/94 were a shoddy extortion.
One cannot look at the current investigation, or even the 93/94 investigation without asking a simple question, "Is Michael Jackson mentally ill at best or a criminal pedophile at worst?" The answer to both of these questions is, "very probably, yes."
Michael Jackson was born forty five years ago into an abusive family of crazed, careerist, religious fantatics. As recently as last Friday, Joe Jackson admitted to beating his son as a child with a stick. Young Michael wasn't beaten for the things that children are usually beaten for....like drunkenly ruining the car on Prom Night or knocking up the minister's daughter. Jackson was beaten for missing fucking dance steps. Michael Jackson was trained to do one thing for his entire life to do one thing to the exclusion of all else. Entertain. He did extraordinarily well at it. After all, 200 million people can't be wrong. Everyone is aware of what a monumental pain in the ass Jennifer Lopez is, right? Well, the world didn't start kissing her ass until she 25 years old. Michael Jackson was 11.
Lets do some simple math, shall we? Abusive-stardom crazed family + cadre of sycophantic adult handlers + zillions of adoring fans world-wide = maladjusted child.
Maladjusted child + even more monumental success = psychotic adult. Thi could go a long way in arguing Jackson's guilt. Or not. It could also explain the ease with which an opportunistic family with a vulnerable child could exploit a disturbed celebrity with seemingly endless resources. I'm not going to argue either case. That's for a jury to decide. You might remember them, they were popular in the days before O.J.
There are many unconfirmed reports about this story. Many of them point to the guilt of Michael Jackson and many point to his innocence. If you thought O.J and the Clinton impeachment were fun, just stick around. This promises to be the Madis Gras of human ugliness.
Good times ahead.
|
|
|
| |
