Lately there has been a string of people from Michael’s past stirring up rumors about paternity or the seeking to the opportunity to bash him in the spotlight while building their own fame for political or social reasons. As the old saying goes, with friends like these, you sure don’t need any enemies! Apparently, they are still trying to stay relevantly linked to Michael Jackson. I have been silent on the matter, but I do feel that it should needs to be addressed to some degree. If you are looking for those articles here, you won’t find them. I try to keep up with practically everything that concerns Michael Jackson. I think really hard before I post an article because I don’t want to do anything that would be hurtful to Michael. I always love to post positive news and events from all over the world, but I also post news that is relevant to him, such things that will affect his estate or legacy and so forth. I want people to know what is going on without promoting yellow fever journalism. If I feel that the article is in poor taste or flat out lies, I won’t post it at all or I may leave out the part in question. I may also comment on it, even though my decision to post may be kind of in the gray. But I ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to reprint anything that I feel is tabloid trash to prevent giving it more attention than what it deserves. I also don’t want to promote the agenda of those spreading it.
These vultures, who I won’t bother to name, have a track record of lies and inconsistent statements. The proof is there if you really want to know the character of the individuals telling us “the truth” about Michael. No one had ever heard of half of these folks until they became affiliated with Michael Jackson and now you can’t get them to shut up! They give interviews galore or they write unauthorized, so called, tell-all books about him! If they were silent when he was alive, why talk now? I’ll tell you why! They are greedy, selfish, low-life, scum buckets! Yeah, I said it! If what I’m saying offends you, then maybe it because you’re one of the guilty parties I’m talking about. Maybe you still have some conscience left to amend your ways, so listen up!
Michael Jackson’s name has been tarnished for too many years by the press and by these so called former friends and associates. They act as though they had his best interest at heart, but yet they smear his name at every turn. You would think that almost three years after his death, this type of drama would have died down and we would only be focused on continuing the legacy of Michael Jackson, but yet we are still seeing the same old routine. There are people who will believe anything negative that they hear about Michael and these vultures count on that to stay in the news. They never talk about about all their dirty little secrets, which I am sure we will find plenty if we dig far enough. But I forgot, no body wants to read about them, so back to selling out Michael for profit and popularity!
Michael was not a perfect human being. None of us are, including those who continue to judge him. The last time I checked, only God can make that claim. Michael made mistakes and sadly, the one he seemed to make the most was trusting the wrong people. Michael was perfect IN HIS HEART AND IN HIS INTENTIONS. He tried his best to use his celebrity as a mouth piece to bring attention to the nations about the plight and suffering of many people, especially children. Why don’t these informers ever blast on the news about his humanitarian efforts, his kindness, his love and compassion for people? No doubt they have benefited from some of it. I am so sick of people trying to tear down the man I love at every opportunity and I tired of people feeding into it.
So don’t buy their trashy books and newspapers and don’t waste time debating on whether not what they are saying is true!
SAY NO EVIL, SEE NO EVIL AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, DON'T LISTEN TO THE EVIL WORDS OF THOSE WHO SLANDER!
Words, once they are printed, have a life of their own. – Carol Burnett
His influence today proves him to be one of the greatest creators of all time, but Jackson’s art—like that of many black artists—still doesn’t get the full respect it deserves.
More than two and a half years after his untimely death, Michael Jackson continues to entertain. Cirque du Soleil’s crowd-pleasing Michael Jackson Immortal World Tour is currently crisscrossing North America, while a recent Jackson-themed episode of Glee earned the show a 16 percent jump in ratings and its highest music sales of the season. Even Madonna’s halftime Super Bowl spectacle harkened back to a trend first initiated by Jackson.
But there is another crucial part of Jackson’s legacy that deserves attention: his pioneering role as an African-American artist working in an industry still plagued by segregation, stereotypical representations, or little representation at all.
Jackson never made any qualms about his aspirations. He wanted to be the best. When his highly successful Off the Wall album (in 1981, the best-selling album ever by a black artist) was slighted at the Grammy Awards, it only fueled Jackson’s resolve to create something better. His next album, Thriller, became the best-selling album by any artist of any race in the history of the music industry. It also won a record-setting seven Grammy awards, broke down color barriers on radio and TV, and redefined the possibilities of popular music on a global scale.
Yet among critics (predominantly white), skepticism and suspicion only grew. “He will not swiftly be forgiven for having turned so many tables,” predicted James Baldwin in 1985, “for he damn sure grabbed the brass ring, and the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo has nothing on Michael.”
Baldwin proved prophetic. In addition to a flood of ridicule regarding his intelligence, race, sexuality, appearance, and behavior, even his success and ambition were used by critics as evidence that he lacked artistic seriousness. Reviews frequentlydescribed his work as “calculating,” “slick,” and “shallow.” Establishment rock critics such as Dave Marsh and Greil Marcus notoriously dismissed Jackson as the first major popular music phenomenon whose impact was more commercial than cultural. Elvis Presley, the Beatles, and Bruce Springsteen, they claimed, challenged and re-shaped society. Jackson simply sold records and entertained.
The point of his ambition wasn’t money and fame; it was respect.
It shouldn’t be much of a strain to hear the racial undertones in such an assertion. Historically, this dismissal of black artists (and black styles) as somehow lacking substance, depth and import is as old as America. It was the lie that constituted minstrelsy. It was a common criticism of spirituals (in relation to traditional hymns), of jazz in the ’20s and ’30s, of R&B in the ’50s and ’60s, of funk and disco in the ’70s, and of hip-hop in the ’80s and ’90s (and still today). The cultural gatekeepers not only failed to initially recognize the legitimacy of these new musical styles and forms, they also tended to overlook or reduce the achievements of the African-American men and women who pioneered them. The King of Jazz, for white critics, wasn’t Louis Armstrong, it was Paul Whiteman; the King of Swing wasn’t Duke Ellington, it was Benny Goodman; the King of Rock wasn’t Chuck Berry or Little Richard, it was Elvis Presley.
Given this history of white coronation, it is worth considering why the media took such issue with referring to Michael Jackson as the King of Pop. Certainly his achievements merited such a title. Yet up until his death in 2009, manyjournalists insisted on referring to him as the “self-proclaimed King of Pop.” Indeed, in 2003, Rolling Stone went so far as to ridiculously re-assign the title to Justin Timberlake. (To keep with the historical pattern, just last year the magazine devised a formula that coronated Eminem—over Run DMC, Public Enemy, Tupac, Jay-Z, or Kanye West—as the King of Hip Hop).
Jackson was well-aware of this history and consistently pushed against it. In 1979, Rolling Stone passed on a cover story about the singer, saying that it didn’t feel Jackson merited front cover status. “I’ve been told over and over again that black people on the covers of magazines don’t sell copies,” an exasperated Jackson told confidantes. “Just wait. Some day those magazines will come begging for an interview.”
Jackson, of course, was right (Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner actually sent a self-deprecatory letter acknowledging the oversight in 1984). And during the 1980s, at least, Jackson’s image seemed ubiquitous. Yet over the long haul, Jackson’s initial concern seems legitimate. As shown in the breakdown below, his appearances on the front cover of Rolling Stone, the United States’ most visible music publication, are far fewer than those of white artists:
John Lennon: 30
Mick Jagger: 29
Paul McCartney: 26
Bob Dylan: 22
Bono: 22
Bruce Springsteen: 22
Madonna: 20
Britney Spears: 13
Michael Jackson: 8 (two came after he died; one featured Paul McCartney as well)
Of course, this disregard wasn’t limited to magazine covers. It extended into all realms of print media. In a 2002 speech in Harlem, Jackson not only protested his own slights, but also articulated how he fit into a lineage of African-American artists struggling for respect:
All the forms of popular music from jazz to hip-hop, to bebop, to soul [come from black innovation]. You talk about different dances from the catwalk, to the jitterbug, to the charleston, to break dancing — all these are forms of black dancing…What would [life] be without a song, without a dance, and joy and laughter, and music. These things are very important but if you go to the bookstore down the corner, you will not see one black person on the cover. You’ll see Elvis Presley, you’ll see the Rolling Stones…But we’re the real pioneers who started these [forms].”
While there was certainly some rhetorical flourish to his “not one black person on the cover” claim, his broader point of severely disproportionate representation in print was unquestionably accurate. Books on Elvis Presley alone outnumber titles on Chuck Berry, Aretha Franklin, James Brown, Ray Charles, Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, and Michael Jackson combined.
When I began my book, Man in the Music: The Creative Life and Work of Michael Jackson, in 2005, there wasn’t one serious book focused on Jackson’s creative output. Indeed, at my local Barnes & Noble, I could find only two books about him, period. Both dealt with the scandals and controversies of his personal life.
It seemed the only way Michael Jackson could get covered was if he was presented as a freak, a curiosity, a spectacle. Even reviews of his albums, post-Thriller, focused on the sensational and were overwhelmingly condescending, when not outright hostile.
Of course, this poor coverage wasn’t only about race. Biases were often more subtle, veiled and coded. They were wrapped together with his overall otherness and conflated with the “Wacko Jacko” media construct. In addition, as Baldwin astutely noted, there were not entirely unrelated apprehensions about his wealth and fame, anxieties about his eccentricities and sexuality, confusion about his changing appearance, contempt for his childlike behavior, and fears about his power.
But the bottom line is this: Somehow, in the midst of the circus that surrounded him, Jackson managed to leave behind one of the most impressive catalogs in the history of music. Rarely has an artist been so adept at communicating the vitality and vulnerability of the human condition: the exhilaration, yearning, despair, and transcendence. Indeed, in Jackson’s case he literally embodied the music. It charged through him like an electric current. He mediated it through every means at his disposal—his voice, his body, his dances, films, words, technology and performances. His work was multi-media in a way never before experienced.
This is why the tendency of many critics to judge his work against circumscribed, often white, Euro-American musical standards is such a mistake. Jackson never fit neatly into categories and defied many of the expectations of rock/alternative enthusiasts. He was rooted deeply in the African-American tradition, which is crucial to understanding his work. But the hallmark of his art is fusion, the ability to stitch together disparate styles, genres and mediums to create something entirely new.
If critics simply hold Jackson’s lyrics on a sheet of paper next to those of Bob Dylan, then, they will likely find Jackson on the short end. It’s not that Jackson’s lyrics aren’t substantive (on the HIStory album alone, he tackles racism, materialism, fame, corruption, media distortion, ecological destruction, abuse, and alienation). But his greatness is in his ability to augment his words vocally, visually, physically, and sonically, so that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Listen, for example, to his non-verbal vocalizations—the cries, exclamations, grunts, gasps, and improvisatory vernacular—in which Jackson communicates beyond the strictures of language. Listen to his beat boxing and scatting; how he stretches or accents words; his James Brown-like staccato facility; the way his voice moves from gravelly to smooth to sublime; the passionate calls and responses; the way he soars just as naturally with gospel choirs and electric guitars.
Listen to his virtuosic rhythms and rich harmonies; the nuanced syncopation and signature bass lines; the layers of detail and archive of unusual sounds. Go beyond the usual classics, and play songs like “Stranger in Moscow,” “I Can’t Help It ,” “Liberian Girl ,” “Who Is It,” and “In the Back.” Note the range of subject matter, the spectrum of moods and textures, the astounding variety (and synthesis) of styles. On the Dangerous album alone, Jackson moves from New Jack Swing to classical, hip hop to gospel, R&B to industrial, funk to rock. It was music without borders or barriers, and it resonated across the globe.
However, it wasn’t until Jackson’s death in 2009 that he finally began to engender more respect and appreciation from the intelligentsia. It is one of humanity’s strange habits to only truly appreciate genius once it’s gone. Still, in spite of the renewed interest, the easy dismissals and disparity in serious print coverage remains.
As a competitor on par with the legendary Muhammad Ali, Michael Jackson wouldn’t be satisfied. His goal was to prove that a black artist could do everything a white artist could (and more). He wanted to move beyond every boundary, earn every recognition, break every record, and achieve artistic immortality (“That is why to escape death,” he said, “I bind my soul to my work”). The point of his ambition wasn’t money and fame; it was respect.
As he boldly proclaimed in his 1991 hit, “Black or White,” “I had to tell them I ain’t second to none.”
Administrator’s Note: I have to say amen to Joel Vogel’s latest article. It’s about time someone spoke the truth. Michael has been lied on and abused more than any another artist in our time, even in death. The question is why? He never bothered anyone nor did he try to vilify himself, even to his harshest critics.Michael tackled the tough issues in life with his music, but did anyone ever stop to see that he was also a victim of all that he sang about? Now his children are being picked apart and followed everywhere they go, even on Twitter. The public lynching of Michael Jackson does not need to continue through his offspring. I have even seen some very cruel remarks said about his kids online. These are innocent children! But they don’t care. I think our society needs to take a good long look at themselves in the mirror. It sad when people stop seeing a person as a human being with a heart and feelings. They rather believe lies and scandalous stories than to find the truth for themselves. Animals are treated with higher regard than this sweet man was at times. May he now rest in peace from all his earthly trials.
Source: Huffington Post – By Rev. Barbara Kaufmann
Picture is not included in article
In the “trial of the century,” the prosecution rested, the defense rested, the jury can rest now that they’re dismissed. When does Michael Jackson get to rest? To the media this wasn’t the manslaughter trial of Conrad Murray; it was “the Michael Jackson Death Trial.” And much of the time, Michael Jackson, though dead, was on trial.
Michael Jackson was not treated as a human being, but as a cash cow. His death hasn’t changed that. The exploitation of Jackson was legion — by acquaintances, hired help, colleagues, the music industry, the justice system, by families looking for deep pockets, by hangers-on, sycophants and especially by the media. Millions were made off the Jackson brand. What the public doesn’t know, is how cynical and deliberate the exploitation was. Author Joe Vogel wrote about the widespread cultural abuse of Jackson in a recent article titled “Am I the Beast you Visualized?”
The latest betrayal is a documentary by Conrad Murray — the very doctor who is convicted of killing Jackson. Murray, charged with manslaughter, struck a deal two years ago with October Films for a documentary about his relationship with Jackson and his final days. Family and fans are asking how could NBC, in good conscience, produce and air a film that exploits Jackson yet again after death and by the very person responsible for that death? Murray inked a contract as Jackson was being laid to rest.
The documentary included scenes depicting “private rooms” in Jackson’s home with clips recognized as photos of Neverland Ranch taken in 2003 after sheriff’s deputies raided and rifled through it. The same photos, originally used to slant opinion about Jackson’s private habits, made their way into Murray’s “documentary” along with a few contrived comments designed to denigrate Jackson while elevating Murray. How honest is a film and its intentions when cleverly edited for impact and ratings? Reminiscent of MSNBC Martin Bashir’s Living With Michael Jackson, another cleverly edited film called a “hit piece mocumentary” that was cynically produced for ratings and profit was refuted later by Jackson’s own film crew who taped the same footage simultaneously with Bashir’s crew. Murray’s documentary circumvented the justice system allowing in the testimony he refused to give in court despite a family’s frantic search for answers to what happened to their dead loved one, Michael.
Conrad Murray’s manslaughter trial became “the Michael Jackson Death Trial” because media long ago learned that connecting Jackson’s name to anything increased revenues. People promoting their own brand still cynically link to Jackson knowing that negative stories about him increases attention. Reporters invented stories and not to be left out of the profit making game, mainstream media soon followed suit. A large segment of the population still believes the tabloid caricature of Jackson and the accusations from which he was exonerated. And they mistakenly believe self proclaimed “Michael Jackson experts” — who never even met the man and have an agenda and a reason to perpetuate the caricature myth — to avoid being exposed for their past treachery — using a human being for profit and to future careers. The propaganda about Jackson says more about the writer than it does about their subject. Nick Davies in his Flat Earth News exposé claims the public would be sickened by cynical media tactics and how they manipulate á la tabloid journalism gone mainstream.
Jackson fans, who have been trying to warn consumers for years about the racist agenda and media exploitation of Jackson, issued a statement this week: “Michael Jackson fans have had enough. Ridicule us if you must, call us names, tell us we only think of Michael as an ‘idol’ — but we are not the ones selling his memory, objectifying him and making money off him.” They have called for a boycott of NBC and its sponsors.
Murray may have administered the fatal dose of poison, but the media poisoning of public opinion regarding Jackson was relentless and protracted. Did the media torture a man to death for nothing more than ratings and profit? The most famous man in the world was also the most bullied. The tabloid campaign exploiting and lynching Jackson was unparalleled and lasted decades. Jackson’s exploiters hail from every possible position — from cleaning ladies to doctors and a rabbi spiritual director who published recordings of Jackson’s private sessions — all to make a buck off his brand.
Physicians are outraged by Murray’s reckless treatment and his violation of HIPAA laws and patient confidentiality. They find it incredulous that a doctor, now convicted felon, skirted both the law and testifying in court and pimped his documentary that profits the very man he killed.
The fans, aware that public opinion about them has also been manipulated, are concerned that the public continues to allow salacious media exploitation of public figures and are duped into its consumption unawares. One fan writes:
“Our living rooms should not be dumping grounds for salacious materials that strip humans not only of their dignity, but their very humanity — and ours in the process. Where is the public outcry that says ‘enough is enough’? People were outraged when the Rupert Murdoch scandal broke about phone hacking for headlines for front page fodder with ill gotten sensationalized information; where are they now? Airing this documentary is shameful.”
British Huffington Post journalist Charles Thomson chronicled the shaming irresponsibility of the media while covering the Jackson trial in 2005 in a piece called “The Most Shameful Episode in Journalistic History.”
It might be worth pondering why a man who appeared to have it all needed such extreme measures to sleep. Why did he require medication that did not just help him sleep but rendered him unconscious nightly in order to rest? How did a vegetarian and purist who hated drugs come to rely on them? Remember, Jackson was found not guilty of exploiting children but the accusation would forever taint his legacy. Yet the Murray trial showcased, in Jackson’s own words, his dream to build a children’s hospital. His attorney, Thomas Mesereau voices concern about the recklessness of a slanted media that capitalizes and exaggerates drama for profit and ratings; he is joined by other attorneys like Matt Semino and Mark Geragos who worry that celebrity cultism and media manipulated public opinion preempt justice.
Authors Aphrodite Jones in Conspiracy: The Michael Jackson Story, Jermaine Jackson in You Are Not Alone: Michael Through a Brother’s Eyes, and Joe Vogel with Man in the Music: The Creative Life and Work of Michael Jackson, as well as Armond White and others, try to set the record straight by telling the true Jackson story with new books that counter the tabloid trash and chronicle history.
Even today few people are aware that in both cases accusing Jackson of harming children the same players appear — the district attorney nicknamed “Mad Dog,” the same attorney who recruited and represented both accusing families and the same psychiatrist reporting the accusations. Few people realize this gang still socializes together. Both the FBI and social services investigated Jackson and found no wrongdoing .
Few understand what really happened to Jackson because his dehumanization in tabloids was so deliberate and the caricature painted so thorough. His ruination by public opinion and the media was so disheartening, the violation of his civil rights by law enforcement so encompassing that it rendered Jackson so dispirited and disillusioned that he left his homeland, the place where a little black kid from the inner city made it to Hollywood.
Picture not included in article
The last insult came from Rupert Murdoch’s Sun tabloid publishing a photo of the dead Jackson front page in Britain with the racist moniker “Jacko” — whose origin describes monkeys and can be a slur used for those of African descent. Within hours after the release of that photo on HLN, extremely sadistic and cruel bullies send a copy to Jackson’s children with the message “From Daddy with love.”
The second generation of Jacksons, including Michael Jackson’s children, have themselves been victims of bullying — their lives, relationships and paternity made fodder for gossip because tabloid reporters apparently eschew the legitimacy of adoption or fertilization techniques for childless families, and find alternative paternity and parenting somehow aberrant. Masks in public prevented them from being recognized at playgrounds later when accompanied by bodyguards who substituted for a father unable to accompany them in recreational outings without causing a media circus and security problems for police. Yet public opinion ridiculed Jackson for protecting his children from harm.
There are those who seem to insist that public figures and their lives belong to the public instead of to themselves, who expect to be privy to any and all private information, who feel that celebrities are not entitled to the same civil rights everyone else enjoys. And there are those who pander to those compulsions and serve up the dirt whether true or not, for ratings and profits — doing it with illegal phone hacking, checkbook journalism and paying large sums for stories — the more salacious the story, the more zeroes on the check for stories that lynch and carve up real people on front pages — for profit.
Adults wonder out loud where children get the ideas that seem so cruel and heartless. Enamored by celebrity, kids imitate the most popular, and are keenly aware of the values displayed by the adults around them. The new generation has just rediscovered Michael Jackson since his passing. Do you think they naively miss the tabloid battering of Michael Jackson? Where do they learn bullying? They are watching the media and watching us!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael Jackson On Trial Again — Part II – Barbara Kaufmann
Conrad Murray’s trial for manslaughter predictably became about Michael Jackson instead of his doctor because the use of Propofol was unusual and the patient was famous. In court, the displaying of medication bottles was high drama and the media pounced and rushed to publish “Michael Jackson’s addiction.”
A close look at the dates, the number of pills prescribed measured against the number taken, number left and span of time the pills sat in that bedroom proves not that Jackson was an addict, but that he was actually non-compliant with medications he was prescribed. But that isn’t sexy; and it’s all about sexy and getting viewers for a trial that was predicted to be “bigger than the Casey Anthony trial.” Except it wasn’t. Hysteria fatigue, perhaps? Have we had enough?
Pundits on HLN seemed to push the “addict” label because it suited their agenda to promote books and careers. “Michael Jackson” has promoted many books and careers involuntarily as people conscripted his name for their own purposes. HLN was no exception. An addiction specialist physician jumped on the same “addict” meme despite the conflicting information between addiction, bottle labeling and usage, and despite medical records entered in evidence that were unsigned and confusing. The physician’s questionable records were allowed in court but the physician was not and he wasn’t made able to explain his treatment of Jackson for facial procedures to reconstruct his face. Jackson had Vitiligo and Discoid Lupus — the same disease which has left the entertainer Seal, facially scarred. It is entirely reasonable that Michael Jackson’s face be treated and re-sculpted; he made his living on stage.
That same physician also hypothesized that the nightly use of Propofol accounted for the poor condition of Jackson’s lungs while it was well known to insiders that Michael Jackson had a Tryptophan Synthetase Deficiency which is a lung disease characterized by a lack of protein for lubrication. Jackson’s fans could have enlightened any one of these talking heads but they didn’t fact check nor ask fans. If you want to know something about a sports or pop culture figure, ask fans who know everything about them.
In fairness to the pundits, the coverage could have been much worse and the fans could have been depicted in a much poorer or darker light. Unfortunately the fringe elements of fandom were highlighted and that included conspiracy theorists who believe that Jackson is alive and in hiding. And for the most part, fans behaved well except for an occasional scuffle.
Mainstream Jackson fans who get less attention than the vocal fringe, are articulate, thoughtful, bright, and interested in justice and vindication. Many are professionals who contribute to society, pay their taxes and raise children in the suburbs and cities. They have an interesting story to tell society should anyone ever want to listen. What they have to say is shocking.
The trial, it seems was all about Michael Jackson despite Murray’s dalliances are well known — seven children with six women, his methodology even in his clinic appeared reckless to other physicians and one who ventured: “The only thing Murray could have done that was more dangerous was to push Jackson out of an airplane without a parachute.” And what doctor ships a stockpile of medication to a private residence? What doctor using a dangerous drug does not have the proper emergency equipment required for safety and for resuscitation when he is the only one there in case something happens to the patient? The drug labeling requires it as do protocols. A simple regulator pump that would have saved Jackson’s life by regulating the flow of Propofol according to body weight and dosage guidelines would have cost $1,500 of a salary one hundred times that per month. Murray owned a clinic; if he could order Propofol in bulk, he could order medical equipment that would have saved Jackson’s life.
Yes, it was the Michael Jackson trial because once again, Jackson was put on trial even in the afterlife. And it’s ironic that the most compelling piece of evidence came not from the prosecutor or from the defense, but from Michael Jackson himself. Jackson, whom a nurse anesthetist says sounded like he was under the influence of Propofol — with no cameras filming, no media in attendance, was clear about his motivation, his intention and his future plans even in that sedated state. He said:
“Elvis didn’t do it. The Beatles didn’t do it. When people leave my show I want them to say ‘I’ve never seen nothing like it in my life. Go. Go. I’ve never seen nothing like this. Go. It’s amazing. He’s the greatest entertainer in the world.’ I’m taking that money, a million children, a children’s hospital, the biggest in the world. Michael Jackson’s Children’s Hospital.Gonna have a movie theater, game room. Children are depressed — in those hospitals, no game room no movie theater, They’re sick because they’re depressed, Their mind is depressing them I want to give them that, I care about them angels. God wants me to do it. God wants me to do it. I’m gonna do it, Conrad.
Don’t have enough hope; no more hope. That’s the next generation that’s going to save our planet starting with – well talk about it. United States, Europe, Prague, my babies.
They walk around with no mother. They drop them off, they leave — a psychological degradation — that. They reach out to me — please take me with you.
I want to do that for them. I’m gonna do that for them. That will be remembered more than my performances. My performances will be up there helping my children and always be my dream. I love them. I love them because I didn’t have a childhood. I had no childhood. I feel their pain. I feel their hurt, I can deal with it.
‘Heal the World,’ ‘We are the World,’ ‘Will You Be There?’, ‘The Lost Children.’ These are the songs I’ve written because I hurt, you know, I hurt.”
A children’s hospital or healing center was Michael Jackson’s dream. And this is not the first time the subject of medical treatment and healing of children has come up in Michael Jackson’s legacy. When Jackson’s slurred declaration was first reported Jane Velez Mitchell of HLN declared on air that this recording of Jackson proves what Michael Jackson fans have been saying all along — that Michael was misunderstood and mischaracterized and Neverland Ranch was misrepresented to the public. She called the conversation vindication for Michael Jackson. She only said it once as that very same day people who made money with “hit piece” biographies chastised her on Twitter and she went silent.
Conrad Murray is not the first nor the last person to be privy to Michael Jackson’s dream for children. In an article by Italian journalist Silvia Bizio, Anjelica Huston who played opposite Jackson in the Captain EO film for Disney, accidentally ran into Michael Jackson about a month before he died. They hugged, hunkered down in a room together and caught up on each others’ lives.
Huston remembered Michael as being tender and fragile, having trouble mustering up enough anger to carry out his role as Captain EO with a spaceship crew who sings ‘We are here to change the world.’ She said it was as if anger didn’t live in his DNA. He needed her there, in costume and sneering her lines to play off her villainous character. Huston said he seemed even more fragile especially emotionally, during their brief encounter. She put her arms around him; she says:
“We talked about how he had felt humiliated by the accusation of sexual harassment and about the sorrow for the loss of Neverland, where he had lived many years. I remember his words: ‘They ruined my dream. I had this dream, perhaps childish and foolish, a place designed to celebrate the innocence of that childhood that I never had, and they took it from me. I love children, I could never do them harm. I spent all my life loving them and trying to do good things for them. The libel of harming a child–that breaks my heart. It is an unbearable pain, those accusations are unjust and terrible…’ As he said these things, he began to cry. I held him in my arms…He was so skinny and frail.”
Jackson told her he was preparing for the London concerts. She remembers:
“He was training hard because he would have ‘no more hope to be loved back again.’ He wanted to be let back in to the hearts of the public after his public lynching for something he said he didn’t do and a jury of his peers agreed with. Huston goes on: “he was thin and pale; I could feel so much pain in him for the past and a lot of anxiety and uncertainty for the future.”
When asked by Bizio, “What do you think really killed Michael Jackson?’ Anjelica Huston didn’t hesitate: “Michael had a broken heart. For this he died. The truth is that they broke his heart.”
Michael Jackson On Trial Again — Part III- By Barbara Kaufmann
When Michael Jackson, in a drug-induced altered state of consciousness and slurring speech, talked about building a hospital for children, it wasn’t the first time Michael Jackson had talked about building medical facilities for sick children. He equipped a burn wing at Brotman Medical Center in Culver City and built a 19-bed wing at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York.
Artist David Nordahl, Michael Jackson’s friend for more than 20 years, and whose work was commissioned for Neverland Ranch, recently shared some memories of Jackson:
“That conversation they played in court was so Michael. Taking care of sick children is what he talked about in every conversation we ever had. He took care of sick children all over the world. He paid for Bela Farcas’ liver; the cost was $125,000 and when they found out it was for Lisa Marie Presley and Michael Jackson who decided to split the cost, the price jumped to a quarter of a million. Bela got his liver.
“I didn’t do just paintings for Michael; he asked me to do sketches for rides he invented at Neverland and the drawings for condos he planned to build for critically ill children and their families. He knew that critically ill children heal better in an environment of hope, positive thoughts, laughter and magic. The darkened and quiet sick room fosters depression, not joy and joy heals according to Michael. His condos had large bay windows in the front and they were supposed to look like tree houses in the forest.
“He wanted the large windows because he knew that very ill children often can’t sleep and wake up at night afraid, so he built an outdoor theater to run cartoons 24/7 so that if the children woke up, they would be able to see the cartoons from the window.”
Nordahl spoke about Michael’s mischaracterized love for children. How was he during that time when he was accused, I wanted to know.
“Michael knew, I mean absolutely knew — without a doubt — that his personal destiny was to heal children; it was his calling. He visited orphanages all over the world, built some, built children’s wings on hospitals, he sent doctors to the Balkans and even sent a 737 with medical supplies to Sarajevo.
Michael loved children; he lived for children. They were the most important thing in his life; in fact, they were his reason for living. All Michael’s work was dedicated to children — to the children of the world or to the child in all of us. Neverland Ranch was dedicated to children and it was always under construction. Its similarity to Disneyland was intentional. Michael saw helping children in this world as his life mission. He traveled the world advocating for children and contributing a great personal fortune to children’s causes. It was his life and it was his reason for living. Can you imagine what it was like for him to be accused of harming children?”
The story told is that as Michael befriended a divorced family with a boy diagnosed with cancer and brought them to Neverland because children healed there from all kinds of troubles and wounds, he came in contact with the boy’s father who believed himself to be creative and an unrecognized talent as a playwright. Ravaged by a mental illness and prone to its delusions, the father believed he would become Jackson’s partner in his planned production company — Lost Boys Productions. Jackson, with $40 million in start-up money from his record company, commissioned Nordahl to design some logos for the project. Before the paint was dry, the boy’s father realized he was never going to be Jackson’s partner in the venture, and he demanded half the money. When Jackson refused, the rest became easy: make an accusation and collect $20 million earmarked for filmmaking — Jackson’s passion and next venture.
Unfortunately Jackson never got to realize his dream of making films. He reputation suffered and some will always think him guilty of a crime when his only crime was being “different.” But geniuses usually are often outcasts of their peers and culture. And we can guess, given the times, that more than a little of what happened to Michael Jackson was racially motivated.
I pointed out to Nordahl that the blueprint for the condos at Neverland included waterfalls that produce negative ions which are uplifting and make people feel good; he had to know about endorphins.
“Of course he knew; he had music piped in at Neverland for the flowers because he knew it encouraged them to grow,” Nordahl replied, “Michael read all the time. He knew a lot about healing; he knew joy and delight had an effect on hormones and mood. He wanted some of the construction at Neverland to be secret so that children visiting would not know ahead of time everything they would encounter there, so that there was the joy of surprise. He knew how it would delight them and make them feel.”
“But the magic for Michael was gone. Michael loved magic; he asked for it in paintings. He saw the world that way and he deliberately looked through the magical eyes of a child because he preferred it. It’s true he felt the loss of childhood, but more than that, Michael liked seeing the world through fresh un-indoctrinated and fresh eyes, so he chose it. Looking with those eyes and through the lens of innocence allowed his creativity to flow freely and fiercely like a river. When the accusations came, especially the last one, his river of creativity was dammed and went dry.”
The media, in a frenzy, used Jackson to sell their wares — the tabloid headlines, the stolen and unflattering pictures. He took to wearing a mask to discourage them. Fortunes were made on fictionalized stories and unauthorized biographies by people who never met him or knew him only on at the fringes of his orbit.
The loudest Jackson detractors are often the most guilty of using Jackson and riding the hysteria surrounding him to launch and sustain careers “reporting” on Michael Jackson’s life. Those same people know sensation sells and knowingly contributed to it. They still ride his coattails even in death, revisit the crimes whenever in front of a camera, and claim guilt to this day despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary and a not guilty (14 counts) verdict. They can’t afford to be exposed for their bullying so they stubbornly occupy their position. They bullied him for his skin color lightened by the disease Vitiligo; the paternity of his children despite modern adoptions and fertilization methods for couples unable to conceive, for his surgeries in a culture that reveres youth and eschews ‘aging rockers.’ Deep pockets and a racist agenda explains much because Jackson was born into and grew up in a racist culture and married white women. The rest is explained by the ego that: sees people not as who they are but as who you are being.
“Some called Neverland a child magnet,” Nordahl reminded me. “And it was really; that was deliberate. But Michael did not have the agenda they said he had — his agenda was not to harm children; his only agenda was to bring joy and magic to kids. I watched him do that for 20 years. Michael himself had a kind of magical attraction. Kids just followed him. We were once in a Toys R Us store where Michael was buying toys for kids and I turned around to find a sea of kids following us. And Michael was in disguise.”
“People said he was a recluse; he wasn’t. He just always drew crowds. There was something about him; watching people descend on him was like watching a wave crashing to shore. He had to practice getting out of any article of clothing quickly because people around him went into a kind of frenzy. He could get out clothes faster than anyone I’ve ever seen.”
Nordahl remembers too, the loneliness that Michael suffered.
“Before and during the trial he felt abandoned. He was being convicted in the court of public opinion and he worried about getting a fair trial. He worried about what would happen to his kids if he went to prison. He had trouble sleeping. We were staying at a friend’s beach house on the ocean and I told him if he couldn’t sleep to come down and visit me. He was worried he’d keep me awake but I didn’t mind; I knew he was lonely and worried. We spent many long hours talking and sometimes walking on the beach waiting for sunrise. He couldn’t sleep. When you take away someone’s reason for living, the reason for his life, what’s left?”
I wanted to know if David Nordahl had been watching the trial.
“Sure; it’s hard because you know they had to make it about Michael. I wish the world could know the real Michael. Michael always said that if you talked about the good you did in the world, you cancelled the beneficence of the gift, so he was very private about his humanitarian work. Nobody will ever know how much he did for this world and for the children. The world will never know what it lost because they took Michael from his work and that cheated not just him of his future, but it cheated all of us.”
Artist David Nordahl lives and works in Santa Fe, New Mexico where he is currently getting ready for a show in Tucson, Arizona at Settler’s West Gallery on November 19, 2011 and in Las Vegas at a hotel on the strip in April.
We have heard the point made over and over these past few weeks: It is not Michael Jackson currently on trial; it is Dr. Conrad Murray. But, of course, we know the reality. This is the “Michael Jackson Death Trial.” He is, as he always was, the main event, the tantalizing spectacle. It is Michael Jackson who is under the microscope as we pry, one more time, through his home, his medical records, his body. And while the public at large is much more sympathetic now that Jackson has passed, he remains the subject of endless scrutiny and judgment.
Does any of it matter now that the man himself can’t feel the abuse? Should the average person even care whether a “celebrity” like Jackson is treated with callousness or disregard? Projects like Voices, whose “Words and Violence” series highlights the disturbing trajectory of our social discourse, says yes. Words matter. No matter the target. Words, as we have witnessed with the recent attention on youth bullying and suicides, can lead to devastatingly tragic ends.
They can also be used to inspire and heal.
Michael Jackson knew this. In 1988, he befriended AIDS victim Ryan White, a young boy forced out of his school in Kokomo, Indiana because of relentless verbal assaults and threats of violence. Jackson, White said, made him feel normal. “[Michael] didn’t care what race you were, what color you were, what was your handicap, what was your disease,” recalled Ryan White’s mother, Jeanne. “[He] just loved all children.”
White is one of thousands of “outsiders” to whom Jackson reached out, befriended and treated with kindness. He identified with them. He understood their pain and loneliness. He felt empathy for their struggle to live in a world that refused to accept them for who they were, whether because of illness, physical appearance, race, sexual orientation or some other reason.
Even as a young boy, Jackson possessed this sensitivity. Listen to the song, “Ben.” There is genuine pain and compassion in Jackson’s delivery (“They don’t see you as I do/ I wish they would try to”). The song can be seen as one of the first artistic statements Jackson made on behalf of the marginalized and misunderstood. Many more would follow.
Jackson’s outsider role may have begun in childhood (as there was never a time Jackson felt “normal” and never a time he was perceived as such). Yet the intensity and hostility caused by his difference grew over time. In his 1996 essay, “The Celebrity Freak: Michael Jackson’s Grotesque Glory,” David Yuan argued that Michael Jackson was the defining “freak” of our time. No other public figure in the world evoked the same level of ridicule, scrutiny and hyper-interrogation. As early as 1985, Jackson was being labeled “Wacko Jacko” by the tabloids, a term he despised (as recently as this year, some mainstream news organizations continued to refer to him as “Jacko”). In the press, he was frequently described as “bizarre,” “weird,” and “eccentric.” Indeed, there was very little he said or did from the mid-1980s forward that wasn’t described in these terms by the media.
Jackson was mocked incessantly for his skin disorder, vitiligo, which most people didn’t believe was real until it was confirmed definitively in his autopsy. He was mocked for his love of animals; for his love of children; for his love of the planet. He was mocked for his marriages, for his three kids, for his Neverland home. He was mocked for his sexuality, his voice, his childlike behavior. Even reviews of his music couldn’t resist filling up the majority of the space with pseudo-psychoanalysis and ad hominem assaults. Can there be any doubt that this treatment by the media and culture at large was abusive?
Certainly the victim of these dehumanizing attacks felt that way. Listen to the lyrics of his songs. In “Tabloid Junkie” he describes the mass media as “parasites” sucking the life out of him, while drugging/distracting the general public with a steady dose of sensationalism. In “Stranger in Moscow” he is an artist in exile, used up and spit out by his native country. “I was wanderin’ in the rain,” he sings from the lonely role of vagabond, “Mask of life/ Feeling insane.”
In “Scream” he is so weary of being bullied, he pleads, “Oh brother, please have mercy ’cause I just can’t take it.” The song, however, also serves as a vehicle of strength and resolve (“Kickin’ me down/ I got to get up”). Michael and sister Janet deliver a fierce counterblow to a system they rightfully see as corrupt and unjust. “You’re sellin’ out souls,” Janet sings in one verse, “but I care about mine.” It is a defiant song about standing up to cruelty, even when the pain and indignation is so deep it can only be expressed in a guttural scream.
In numerous songs, Jackson uses his music as a rallying call for others who have been mistreated. In “They Don’t Care About Us,” he witnesses for the disenfranchised and demeaned. “Tell me what has become of my rights,” he sings, “Am I invisible because you ignore me?” “Little Susie” draws attention to the plight of the neglected and abandoned, telling the story of a young girl whose gifts go unnoticed until she is found dead at the bottom of the stairs in her home (“Lift her with care,” Jackson sings, “Oh, the blood in her hair”); “Earth Song” offers an epic lamentation on behalf of the planet and its most vulnerable inhabitants (represented by the choir’s passionate shouts, “What about us!”). Through such songs (as well as through his life and persona), Jackson became a sort of global representative of the “Other.”
The mass media, however, never held much regard for Jackson’s other-ness, just as they held little regard for the “others” he spoke of in his songs. Rather, they found a narrative that was simple and profitable — Jackson as eccentric “freak” — and stuck with it for nearly three decades, gradually upping the stakes.
Perhaps Jackson’s most compelling response to the public perception of him that resulted comes in his trio of late Gothic songs: “Ghosts,” “Is It Scary,” and “Threatened.” It is here that Jackson holds a mirror up to the society that scorns him and asks it to look at its own grotesque reflection. “Is it scary for you!” he demands. The songs, and their accompanying visual representations, are not only keenly self-aware, they demonstrate a shrewd understanding of the toxic forces that surround and haunt him.
In the short film, Ghosts, the Mayor of Normal Valley (a conservative figure of authority inspired, in part, by Santa Barbara District Attorney, Tom Sneddon) taunts Jackson’s character: “Freaky boy! Freak! Circus freak.” Interestingly, it is Jackson himself (disguised as the Mayor) that delivers these words, and one can feel the way they have been internalized. They are slurs intended to mark, marginalize and humiliate (which was ultimately the purpose of the witch hunts of 1993 and 2005). For the Mayor, Jackson’s presence in the community is intolerable. It is not that Jackson has done any harm; it is simply that he is different and that difference is threatening.
In such artistic expressions, Jackson clearly recognizes what is being done to him. He is being defined by outside forces. He is a phantom they have constructed in their own minds. As he sings in “Is It Scary,” “If you wanna see/ Eccentric oddities I’ll be grotesque before your eyes.” He will be grotesque, in other words, because that is what the public “wants to see.” It is how they have been conditioned to see. Later in the song, he anticipates his audience’s reactions, asking: “Am I amusing you/ Or just confusing you/ Am I the beast you visualized?” Has he become something less than human? Why is this? Is it his physical appearance? His ambiguous identity? His unusual life story? There is no question Michael Jackson was different. The question is why this difference incited such fervent disparagement and abuse.
One of the remarkable qualities of Jackson’s life and work, however, is that he refuses to compromise his “difference.” He never becomes “normal,” as the term is represented by, say, the Mayor of Normal Valley. He doesn’t conform to expectations. Rather, he is true to himself and flaunts his unique, multi-faceted identity, to the frustration of those who would like him to fit in more predictable boxes. His differences, as Susan Fast notes, were “impenetrable, uncontainable, and they created enormous anxiety. Please be black, Michael, or white, or gay or straight, father or mother, father to children, not a child yourself, so we at least know how to direct our liberal (in)tolerance. And try not to confuse all the codes simultaneously.”
Even over two years after his tragic passing, it seems, many people don’t know what to make of Michael Jackson. He is reduced, therefore, to easy labels like “drug addict.” A picture of his lifeless body is callously plastered on news sites. It is cruel, abusive behavior masquerading as “normal.” Perhaps this is why Jackson chose the medium of the Gothic to fight back. It was a way to turn the tables, to symbolically represent the world as it often felt to him: monstrous and grotesque. His “horror stories” certainly weren’t intended merely to entertain.
“Freaks are called freaks,” observed author James Baldwin, “and are treated as they are treated — in the main, abominably — because they are human beings who cause to echo, deep within us, our most profound terrors and desires.” In Jackson’s case those “terrors and desires” were manifold, including race, sexuality, money and power. Yet as much as Jackson became the symbolic magnet onto which many of these cultural anxieties were projected, he was also an actual person trying to live his life. Toward the end of “Is It Scary” he explains, “I’m just not what you seek of me,” before revealing to the compassionate listener: “But if you came to see/ The truth, the purity/ It’s here inside a lonely heart/ So let the performance start!”
Ironically, it is in the “performance” of his art that we find “the truth, the purity.” This is where he exorcizes his demons, where his anguish is transfused into creative energy. This is where the walls come down and the mask comes off. To the outside world, he may be a spectacle, a caricature, a freak; but here, finally, inside his music, he bares his soul. He is a human being.
The question is: What do we see?
This article is cross-posted at Voices: Education Project as part of the “Words and Violence” curriculum.
Joseph Vogel is the author Man in the Music: The Creative Life and Work of Michael Jackson, released worldwide November 1, 2011.
Administrator’s Note: I received my copy of “Man in the Music” on last Monday and it is fantastic! It contains beautiful pictures and it is a nicely put together hardback book. I highly recommend it for anyone who wants to understand more about Michael’s music and creative voice. I also recommend Joel’s book “Earth Song.” Two thumbs up for both!
M Poetica – by Willa Stillwater is also an excellent book to have in your MJ library!
Source: Huffington Post – By Matt Semino, Attorney and Legal Analyst
“He’s the greatest entertainer in the world. I’m taking that money, a million children, children’s hospital, the biggest in the world, Michael Jackson’s Children’s Hospital…”
This last sentence taken from the haunting audio recording of Michael Jackson under the influence of “unknown agents” is a key element of the involuntary manslaughter case that the state of California is currently building against Dr. Conrad Murray. Hearing this voice cracked the door open for the jury into the private state of mind of the deceased and exposed the intimate knowledge that the accused had of his celebrity patient. The recording also presented a window of truth to the global humanitarian that Michael Jackson truly was. Would a man with these grand hopes and dreams actually risk taking his own life for a few hours of sleep?
It was shocking, disheartening and enraging for many to hear Jackson in such an eerie state of sedation. The slurred pattern of speech contrasted so sharply with his known vocal genius. Could that have even really been him? A tidal wave of emotion swept through the courtroom as Jackson’s voice echoed in the hallowed halls of justice. Who was the person responsible for putting Michael Jackson into this dangerous state? Why did Conrad Murray covertly record this personal telephone conversation? What was the real power dynamic in this lethal physician and patient relationship? Why did everything go so horribly wrong on June 25, 2009?
The audio recording was a dramatic, yet effective focal point of deputy district attorney David Walgren’s opening statement. Coupled with frantic 911 calls, voicemail recordings and cell phone records, collectively, the voices that emanated from Michael Jackson’s home have begun to paint a very disturbing picture of the defendant and timeline of events. They reveal the ill-fated decisions of a man who acted repeatedly with a consciousness of guilt as he abandoned his patient in a desperate attempt to cover-up his negligent acts. Although painful to listen to, it was Jackson’s voice that was the first bold brushstroke needed for the messy portrait that is now taking shape right before our eyes.
With each new hour of testimony, it is becoming clearer that a once strong man was gradually rendered powerless in the hands of a greedy, unethical and highly unprepared enabler. The prosecution’s evidence and witnesses have successfully started to demonstrate that Dr. Conrad Murray repeatedly acted with gross negligence through multiple and extreme deviations from the proper standards of medical care.
As the audio recording so vividly reveals, Murray had knowledge of Jackson’s career motivations as well as his mental and physical states in the months prior to his death. Even while heavily sedated, Jackson revealed his underlying rationale for pursuing what may have been the most grueling professional endeavor of his life. Michael Jackson’s words indicated that he wanted to make history for the sole purpose of helping children.
Even with this knowledge, Conrad Murray continued to deceptively stockpile and feed his patient excessive and ultimately deadly amounts of sedatives and propofol. As a medical professional, did Murray truly believe giving Michael Jackson all of these drugs would help him be “the greatest entertainer in the world?” It is highly unlikely. Did he really think that Michael Jackson would ever be able to create the children’s hospital of his dreams if he continually plied him with debilitating substances? Probably not. Or, was he just acting like an employee aiming to please his employer in order to keep a steady $150,000 per month paycheck rolling into his bank account? Definitely, yes.
The defense’s far-fetched theory that Jackson self-administered a highly lethal combination of sedatives and propofol behind Dr. Murray’s back is also undercut by the audio recording. Depicted as seemingly forward thinking, it is clear that Michael Jackson had too many goals he wanted to accomplish and too much that he wanted to give back to the world. Why would he then risk taking his life into his own hands? Could he have even killed himself in the manner that the defense described in their opening statement? Ultimately, this case may boil down to a battle of the experts who will debate whether the “perfect storm” theory of Michael Jackson’s instantaneous death really holds any merit. It already looks weak on its face.
Through a close examination of Jackson’s cultural legacy, it is clear that he always strove to serve a humanitarian purpose through his work. He gave millions of dollars to charity throughout his life. Therefore, it is not a stretch to believe that all he wanted to do was accomplish that objective again but now on the largest scale possible. As his voice reveals, the intentions were grand, yet also singular in their focus. Jackson likely believed that the “This Is It” concert series would help him travel to the furthest possible point on the road of his lifelong humanitarian dream. He trusted Dr. Conrad Murray, as his personal physician, to help him arrive at his destination safely. As the evidence presented so far in the trial indicates, Murray failed miserably in that task.
Whatever the verdict in this case will be, perhaps the world will eventually notice how much potential good was cut short by this avoidable tragedy. Michael Jackson’s voice and all the other voices of this dramatic tale are starting to ring true. They are telling the story of a doctor intoxicated by celebrity and lured by money who all but abandoned acceptable standards of medical practice and professional ethics to serve his personal needs. As prosecutor David Walgren argued, it was the “acts and omissions” of Dr. Conrad Murray that led Michael Jackson, his only patient, to a “premature death at age 50.”
As the morbid image of a lifeless Jackson laying on a hospital gurney and labeled “Homicide,” spread virally around the world, it became burned into the public’s consciousness and will never be forgotten. Understandably sickening to many, the dreary image also serves as an extremely powerful symbol and stark reminder that in Michael Jackson’s valiant attempt to save the lives of others, this wounded messenger unnecessarily lost his own bright future. Finally, the voices of justice are saying that this should have never happened to such a man.
UPDATE: I was interviewed Thursday, Oct. 6 on truTV’s show In Session in connection with this piece:
We watch them crucify you and scandalize your name
Do they know how many people are hurting, do they understand our pain?
This whole scene is a nightmare, having to hear and relive that fateful day
But no matter what the verdict, it still won’t take our pain away.
A mother and father has lost a son,
Brothers, sisters, children, and friends have lost someone
Who meant the world to them and to us
Our hearts are so full of sorrow; it feels like it’s about to bust!
How can he sit there and pretend he did nothing wrong?
On June 25, 2009, he killed THE MUSIC, he killed THE SONG!
Our sweet Angel was recklessly taken, but HE’S the one accused of doing wrong
No one was there to help him, no one to stop time
There is NO jail sentence long enough to rectify this heinous crime
So now we sit with tears in our eyes and pray that justice will be done
We must keep hope alive for Michael and ban together as ONE!
I love you Michael…….always and forever. ♥
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
I Will Always Be Missing You – By Judith Hill
They took the boxes off the stage My heart was crushed in disarray the world was frozen and engaged to find the king had slipped away
I walk through the streets I feel so alone with questions and pain But the only thing i know
I will always be missing you And your love will last forever in my heart I will always be missing you cause you changed my life for the better i will always be missing you
You held my hand a little while We sang a song of lover’s vows You looked at me with a graceful smile And then you gave your final bow
You exit the building to never return And I’m here alone as the memory starts to burn
I will always be missing you And your love will last forever in my heart I will always be missing you cause you changed my life for the better i will always be missing you
You inspired a dream to make the world a better place I’ll do my best today to carry on
I will always be missing you And your love will last forever in my heart I will always be missing you Cause you changed my life for the better I will always be missing you
I will always be missing you, Michael And your love will last forever in my heart I will always be missing you Cause you changed my life for the better I will always be missing you -
It’s hard to believe that it’s been over two years since the world first mourned the loss of the King of Pop. While some of his fans expressed remorse on June 25, 2009, many knew that the cost of Michael Jackson’s death went far beyond his impeccable music. Although entertainment remains severely devoid of Michael’s unmatched talent, perhaps even more profoundly, many charities and innocents around the planet no longer have the ability to benefit from his overwhelming generosity. And for his children and family, Michael’s departure was and is felt on the deepest level as the daily battle to carry on without him continues. This week, as the involuntary manslaughter trial for Dr. Conrad Murray (his doctor at the time) gets underway, it’s important to keep in mind precisely who the accused criminal is — and who the victim was.
During my teenage years, I had the pleasure of first being introduced to Michael. Both blessed to have received mentorship and guidance from the late great Godfather of soul, James Brown, we quickly formed a kinship and bond that was virtually like family. Even though I focused on advocacy/activism and he on creating incredible music, we were on the same social and political page and worked through our respective fields to bring light to inequality wherever and whenever we viewed it. Our friendship lasted through the decades, through all of the ridiculous false accusations and through a media frenzy that tried its hardest to paint him as somehow odd or peculiar when he was only highlighting our own abnormality as a society.
In 1984, during Michael’s Victory Tour, I took on the role of his community relations director. Working in such a capacity, I again witnessed the unprecedented reaction people from all walks of life had towards this man, his music and impact in the world. And whether it was openly reminding all of us to ‘heal the world’ or quietly giving away hundreds of millions of his own wealth to the impoverished, Michael’s imprint everywhere was remarkable. And yet, many still attempted to portray him as somehow peculiar.
Dr. Conrad Murray is on trial this week. Accused of violating standards of medical care by leaving Michael unattended and failing to call 911, his defense will do whatever they can to keep him from serving jail time. They’ll argue his innocence, his years of service and most importantly, they will attempt to put Michael on trial yet again. Already this week, we heard the defense argue that Michael died from a combination of tranquilizers and a surgical anesthetic he took without Murray’s knowledge. Defense attorney Ed Chernoff even stated that Michael took enough prescription drugs to ‘put six of you to sleep’ and then somehow he self-administered Propofol (anesthetic usually used in hospitals). It is an outrageous statement compounded by the fact that it is Dr. Murray himself that stands accused of administering Propofol in excessive quantities and then leaving Michael unattended.
Great talent comes with great consequences. As an artist, when you are so intricately in touch with emotions, and think and feel on a deeper level than most, you are often viewed as an outsider when you don’t conform to conventional norms. That is the double-edged sword Michael dealt with throughout his lifetime. I had the unique pleasure of getting to know him for years and working with him on a host of issues. In 2002, Michael came to our National Action Network headquarters in Harlem as we marched together to Sony Music along with hundreds of supporters to demand his right to ownership of the very masterpieces he created. And I watched as many often tried — and of course failed — to vilify him over and over again. As I told Michael’s children during his funeral in ’09, there was nothing strange about your daddy, it was strange what your daddy had to deal with.
As the strangeness unfortunately plays out yet again in another court drama over two years after Michael’s passing, let’s be sure to remember precisely who is on trial here.
This was so painful to watch, but the truth needs to told about who Michael really was and about the so-called journalists and opportunists who made a name for themselves off the blood, pain and tears of such a fine man.
Please share with others. I love you, Michael! ♥ ♥
Please find below information relating to The Invincible Campaign – The campaign to try and achieve Number 1 for Michael’s ‘Invincible’ album during October which will mark its 10th Anniversary.
“The Invincible Campaign is a campaign to make Michael’s last studio album Number 1 in October. The album was released in October 2001 and this October marks its 10th Anniversary.
The primary purpose apart from celebrating the 10th Anniversary of this album was to provide a musical banner for Michael during the Murray trial that Michael is ‘Invincible’ and ‘Unbreakable.’
I am thus asking all Michael’s supporters, to purchase ‘Invincible’ during the month of October to make ‘Invincible’ Number 1 once again.
The blogsite has had over 20,000 hits and has only been up a matter of weeks. Click here to view.
V EXCLUSIVE: Rodney Jerkins Talks MJ’s Last Studio Album, Invincible
Source: Vibe.com – By Jermaine 9-5-2009
Linda Hobbs talks to producer Rodney Jerkins about playing pilot on MJ’s final studio album.
About twenty-five years ago, Rodney Jerkins had his mind set on one goal: to work with the King of Pop.
The super-producer, who has worked with Whitney Houston and Beyonce among others, wish came true around 1993 when Teddy Riley linked Jerkins with his shy hero. Jerkins convincingly campaigned to produce new millennium Michael. The two soon began work on what became Michael’s earnest attempt at recapturing praise for his music. At 19-years-old, Jerkins was given the task of producing the bulk of Michael’s last full studio album, Invincible, amongst a teeny-bop generation who were embracing his copycats.
Even though it sold 13 million copies worldwide, the album was picked apart by critics. A day after Jackson’s funeral, Jerkins calls VIBE from California to reminisce on the album that got away.
VIBE: You were around 19 when you started working on Invincible. You guys became friends in the process. What was the friendship like?
RODNEY JERKINS: Sometimes he would come to my house for dinner, or I’d go out with him and his kids. It’s really trust. You build trust around each other. He use to tell me all the time, “You’re a true loyal friend.” And he knew that when certain situations arose, I had his back.
I’ll never forget, Michael just let me take all my friends and literally gave me Neverland Ranch. He’d be like, “I have to go to Germany for a month,” and just leave. I’d call everybody I knew, like, “Yo, party at Neverland!”
Plus we would have bets, like whoever wins gets like a 100 DVDs. He beat me the first time and I took him to Virgin Mega Store in Times Square and got him like a 100 DVDs. We went late at night. The first time he went to the store, he was in disguise. But a fan noticed him and blew the whole cover.
Why did the album take so long to finish? You guys were going at it for three years.
It was a lot of starting and stopping. Like, we would stop for three months and then Michael would be like, “I got to go to Germany for a couple months,” then he’d go to LA, it was that kind of situation. And I remember one time, he was like, “Let’s start from scratch…I think we can beat everything we did.” That was his perfectionist side. I was like “Man, we been working for a year, we gone scrap everything?!” But it showed how hard he goes.
You were cool with that?
Yeah, I was. You got to understand, when I worked with Michael I had already worked with everybody. I was making a lot of money to be able to work on just one thing. And there was a time where he took a break, and Brandy’s Full Moon project came up, and I told Michael, “I got to do this album.” I was working on both at exactly the same time, at the Hit Factory in Miami. And I was literally running back and forth.
Picture not included in article
I heard you videotaped the Invincible studio sessions. Have you released that yet?
Shh![laughs]. I’ll just say Michael asked me to document everything. And I did. And I’m sure one day it’ll see the light of day. I got to make sure it’s made in the way Michael would want to see it.
Do you ever go back and watch the footage?
All the time.
What was Jackson like in the studio? Timid?
No! He was super vocal. He was so hands on. I’m talking about from the high hat to everything. The sound quality was so important to him. He looked at everything under a microscope, like, “The middle frequency is too much”–he was very technical. He use to always say, “Melody is king” so he really focused in on melody.
Let’s be honest: are you proud of the outcome of Invincible
There’s stuff we didn’t put on the album that I wish was on the album. My first batch [of beats] is what I really wanted him to do. I was trying to really go vintage, old school Mike. And that’s what a lot of my first stuff was, that I was presenting to him. He kept “Rock My World.” But he wanted to go more futuristic. So I would find myself at like junkyards, and we’d be out hitting stuff, to create our sound.
I think Invincible needs to be re-released. Because something happened at the record company [Sony] that caused them not to promote it no more after we done put our heart and soul in it. He had about five singles on the album. But it came down to who can stop who. And he was caught up in that mess.
A lot of critics criticized the album for being so long. Was it Jackson’s idea to make the album really long?
[Laughs] It was Michael’s idea. It was long. He didn’t make that transition of doing shorter albums, and this is the guy…it was literally nine songs on Thriller. We actually had that conversation where I was like, “You should make it 10 songs and that’s it.” You never know… maybe he felt like that would be his last album.
Do you still listen to it?
Sometimes. A couple of weeks ago, I listened to it.
Does it make you sad?
Not at all. I’m sad inside that I lost a friend. He always wanted his music to touch the masses. And that’s exactly what it’s doing right now. But it was an amazing period of time in my life to be able to work with him. It feels incredible to know… I handled his last number one record.
By Rev. Barbara Kaufman – Inner Michael | Co-Authored By Matt Semino, Esq.
Source: Huffington Post
The misuse of words can harm. Consider rousing speeches of dictators, nations’ call to arms, the hysteria of the lynch mob, ancient crusades, and modern hate speech against minorities. Words can also influence, demand, protect and heal. When people have a voice the culture advances. That’s power to the people.
The fundamental right to be heard is not conferred on everyone. Some, historically bullied into silence, have organized recent revolutions against oppression gaining footholds through social media like Facebook and Twitter, forever changing the face of the Mediterranean and North Africa. Democratic societies confer the legal right to speak and to be heard; in America the first constitutional amendment guarantees a free press and free speech.
“Voice” is value and valued. The field of communications, media in particular, with its current longer reach, raises more than a few questions, and one burning one: when one has a bully pulpit or platform, does it come with inherent responsibilities and if so, what are they? Other questions that beg consideration are about ethics, their governance, and where and how do consumers of information make their voices heard.
Collective outrage ruled social media as people bristled at the Murdoch story and hacking of private information from a murdered girl’s phone. The outcry against such impropriety and abuse of power was swift and fierce. The damage from certain media practices may be far more collateral than we first thought; words used irresponsibly harm, bully and even threaten life.
Sensationalized and framed so as to herd people’s thoughts to a particular destination or conclusion, words assembled can constitute propaganda. Propaganda seeks to indoctrinate and prejudice in an attempt to herd your mind to the place where someone else thinks it should live. That’s not your conclusion; it’s their conclusion.
Does the media have responsibilities? When people are in positions of power or influence over others, is there an inherent obligation to tell the truth? If the backlash against Murdoch taught anything, it’s this: People do not like underhanded tactics used by a media considered out-of-control and behaving irresponsibly.
We don’t yell “fire” in a theater because it’s against the law and someone could get hurt. For the same reason we don’t yell “Off with their heads!” Or at least we shouldn’t. A recent storm of scorn was aimed at television programs and pundits who do exactly that by targeting crime stories or trials while vilifying parties before they ever set foot in a courtroom, and who call for the heads of jurors deemed “misguided” in their verdicts.
The justice system deliberately does not try someone in the court of public opinion because historically, that hasn’t worked so well — in mob lynchings, witch trials and ancient coliseums. Words used irresponsibly can inflict irreversible harm on the innocent. Prominent attorneys stepped up and on air recently to speak to the dangers of proclaiming guilt upon accusation alone, because people are falsely accused all the time. Many argued that preliminary judgment can obscure false accusations and make real justice impossible or even obstruct it. Other attorneys caution about jurors being allowed to give interviews or make book deals for money. They fear that when large sums of money changes hands justice can be thwarted.
Still others argue that when acquittals are ignored and the person found “not guilty” continues to be vilified or their charge repeated with each mention in the press, democratic principles, individuals, families and society itself are harmed. That harm can be irreversible: think Richard Jewell of Olympic Park bombing notoriety or Patsy Ramsey, mother of Jonbenet Ramsey.
Both Ramsey and Jewell were eventually exonerated, but their families would argue that media had something to do with the early graves of each. In recent weeks, a woman was run off the road because she resembled Casey Anthony. Can someone be chased and hounded into an early grave by tabloids, hysterical press and public opinion fueled by snarling hyperbole, and does that constitute media terrorism?
There are ethics that are supposed to govern journalism. Each media entity has its own guidelines, even Journalism and Writers’ schools that teach ethics as a part of their programs. As we are learning from daily revelations, the tabloid or tabloid-infected culture seems to have thrown out any ethics altogether. Since the regular press must compete with tabloids for readers’ discretionary cash, is all media now in danger from urban color or similar genres or “tabloidization?”
Debra Schaffer, Phd. Linguistics and Professor of English at Montana State University Billings, author of seminal works on the linguistics of tabloid journalism and the language of prejudice has a few cautions for consumers of media:
“The public needs to examine language, claims, arguments and evidence critically and objectively, since what propaganda and other forms of persuasive language try to do is to short circuit critical thinking and hit us right in the gut.” The tactics of using emotionally charged words, nicknames or first names of those become famous or celebrities in order to establish a sense of familiarity and intimacy with them — creates the illusion that the readers know them personally. “The omniscient narrator in news writing or the pseudo-quote gives readers a sense that the writer has access to the mind and attitudes of the person quoted by leading with a pronoun, even though they are not direct quotes and the writer could not possibly be privy to that information nor the thoughts in someone’s mind. We should be wary, especially when it is presented as truth.”
Media consumers must first acknowledge and be aware that what they are frequently ingesting when it comes to “news” is yet another finely packaged entertainment product with content dictated almost overwhelmingly by market forces. Though, unlike what is shown on the silver screen, it is real human beings and events that serve simultaneously as both the actors and backdrop for ever-changing story lines. Consumers must decide what they will swallow.
Ideally, the “news” can be used to shed light on pressing social problems and spur positive public policy changes and many times, it helps us accomplish these lofty goals. Other times, its messages and means of delivery can have a damaging effect on individual lives and society. We have recently observed this phenomenon with the Murdoch scandal and in the past with other high-profile news subjects. Ultimately, media consumers need to take heed that what they are purchasing is a product without labels and warning signs. Loosely regulated, it is product that must always be viewed with a highly critical and educated eye.
“News” is increasingly an opinion and editorially driven enterprise and no longer just the reporting of facts. It’s created to arouse emotion in its audience, as opposed to simply just inform. Those with the power in the media to influence public opinion do have a social responsibility to be ethical and truthful in the presentation of their subject matter even while opinion is at the core of any democracy and such liberties should be protected.
Now, more than ever, the viewer must work harder to separate objective truth from subjective presentation, particularly around legal justice stories where it is very easy to paint the picture of guilt or innocence. There is no doubt that this parsing process is difficult to do, but it is entirely possible. With even more information at our fingertips, the viewing public has the power to challenge the media and pundits if they believe that a story or news subject is not being reported accurately or in an ethical manner.
Even with all of the background noise and competing points of view of, for example, high-profile trials like the Casey Anthony case and the upcoming Conrad Murray trial, the legal analysis and opinions of the media and their commentators outside the courtroom should not be taken as gospel. Instead, viewers should be empowered to critique the message with their own, well researched and informed perspective. Always with their guard up, media consumers will be able to hold the “news” accountable for its messages as opposed to feeling overwhelmed and victimized.
So it seems that readers and viewers may no longer rely on getting strictly “just the facts, please.” The days of passive media consumption and assumed accuracy are over. Readers and viewers share in the responsibility of and for — truth. And that carries an obligation — first to question, and then to understand that at the other end of that remote is a product that’s not without flaws.
Like any other product brought into the home that doesn’t perform to standards, it’s up to the consumer to make their feelings known by taking the providers to task when they’re wrong or offensive, or stop buying the product altogether while letting the producers and even sponsors, know you’re not swallowing it, and why. “Power to the people” is an empowering philosophy. For it to have power, the people must first claim it; then use it.
DID MICHAEL DO IT? The untold story of the events that brought down a superstar.
by Mary A. Fisher
Before O.J. Simpson, there was Michael Jackson — another beloved black celebrity seemingly brought down by allegations of scandal in his personal life. Those allegations — that Jackson had molested a 13-year-old boy — instigated a multimillion-dollar lawsuit, two grand-jury investigations and a shameless media circus. Jackson, in turn, filed charges of extortion against some of his accusers. Ultimately, the suit was settled out of court for a sum that has been estimated at $20 million; no criminal charges were brought against Jackson by the police or the grand juries. This past August, Jackson was in the news again, when Lisa Marie Presley, Elvis’s daughter, announced that she and the singer had married.
As the dust settles on one of the nation’s worst episodes of media excess, one thing is clear: The American public has never heard a defense of Michael Jackson. Until now.
It is, of course, impossible to prove a negative — that is, prove that something didn’t happen. But it is possible to take an in-depth look at the people who made the allegations against Jackson and thus gain insight into their character and motives. What emerges from such an examination, based on court documents, business records and scores of interviews, is a persuasive argument that Jackson molested no one and that he himself may have been the victim of a well-conceived plan to extract money from him.
More than that, the story that arises from this previously unexplored territory is radically different from the tale that has been promoted by tabloid and even mainstream journalists. It is a story of greed, ambition, misconceptions on the part of police and prosecutors, a lazy and sensation-seeking media and the use of a powerful, hypnotic drug. It may also be a story about how a case was simply
invented.
Neither Michael Jackson nor his current defense attorneys agreed to be interviewed for this article. Had they decided to fight the civil charges and go to trial, what follows might have served as the core of Jackson’s defense — as well as the basis to further the extortion charges against his own accusers, which could well have exonerated the singer.
Jackson’s troubles began when his van broke down on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles in May 1992. Stranded in the middle of the heavily trafficked street, Jackson was spotted by the wife of Mel Green, an employee at Rent-a-Wreck, an offbeat car-rental agency a mile away. Green went to the rescue. When Dave Schwartz, the owner of the car-rental company, heard Green was bringing Jackson to the lot, he called his wife, June, and told her to come over with their 6-year-old daughter and her son from her previous marriage. The boy, then 12, was a big Jackson fan. Upon arriving, June Chandler Schwartz told Jackson about the time her son had sent him a drawing after the singer’s hair caught on fire during the filming of a Pepsi commercial. Then she gave Jackson their home number.
“It was almost like she was forcing [the boy] on him,” Green recalls. “I think Michael thought he owed the boy something, and that’s when it all started.”
Certain facts about the relationship are not in dispute. Jackson began calling the boy, and a friendship developed. After Jackson returned from a promotional tour, three months later, June Chandler Schwartz and her son and daughter became regular guests at Neverland, Jackson’s ranch in Santa Barbara County. During the following year, Jackson showered the boy and his family with attention and
gifts, including video games, watches, an after-hours shopping spree at Toys
“R” Us and trips around the world — from Las Vegas and Disney World to Monaco and Paris.
By March 1993, Jackson and the boy were together frequently and the sleepovers began. June Chandler Schwartz had also become close to Jackson “and liked him enormously,” one friend says. “He was the kindest man she had ever
met.”
Jackson’s personal eccentricities — from his attempts to remake his face through plastic surgery to his preference for the company of children — have been widely
reported. And while it may be unusual for a 35-year-old man to have sleepovers
with a 13-year-old child, the boy’s mother and others close to Jackson never thought it odd. Jackson’s behavior is better understood once it’s put in the
context of his own childhood.
“Contrary to what you might think, Michael’s life hasn’t been a walk in the park,” one of his attorneys says. Jackson’s childhood essentially stopped — and his
unorthodox life began — when he was 5 years old and living in Gary, Indiana.
Michael spent his youth in rehearsal studios, on stages performing before millions of strangers and sleeping in an endless string of hotel rooms. Except
for his eight brothers and sisters, Jackson was surrounded by adults who pushed him relentlessly, particularly his father, Joe Jackson — a strict,
unaffectionate man who reportedly beat his children.
Jackson’s early experiences translated into a kind of arrested development, many say, and he became a child in a man’s body. “He never had a childhood,” says Bert Fields, a former attorney of Jackson’s. “He is having one now. His buddies
are 12-year-old kids. They have pillow fights and food fights.” Jackson’s interest in children also translated into humanitarian efforts. Over the years, he has given millions to causes benefiting children, including his own Heal The World Foundation.
But there is another context — the one having to do with the times in which we live — in which most observers would evaluate Jackson’s behavior. “Given the current confusion and hysteria over child sexual abuse,” says Dr. Phillip Resnick,
a noted Cleveland psychiatrist, “any physical or nurturing contact with a child may be seen as suspicious, and the adult could well be accused of sexual misconduct.”
Jackson’s involvement with the boy was welcomed, at first, by all the adults in the youth’s life — his mother, his stepfather and even his biological father, Evan
Chandler (who also declined to be interviewed for this article). Born Evan Robert Charmatz in the Bronx in 1944, Chandler had reluctantly followed in the footsteps of his father and brothers and become a dentist. “He hated being a dentist,” a family friend says. “He always wanted to be a writer.” After moving in 1973 to West Palm Beach to practice dentistry, he changed his last name, believing Charmatz was “too Jewish-sounding,” says a former colleague. Hoping somehow to become a screenwriter, Chandler moved to Los Angeles in the late Seventies with his wife, June Wong, an attractive Eurasian who had worked briefly as a model.
Chandler’s dental career had its precarious moments. In December 1978, while working at the Crenshaw Family Dental Center, a clinic in a low-income area of L.A., Chandler did restoration work on sixteen of a patient’s teeth during a single visit. An examination of the work, the Board of Dental Examiners concluded, revealed “gross ignorance and/or inefficiency” in his profession. The board
revoked his license; however, the revocation was stayed, and the board instead
suspended him for ninety days and placed him on probation for two and a half
years. Devastated, Chandler left town for New York. He wrote a film script but
couldn’t sell it.
Months later, Chandler returned to L.A. with his wife and held a series of dentistry jobs. By 1980, when their son was born, the couple’s marriage was in trouble. “One of the reasons June left Evan was because of his temper,” a family friend
says. They divorced in 1985. The court awarded sole custody of the boy to his
mother and ordered Chandler to pay $500 a month in child support, but a review
of documents reveals that in 1993, when the Jackson scandal broke, Chandler
owed his ex-wife $68,000 — a debt she ultimately forgave.
A year before Jackson came into his son’s life; Chandler had a second serious professional problem. One of his patients, a model, sued him for dental negligence after he did restoration work on some of her teeth. Chandler claimed that the woman had signed a consent form in which she’d acknowledged the risks involved. But when Edwin Zinman, her attorney, asked to see the original records, Chandler said they had been stolen from the trunk of his Jaguar. He provided a duplicate set. Zinman, suspicious, was unable to verify the authenticity of the records. “What an extraordinary coincidence that they were stolen,” Zinman says now. “That’s like saying ‘The dog ate my homework.’ “The suit was eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.
Despite such setbacks, Chandler by then had a successful practice in Beverly Hills. And he got his first break in Hollywood in 1992, when he cowrote the Mel Brooks film Robin Hood: Men in Tights. Until Michael Jackson entered his son’s life, Chandler hadn’t shown all that much interest in the boy. “He kept promising to buy him a computer so they could work on scripts together, but he never did,” says Michael Freeman, formerly an attorney for June Chandler Schwartz. Chandler’s dental practice kept him busy, and he had started a new family by then, with two small children by his second wife, a corporate attorney.
At first, Chandler welcomed and encouraged his son’s relationship with Michael Jackson, bragging about it to friends and associates. When Jackson and the boy stayed with Chandler during May 1993, Chandler urged the entertainer to spend more time with his son at his house. According to sources, Chandler even suggested that Jackson build an addition onto the house so the singer could stay there. After calling the zoning department and discovering it couldn’t be done,
Chandler made another suggestion — that Jackson just build him a new home.
That same month, the boy, his mother and Jackson flew to Monaco for the World Music Awards. “Evan began to get jealous of the involvement and felt left out,”
Freeman says. Upon their return, Jackson and the boy again stayed with Chandler, which pleased him — a five-day visit, during which they slept in a room with the youth’s half-brother. Though Chandler has admitted that Jackson and the boy always had their clothes on whenever he saw them in bed together, he claimed that it was during this time that his suspicions of sexual misconduct were triggered. At no time has Chandler claimed to have witnessed any sexual misconduct on Jackson’s part.
Chandler became increasingly volatile, making threats that alienated Jackson, Dave Schwartz and June Chandler Schwartz. In early July 1993, Dave Schwartz, who had been friendly with Chandler, secretly tape-recorded a lengthy telephone conversation he had with him. During the conversation, Chandler talked of his concern for his son and his anger at Jackson and at his ex-wife, whom he described as “cold and heartless.” When Chandler tried to “get her attention” to
discuss his suspicions about Jackson, he says on the tape, she told him
“Go fuck yourself.”
“I had a good communication with Michael,” Chandler told Schwartz. “We were
friends. I liked him and I respected him and everything else for what he is. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. I sat in the room one day and talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship. What I want.”
Admitting to Schwartz that he had “been rehearsed” about what to say and what not to say, Chandler never mentioned money during their conversation. When Schwartz asked what Jackson had done that made Chandler so upset, Chandler alleged only that “he broke up the family. [The boy] has been seduced by this guy’s power and money.” Both men repeatedly berated themselves as poor fathers to the boy.
Elsewhere on the tape, Chandler indicated he was prepared to move against Jackson: “It’s already set,” Chandler told Schwartz. “There are other people
involved that are waiting for my phone call that are in certain positions. I’ve
paid them to do it. Everything’s going according to a certain plan that isn’t
just mine. Once I make that phone call, this guy [his attorney, Barry K.
Rothman, presumably] is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious,
nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I’ve given him full authority to do
that.”
Chandler then predicted what would, in fact, transpire six weeks later: “And if I go
through with this, I win big-time. There’s no way I lose. I’ve checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son]…and Michael’s career will be over.”
“Does that help [the boy]?” Schwartz asked.
“That’s irrelevant to me,” Chandler replied. “It’s going to be bigger than all of us put together. The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight. It will be a massacre if I don’t get what I want.”
(video not included in original article)
Instead of going to the police, seemingly the most appropriate action in a situation involving suspected child molestation, Chandler had turned to a lawyer. And not just any lawyer. He’d turned to Barry Rothman.
“This attorney I found, I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find,” Chandler said in the recorded conversation with Schwartz. “All he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can, and humiliate as many people as he can. He’s nasty, he’s mean, he’s very smart, and he’s hungry for the publicity.” (Through his attorney, Wylie Aitken, Rothman declined to be interviewed for this article. Aitken agreed to answer general questions limited to the Jackson case, and then only about aspects that did not involve Chandler or the boy.)
To know Rothman, says a former colleague who worked with him during the Jackson case, and who kept a diary of what Rothman and Chandler said and did in Rothman’s office, is to believe that Barry could have “devised this whole plan, period. This [making allegations against Michael Jackson] is within the boundary of his character, to do something like this.” Information supplied by Rothman’s
former clients, associates and employees reveals a pattern of manipulation and
deceit.
(video not included in original article)
Rothman has a general-law practice in Century City. At one time, he negotiated music and concert deals for Little Richard, the Rolling Stones, the Who, ELO and Ozzy Osbourne. Gold and platinum records commemorating those days still hang on the walls of his office. With his grayish-white beard and perpetual tan — which he maintains in a tanning bed at his house — Rothman reminds a former client of
“a leprechaun.” To a former employee, Rothman is “a demon” with “a terrible temper.” His most cherished possession, acquaintances say, is his 1977 Rolls-Royce Corniche, which carries the license plate “BKR 1.”
Over the years, Rothman has made so many enemies that his ex-wife once expressed, to her attorney, surprise that someone “hadn’t done him in.” He has a reputation for stiffing people. “He appears to be a professional deadbeat… He pays almost no one,” investigator Ed Marcus concluded (in a report filed in Los
Angeles Superior Court, as part of a lawsuit against Rothman), after reviewing
the attorney’s credit profile, which listed more than thirty creditors and judgment holders who were chasing him. In addition, more than twenty civil lawsuits involving Rothman have been filed in Superior Court, several complaints have been made to the Labor Commission and disciplinary actions for three incidents have been taken against him by the state bar of California. In 1992, he was suspended for a year, though that suspension was stayed and he was instead placed on probation for the term.
In 1987, Rothman was $16,800 behind in alimony and child-support payments. Through her attorney, his ex-wife, Joanne Ward, threatened to attach Rothman’s assets, but he agreed to make good on the debt. A year later, after Rothman still hadn’t made the payments, Ward’s attorney tried to put a lien on Rothman’s expensive Sherman Oaks home. To their surprise, Rothman said he no longer owned the house; three years earlier, he’d deeded the property to Tinoa Operations, Inc., a Panamanian shell corporation. According to Ward’s lawyer, Rothman claimed that he’d had $200,000 of Tinoa’s money, in cash, at his house one night when he was robbed at gunpoint. The only way he could make good on the loss was to deed his home to Tinoa, he told them. Ward and her attorney suspected the whole scenario was a ruse, but they could never prove it. It was only after sheriff’s deputies had towed away Rothman’s Rolls Royce that he began paying what he owed.
Documents filed with Los Angeles Superior Court seem to confirm the suspicions of Ward and her attorney. These show that Rothman created an elaborate network of foreign bank accounts and shell companies, seemingly to conceal some of his assets — in particular, his home and much of the $531,000 proceeds from its eventual sale, in 1989. The companies, including Tinoa, can be traced to Rothman. He bought a Panamanian shelf company (an existing but nonoperating firm) and arranged matters so that though his name would not appear on the list of its officers, he would have unconditional power of attorney, in effect leaving him in control of moving money in and out.
Meanwhile, Rothman’s employees didn’t fare much better than his ex-wife. Former employees say they sometimes had to beg for their paychecks. And sometimes the checks that they did get would bounce. He couldn’t keep legal secretaries. “He’d demean and humiliate them,” says one. Temporary workers fared the worst. “He would work them for two weeks,” adds the legal secretary,
“then run them off by yelling at them and saying they were stupid. Then he’d tell the agency he was dissatisfied with the temp and wouldn’t pay.” Some agencies finally got wise and made Rothman pay cash up front before they’d do business with him.
The state bar’s 1992 disciplining of Rothman grew out of a conflict-of-interest matter. A year earlier, Rothman had been kicked off a case by a client, Muriel Metcalf, whom he’d been representing in child-support and custody proceedings; Metcalf later accused him of padding her bill. Four months after Metcalf fired him, Rothman, without notifying her, began representing the company of her stranged
companion, Bob Brutzman.
The case is revealing for another reason: It shows that Rothman had some experience dealing with child-molestation allegations before the Jackson scandal. Metcalf, while Rothman was still representing her, had accused Brutzman of molesting their child (which Brutzman denied). Rothman’s knowledge of Metcalf’s charges didn’t prevent him from going to work for Brutzman’s company — a move for which he was disciplined.
By 1992, Rothman was running from numerous creditors. Folb Management, a corporate real-estate agency, was one. Rothman owed the company $53,000 in back rent and interest for an office on Sunset Boulevard. Folb sued. Rothman then countersued, claiming that the building’s security was so inadequate that burglars were able to steal more than $6,900 worth of equipment from his office one night. In the course of the proceedings, Folb’s lawyer told the court, “Mr. Rothman is not the kind of person whose word can be taken at face value.”
In November 1992, Rothman had his law firm file for bankruptcy, listing thirteen creditors — including Folb Management — with debts totaling $880,000 and no acknowledged assets. After reviewing the bankruptcy papers, an ex-client whom Rothman was suing for $400,000 in legal fees noticed that Rothman had failed to list a $133,000 asset. The former client threatened to expose Rothman for “defrauding his creditors” — a felony — if he didn’t drop the lawsuit. Cornered, Rothman had the suit dismissed in a matter of hours.
Six months before filing for bankruptcy, Rothman had transferred title on his Rolls-Royce to Majo, a fictitious company he controlled. Three years earlier, Rothman had claimed a different corporate owner for the car — Longridge Estates, a subsidiary of Tinoa Operations, the company that held the deed to his home. On corporation papers filed by Rothman, the addresses listed for Longridge and Tinoa were the same, 1554 Cahuenga Boulevard — which, as it turns out, is that of a Chinese restaurant in Hollywood.
It was with this man, in June 1993, that Evan Chandler began carrying out the “certain plan” to which he referred in his taped conversation with Dave Schwartz.
At a graduation that month, Chandler confronted his ex-wife with his suspicions. “She thought the whole thing was baloney,” says her ex-attorney, Michael Freeman. She told Chandler that she planned to take their son out of school in the fall so they could accompany Jackson on his “Dangerous” world tour. Chandler became irate and, say several sources, threatened to go public with the evidence he claimed he had on Jackson. “What parent in his right mind would want to drag his child into the public spotlight?” asks Freeman. “If something like this actually occurred, you’d want to protect your child.”
Jackson asked his then-lawyer, Bert Fields, to intervene. One of the most prominent attorneys in the entertainment industry, Fields has been representing Jackson since 1990 and had negotiated for him, with Sony, the biggest music deal ever — with possible earnings of $700 million. Fields brought in investigator Anthony Pellicano to help sort things out. Pellicano does things Sicilian-style, being fiercely loyal to those he likes but a ruthless hardball player when it comes to his enemies.
On July 9, 1993, Dave Schwartz and June Chandler Schwartz played the taped conversation for Pellicano. “After listening to the tape for ten minutes, I knew it was about extortion,” says Pellicano. That same day, he drove to Jackson’s Century City condominium, where Chandler’s son and the boy’s half-sister were
visiting. Without Jackson there, Pellicano “made eye contact” with the boy and asked him, he says, “very pointed questions”: “Has Michael ever touched you? Have you ever seen him naked in bed?” The answer to all the questions was no. The boy repeatedly denied that anything bad had happened. On July 11, after Jackson had declined to meet with Chandler, the boy’s father and Rothman went ahead with another part of the plan — they needed to get custody of the boy. Chandler asked his ex-wife to let the youth stay with him for a “one-week visitation period.” As Bert Fields later said in an affidavit to the court, June Chandler Schwartz allowed the boy to go based on Rothman’s assurance to Fields that her son would come back to her after the specified time, never guessing that Rothman’s word would be worthless and that Chandler would not return their son.
Wylie Aitken, Rothman’s attorney, claims that “at the time [Rothman] gave his word, it was his intention to have the boy returned.” However, once “he learned that the boy would be whisked out of the country [to go on tour with Jackson], I don’t think Mr. Rothman had any other choice.” But the chronology clearly indicates that Chandler had learned in June, at the graduation, that the boy’s mother planned to take her son on the tour. The taped telephone conversation made in early July, before Chandler took custody of his son, also seems to verify that Chandler and Rothman had no intention of abiding by the visitation agreement. “They [the boy and his mother] don’t know it yet,” Chandler told Schwartz, “but they aren’t going anywhere.”
On July 12, one day after Chandler took control of his son, he had his ex-wife sign a document prepared by Rothman that prevented her from taking the youth out of Los Angeles County. This meant the boy would be unable to accompany Jackson on the tour. His mother told the court she signed the document under duress. Chandler, she said in an affidavit, had threatened that “I would not have [the boy] returned to me.” A bitter custody battle ensued, making even murkier any charges Chandler made about wrong-doing on Jackson’s part. (As of this August [1994], the boy was still living with Chandler.) It was during the first few
weeks after Chandler took control of his son — who was now isolated from his
friends, mother and stepfather — that the boy’s allegations began to take
shape.
At the same time, Rothman, seeking an expert’s opinion to help establish the allegations against Jackson, called Dr. Mathis Abrams, a Beverly Hills psychiatrist. Over the telephone, Rothman presented Abrams with a hypothetical situation. In reply and without having met either Chandler or his son, Abrams on July 15 sent Rothman a two-page letter in which he stated that “reasonable suspicion would exist that sexual abuse may have occurred.” Importantly, he also stated that if this were a real and not a hypothetical case, he would be required by law to report the matter to the Los Angeles County Department of Children’s Services (DCS).
According to a July 27 entry in the diary kept by Rothman’s former colleague, it’s clear that Rothman was guiding Chandler in the plan. “Rothman wrote letter to
Chandler advising him how to report child abuse without liability to parent,” the entry reads.
At this point, there still had been made no demands or formal accusations, only veiled assertions that had become intertwined with a fierce custody battle. On August 4, 1993, however, things became very clear. Chandler and his son met with Jackson and Pellicano in a suite at the Westwood Marquis Hotel. On seeing
Jackson, says Pellicano, Chandler gave the singer an affectionate hug (a gesture, some say, that would seem to belie the dentist’s suspicions that Jackson had molested his son), then reached into his pocket, pulled out Abrams’s letter and began reading passages from it. When Chandler got to the parts about child molestation, the boy, says Pellicano, put his head down and then looked up at Jackson with a surprised expression, as if to say “I didn’t say that.” As the meeting broke up, Chandler pointed his finger at Jackson, says Pellicano, and warned “I’m going to ruin you.”
At a meeting with Pellicano in Rothman’s office later that evening, Chandler and Rothman made their demand – $20 million.
On August 13, there was another meeting in Rothman’s office. Pellicano came back with a counteroffer — a $350,000 screenwriting deal. Pellicano says he made the offer as a way to resolve the custody dispute and give Chandler an opportunity to spend more time with his son by working on a screenplay together. Chandler rejected the offer. Rothman made a counter demand — a deal for three screenplays or nothing — which was spurned. In the diary of Rothman’s
ex-colleague, an August 24 entry reveals Chandler’s disappointment: “I almost had a $20 million deal,” he was overheard telling Rothman.
Before Chandler took control of his son, the only one making allegations against Jackson was Chandler himself — the boy had never accused the singer of any wrongdoing. That changed one day in Chandler’s Beverly Hills dental office.
In the presence of Chandler and Mark Torbiner, a dental anesthesiologist, the boy was administered the controversial drug sodium Amytal — which some mistakenly believe is a truth serum. And it was after this session that the boy first made his charges against Jackson. A newsman at KCBS-TV, in L.A., reported on May 3 of this year that Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist
claimed he did so only to pull his son’s tooth and that while under the drug’s
influence, the boy came out with allegations. Asked for this article about his
use of the drug on the boy, Torbiner replied: “If I used it, it was for dental purposes.”
Given the facts about sodium Amytal and a recent landmark case that involved the drug, the boy’s allegations, say several medical experts, must be viewed as unreliable, if not highly questionable.
“It’s a psychiatric medication that cannot be relied on to produce fact,” says Dr.
Resnick, the Cleveland psychiatrist. “People are very suggestible under it. People will say things under sodium Amytal that are blatantly untrue.” Sodium Amytal is a barbiturate, an invasive drug that puts people in a hypnotic state when it’s injected intravenously. Primarily administered for the treatment of amnesia, it first came into use during World War II, on soldiers traumatized — some into catatonic states — by the horrors of war. Scientific studies done in 1952 debunked the drug as a truth serum and instead demonstrated its risks: False memories can be easily implanted in those under its influence. “It is quite possible to implant an idea through the mere asking of a question,” says Resnick. But its effects are apparently even more insidious: “The idea can become their memory, and studies have shown that even when you tell them the truth, they will swear on a stack of Bibles that it happened,” says Resnick.
Recently, the reliability of the drug became an issue in a high-profile trial in Napa County, California. After undergoing numerous therapy sessions, at least one of which included the use of sodium Amytal, 20-year-old Holly Ramona accused her father of molesting her as a child. Gary Ramona vehemently denied the charge and sued his daughter’s therapist and the psychiatrist who had administered the drug. This past May, jurors sided with Gary Ramona, believing that the therapist and the psychiatrist may have reinforced memories that were false. Gary Ramona’s was the first successful legal challenge to the so-called “repressed memory phenomenon” that has produced thousands of sexual-abuse allegations over the past decade.
As for Chandler’s story about using the drug to sedate his son during a tooth extraction, that too seems dubious, in light of the drug’s customary use. “It’s absolutely a psychiatric drug,” says Dr. Kenneth Gottlieb, a San Francisco
psychiatrist who has administered sodium Amytal to amnesia patients. Dr. John
Yagiela, the coordinator of the anesthesia and pain control department of
UCLA’s school of dentistry, adds, “It’s unusual for it to be used [for pulling a tooth]. It makes no sense when better, safer alternatives are available. It would not be my choice.”
Because of sodium Amytal’s potential side effects, some doctors will administer it only in a hospital. “I would never want to use a drug that tampers with a person’s unconscious unless there was no other drug available,” says Gottlieb.
“And I would not use it without resuscitating equipment, in case of allergic reaction, and only with an M.D. anesthesiologist present.”
Chandler, it seems, did not follow these guidelines. He had the procedure performed on his son in his office, and he relied on the dental anesthesiologist Mark Torbiner for expertise. (It was Torbiner who’d introduced Chandler and Rothman in 1991, when Rothman needed dental work.)
The nature of Torbiner’s practice appears to have made it highly successful. “He boasts that he has $100 a month overhead and $40,000 a month income,” says Nylla Jones, a former patient of his. Torbiner doesn’t have an office for seeing
patients; rather, he travels to various dental offices around the city, where he
administers anesthesia during procedures.
This magazine has learned that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is probing another aspect of Torbiner’s business practices: He makes housecalls to administer drugs — mostly morphine and Demerol — not only postoperatively to his dental patients but also, it seems, to those suffering pain whose source has nothing to do with dental work. He arrives at the homes of his clients — some of them celebrities — carrying a kind of fishing-tackle box that contains drugs and syringes. At one time, the license plate on his Jaguar read “SLPYDOC.” According to Jones, Torbiner charges $350 for a basic ten-to-twenty-minute visit. In what Jones describes as standard practice, when it’s unclear how long Torbiner will need to stay, the client, anticipating the stupor that will soon set in, leaves a blank check for Torbiner to fill in with the appropriate amount. the
appropriate amount.
Torbiner wasn’t always successful. In 1989, he got caught in a lie and was asked to resign from UCLA, where he was an assistant professor at the school of dentistry. Torbiner had asked to take a half-day off so he could observe a religious holiday but was later found to have worked at a dental office instead.
A check of Torbiner’s credentials with the Board of Dental Examiners indicates that he is restricted by law to administering drugs solely for dental-related procedures. But there is clear evidence that he has not abided by those restrictions. In fact, on at least eight occasions, Torbiner has given a general anesthetic to Barry Rothman, during hair-transplant procedures. Though normally a local anesthetic would be injected into the scalp, “Barry is so afraid of the pain,” says Dr. James De Yarman, the San Diego physician who performed Rothman’s transplants, “that [he] wanted to be put out completely.” De Yarman
said he was “amazed” to learn that Torbiner is a dentist, having assumed all along that he was an M.D.
In another instance, Torbiner came to the home of Nylla Jones, she says, and injected her with Demerol to help dull the pain that followed her appendectomy.
On August 16, three days after Chandler and Rothman rejected the $350,000 script deal, the situation came to a head. On behalf of June Chandler Schwartz, Michael Freeman notified Rothman that he would be filing papers early the next morning that would force Chandler to turn over the boy. Reacting quickly, Chandler took his son to Mathis Abrams, the psychiatrist who’d provided Rothman with his assessment of the hypothetical child-abuse situation. During a three-hour session, the boy alleged that Jackson had engaged in a sexual relationship with him. He talked of masturbation, kissing, fondling of nipples and oral sex. There was, however, no mention of actual penetration, which might have been verified by a medical exam, thus providing corroborating evidence.
The next step was inevitable. Abrams, who is required by law to report any such accusation to authorities, called a social worker at the Department of Children’s Services, who in turn contacted the police. The full-scale investigation of Michael
Jackson was about to begin.
Five days after Abrams called the authorities, the media got wind of the investigation. On Sunday morning, August 22, Don Ray, a free-lance reporter in Burbank, was asleep when his phone rang. The caller, one of his tipsters, said that warrants had been issued to search Jackson’s ranch and condominium. Ray sold the story to L.A.’s KNBC-TV, which broke the news at 4 P.M. the following day.
After that, Ray “watched this story go away like a freight train,” he says. Within
twenty-four hours, Jackson was the lead story on seventy-three TV news
broadcasts in the Los Angeles area alone and was on the front page of every
British newspaper. The story of Michael Jackson and the 13-year-old boy became
a frenzy of hype and unsubstantiated rumor, with the line between tabloid and
mainstream media virtually eliminated.
The extent of the allegations against Jackson wasn’t known until August 25. A person inside the DCS illegally leaked a copy of the abuse report to Diane Dimond of Hard Copy. Within hours, the L.A. office of a British news service also got the report and began selling copies to any reporter willing to pay $750. The following day, the world knew about the graphic details in the leaked report. “While laying next to each other in bed, Mr. Jackson put his hand under [the child's] shorts,” the social worker had written. From there, the coverage soon demonstrated that anything about Jackson would be fair game.
“Competition among news organizations became so fierce,” says KNBC reporter Conan Nolan, that “stories weren’t being checked out. It was very unfortunate.” The National Enquirer put twenty reporters and editors on the story. One team knocked on 500 doors in Brentwood trying to find Evan Chandler and his son. Using property records, they finally did, catching up with Chandler in his black Mercedes. “He was not a happy man. But I was,” said Andy O’Brien, a tabloid photographer.
Next came the accusers — Jackson’s former employees. First, Stella and Philippe Lemarque, Jackson’ ex-housekeepers, tried to sell their story to the tabloids with the help of broker Paul Barresi, a former porn star. They asked for as much as half a million dollars but wound up selling an interview to The Globe of Britain for
$15,000. The Quindoys, a Filipino couple who had worked at Neverland, followed.
When their asking price was $100,000, they said “‘the hand was outside the kid’s pants,’ “Barresi told a producer of Frontline, a PBS program. “As soon as their price went up to $500,000, the hand went inside the pants. So come on.” The L.A. district attorney’s office eventually concluded that both couples were useless as witnesses.
Next came the bodyguards. Purporting to take the journalistic high road, Hard Copy’s Diane Dimond told Frontline in early November of last year that her program was “pristinely clean on this. We paid no money for this story at all.”
But two weeks later, as a Hard Copy contract reveals, the show was negotiating
a $100,000 payment to five former Jackson security guards who were planning to
file a $10 million lawsuit alleging wrongful termination of their jobs.
On December 1, with the deal in place, two of the guards appeared on the program; they had been fired, Dimond told viewers, because “they knew too much about Michael Jackson’s strange relationship with young boys.” In reality, as their depositions under oath three months later reveal, it was clear they had never actually seen Jackson do anything improper with Chandler’s son or any other child:
“So you don’t know anything about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?” one of
Jackson’s attorneys asked former security guard Morris Williams under oath.
“All I know is from the sworn documents that other people have sworn to.”
“But other than what someone else may have said, you have no firsthand knowledge about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?”
“That’s correct.”
“Have you spoken to a child who has ever told you that Mr. Jackson did anything improper with the child?”
“No.”
When asked by Jackson’s attorney where he had gotten his impressions, Williams replied:
“Just what I’ve been hearing in the media and what I’ve experienced with
my own eyes.”
“Okay.That’s the point. You experienced nothing with your own eyes, did you?”
“That’s right, nothing.”
(The guards’ lawsuit, filed in March 1994, was still pending as this article went to press.) (NOTE: The case was thrown out of court
in July 1995. Click here to
read details.]
Next came the maid. On December 15, Hard Copy presented “The Bedroom Maid’s Painful Secret.” Blanca Francia told Dimond and other reporters that she had seen a naked Jackson taking showers and Jacuzzi baths with young boys. She also told Dimond that she had witnessed her own son in compromising positions with Jackson — an allegation that the grand juries apparently never found credible.
A copy of Francia’s sworn testimony reveals that Hard Copy paid her $20,000, and had Dimond checked out the woman’s claims, she would have found them to be false. Under deposition by a Jackson attorney, Francia admitted she had never actually see Jackson shower with anyone nor had she seen him naked with boys in his Jacuzzi. They always had their swimming trunks on, she acknowledged.
The coverage, says Michael Levine, a Jackson press representative, “followed a
proctologist’s view of the world. Hard Copy was loathsome. The vicious and vile
treatment of this man in the media was for selfish reasons. [Even] if you have
never bought a Michael Jackson record in your life, you should be very concerned. Society is built on very few pillars. One of them is truth. When you
abandon that, it’s a slippery slope.”
The investigation of Jackson, which by October 1993 would grow to involve at least twelve detectives from Santa Barbara and Los Angeles counties, was instigated in part by the perceptions of one psychiatrist, Mathis Abrams, who had no particular expertise in child sexual abuse. Abrams, the DCS caseworker’s report noted, “feels the child is telling the truth.” In an era of widespread and
often false claims of child molestation, police and prosecutors have come to give
great weight to the testimony of psychiatrists, therapists and social workers.
Police seized Jackson’s telephone books during the raid on his residences in August and questioned close to thirty children and their families. Some, such as Brett Barnes and Wade Robson, said they had shared Jackson’s bed, but like all the others, they gave the same response — Jackson had done nothing wrong.
“The evidence was very good for us,” says an attorney who worked on
Jackson’s defense. “The other side had nothing but a big mouth.”
Despite the scant evidence supporting their belief that Jackson was guilty, the police stepped up their efforts. Two officers flew to the Philippines to try to nail down the Quindoys’ “hand in the pants” story, but apparently decided it lacked
credibility. The police also employed aggressive investigative techniques –
including allegedly telling lies — to push the children into making accusations against Jackson. According to several parents who complained to Bert Fields, officers told them unequivocally that their children had been molested, even though the children denied to their parents that anything bad had happened. The police, Fields complained in a letter to Los Angeles Police Chief Willie Williams, “have also frightened youngsters with outrageous lies, such as ‘We have nude photos of you.’ There are, of course, no such photos.” One officer, Federico Sicard, told attorney Michael Freeman that he had lied to the children he’d interviewed and told them that he himself had been molested as a child, says Freeman. Sicard did not respond to requests for an interview for this article.
All along, June Chandler Schwartz rejected the charges Chandler was making against Jackson — until a meeting with police in late August 1993. Officers Sicard and Rosibel Ferrufino made a statement that began to change her mind. “[The officers] admitted they only had one boy,” says Freeman, who attended the meeting, “but they said, ‘We’re convinced Michael Jackson molested this boy because he fits the classic profile of a pedophile perfectly.’ ”
“There’s no such thing as a classic profile. They made a completely foolish and illogical error,” says Dr. Ralph Underwager, a Minneapolis psychiatrist who has
treated pedophiles and victims of incest since 1953. Jackson, he believes,
“got nailed” because of “misconceptions like these that have been allowed to parade as fact in an era of hysteria.” In truth, as a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study shows, many child-abuse allegations — 48 percent of those filed in 1990 — proved to be unfounded.
“It was just a matter of time before someone like Jackson became a target,” says
Phillip Resnick. “He’s rich, bizarre, hangs around with kids and there is
a fragility to him. The atmosphere is such that an accusation must mean it
happened.”
The seeds of settlement were already being sown as the police investigation continued in both counties through the fall of 1993. And a behind-the-scenes battle among Jackson’s lawyers for control of the case, which would ultimately alter the course the defense would take, had begun.
By then, June Chandler Schwartz and Dave Schwartz had united with Evan Chandler against Jackson. The boy’s mother, say several sources, feared what Chandler and Rothman might do if she didn’t side with them. She worried that they would try to advance a charge against her of parental neglect for allowing her son to have sleepovers with Jackson. Her attorney, Michael Freeman, in turn, resigned in disgust, saying later that “the whole thing was such a mess. I felt
uncomfortable with Evan. He isn’t a genuine person, and I sensed he wasn’t
playing things straight.”
Over the months, lawyers for both sides were retained, demoted and ousted as they feuded over the best strategy to take. Rothman ceased being Chandler’s lawyer in late August, when the Jackson camp filed extortion charges against the two. Both then hired high-priced criminal defense attorneys to represent them. (Rothman retained Robert Shapiro, now O.J. Simpson’s chief lawyer.) According to the diary kept by Rothman’s former colleague, on August 26, before the extortion charges were filed, Chandler was heard to say “It’s my ass that’s on the line and in danger of going to prison.” The investigation into the extortion charges was superficial because, says a source, “the police never took it that
seriously. But a whole lot more could have been done.” For example, as
they had done with Jackson, the police could have sought warrants to search the
homes and offices of Rothman and Chandler. And when both men, through their
attorneys, declined to be interviewed by police, a grand jury could have been
convened.
In mid-September, Larry Feldman, a civil attorney who’d served as head of the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association, began representing Chandler’s son and immediately took control of the situation. He filed a $30 million civil lawsuit against Jackson, which would prove to be the beginning of the end.
Once news of the suit spread, the wolves began lining up at the door. According to a member of Jackson’s legal team, “Feldman got dozens of letters from all kinds of people saying they’d been molested by Jackson. They went through all of them trying to find somebody, and they found zero.”
With the possibility of criminal charges against Jackson now looming, Bert Fields
brought in Howard Weitzman, a well-known criminal-defense lawyer with a string
of high-profile clients — including John DeLorean, whose trail he won, and Kim
Basinger, whose Boxing Helena contract dispute he lost. (Also, for a short time
this June, Weitzman was O.J. Simpson’s attorney.) Some predicted a problem
between the two lawyers early on. There wasn’t room for two strong attorneys
used to running their own show.
From the day Weitzman joined Jackson’s defense team, “he was talking settlement,” says Bonnie Ezkenazi, an attorney who worked for the defense. With Fields and Pellicano still in control of Jackson’s defense, they adopted an aggressive strategy. They believed staunchly in Jackson’s innocence and vowed to fight the charges in court. Pellicano began gathering evidence to use in the trial, which was scheduled for March 21, 1994. “They had a very weak case,” says
Fields. “We wanted to fight. Michael wanted to fight and go through a
trial. We felt we could win.”
Dissension within the Jackson camp accelerated on November 12, after Jackson’s publicist announced at a press conference that the singer was canceling the remainder of his world tour to go into a drug-rehabilitation program to treat his addiction to painkillers. Fields later told reporters that Jackson was “barely able to function adequately on an intellectual level.” Others in Jackson’s camp felt it was a mistake to portray the singer as incompetent. “It was
important,” Fields says, “to tell the truth. [Larry] Feldman and the press took the position that Michael was trying to hide and that it was all a scam. But it wasn’t.”
On November 23, the friction peaked. Based on information he says he got from Weitzman, Fields told a courtroom full of reporters that a criminal indictment against Jackson seemed imminent. Fields had a reason for making the statement: He was trying to delay the boy’s civil suit by establishing that there was an impending criminal case that should be tried first. Outside the courtroom, reporters asked why Fields had made the announcement, to which Weitzman replied essentially that Fields “misspoke himself.” The comment infuriated Fields,
“because it wasn’t true,” he says. “It was just an outrage. I was very upset with Howard.” Fields sent a letter of resignation to Jackson the following week.
“There was this vast group of people all wanting to do a different thing, and it was like moving through molasses to get a decision,” says Fields. “It was a nightmare, and I wanted to get the hell out of it.” Pellicano, who had received his share of flak for his aggressive manner, resigned at the same time.
With Fields and Pellicano gone, Weitzman brought in Johnnie Cochran Jr., a well-known civil attorney who is now helping defend O.J. Simpson. And John Branca, whom Fields had replaced as Jackson’s general counsel in 1990, was back on board. In late 1993, as DAs in both Santa Barbara and Los Angeles counties convened grand juries to assess whether criminal charges should be filed against Jackson, the defense strategy changed course and talk of settling the civil case began in earnest, even though his new team also believed in Jackson’s innocence.
Why would Jackson’s side agree to settle out of court, given his claims of innocence and the questionable evidence against him? His attorneys apparently decided there were many factors that argued against taking the case to civil court. Among them was the fact that Jackson’s emotional fragility would be tested by the oppressive media coverage that would likely plague the singer day after day during a trial that could last as long as six months. Politics and racial
issues had also seeped into legal proceedings — particularly in Los Angeles,
which was still recovering from the Rodney King ordeal — and the defense
feared that a court of law could not be counted on to deliver justice. Then,
too, there was the jury mix to consider. As one attorney says, “They figured that Hispanics might resent [Jackson] for his money, blacks might resent him for trying to be white, and whites would have trouble getting around the molestation issue.” In Resnick’s opinion, “The hysteria is so great and the stigma [of child molestation] is so strong, there is no defense against it.”
Jackson’s lawyers also worried about what might happen if a criminal trial followed, particularly in Santa Barbara, which is a largely white, conservative, middle-to-upper-class community. Any way the defense looked at it, a civil trial seemed too big a gamble. By meeting the terms of a civil settlement, sources say, the lawyers figured they could forestall a criminal trial through a tacit understanding that Chandler would agree to make his son unavailable to testify.
Others close to the case say the decision to settle also probably had to do with another factor — the lawyers’ reputations. “Can you imagine what would happen to an attorney who lost the Michael Jackson case?” says Anthony Pellicano.
“There’s no way for all three lawyers to come out winners unless they settle. The only person who lost is Michael Jackson.” But Jackson, says Branca, “changed his mind about [taking the case to trial] when he returned to this country. He hadn’t seen the massive coverage and how hostile it was. He just wanted the whole thing to go away.”
On the other side, relationships among members of the boy’s family had become bitter. During a meeting in Larry Feldman’s office in late 1993, Chandler, a source says, “completely lost it and beat up Dave [Schwartz].” Schwartz, having separated from June by this time, was getting pushed out of making decisions that affected his stepson, and he resented Chandler for taking the boy and not returning him.
“Dave got mad and told Evan this was all about extortion, anyway, at which point Evan stood up, walked over and started hitting Dave,” a second source says.
To anyone who lived in Los Angeles in January 1994, there were two main topics of discussion — the earthquake and the Jackson settlement. On January 25, Jackson agreed to pay the boy an undisclosed sum. The day before, Jackson’s attorneys had withdrawn the extortion charges against Chandler and Rothman.
The actual amount of the settlement has never been revealed, although speculation has placed the sum around $20 million. One source says Chandler and June Chandler Schwartz received up to $2 million each, while attorney Feldman might have gotten up to 25 percent in contingency fees. The rest of the money is being held in trust for the boy and will be paid out under the supervision of a court-appointed trustee.
“Remember, this case was always about money,” Pellicano says, “and Evan Chandler wound up getting what he wanted.” Since Chandler still has custody of his son, sources contend that logically this means the father has access to any
money his son gets.
By late May 1994, Chandler finally appeared to be out of dentistry. He’d closed down his Beverly Hills office, citing ongoing harassment from Jackson supporters. Under the terms of the settlement, Chandler is apparently prohibited from writing about the affair, but his brother, Ray Charmatz, was reportedly trying to get a book deal.
In what may turn out to be the never-ending case, this past August, both Barry Rothman and Dave Schwartz (two principal players left out of the settlement) filed civil suits against Jackson. Schwartz maintains that the singer broke up his family. Rothman’s lawsuit claims defamation and slander on the part of Jackson, as well as his original defense team — Fields, Pellicano and Weitzman — for the
allegations of extortion. “The charge of [extortion],” says Rothman attorney Aitken, “is totally untrue. Mr. Rothman has been held up for public ridicule, was the subject of a criminal investigation and suffered loss of income.” (Presumably, some of Rothman’s lost income is the hefty fee he would have received had he been able to continue as Chandler’s attorney through the settlement phase.)
As for Michael Jackson, “he is getting on with his life,” says publicist Michael
Levine. Now married, Jackson also recently recorded three new songs for a
greatest-hits album and completed a new music video called “History.”
And what became of the massive investigation of Jackson? After millions of dollars were spent by prosecutors and police departments in two jurisdictions, and after two grand juries questioned close to 200 witnesses, including 30 children who knew Jackson, not a single corroborating witness could be found. (In June 1994, still determined to find even one corroborating witness, three prosecutors and two police detectives flew to Australia to again question Wade Robson, the boy who had acknowledged that he’d slept in the same bed with Jackson. Once again, the boy said that nothing bad had happened.)
The sole allegations leveled against Jackson, then, remain those made by one youth, and only after the boy had been given a potent hypnotic drug, leaving him
susceptible to the power of suggestion.
“I found the case suspicious,” says Dr. Underwager, the Minneapolis psychiatrist,
“precisely because the only evidence came from one boy. That would be highly unlikely. Actual pedophiles have an average of 240 victims in their lifetime. It’s a progressive disorder. They’re never satisfied.”
Given the slim evidence against Jackson, it seems unlikely he would have been found guilty had the case gone to trial. But in the court of public opinion, there are no restrictions. People are free to speculate as they wish, and Jackson’s
eccentricity leaves him vulnerable to the likelihood that the public has
assumed the worst about him.
So is it possible that Jackson committed no crime — that he is what he has always purported to be, a protector and not a molester of children? Attorney Michael Freeman thinks so: “It’s my feeling that Jackson did nothing wrong and these people [Chandler and Rothman] saw an opportunity and programmed it. I believe it was all about money.”
To some observers, the Michael Jackson story illustrates the dangerous power of
accusation, against which there is often no defense — particularly when the accusations involve child sexual abuse. To others, something else is clear now
– that police and prosecutors spent millions of dollars to create a case whose
foundation never existed.
JUDGE DISMISSES CASE AGAINST MICHAEL JACKSON
North American News Report
DATE: July 21, 1995 18:06 E.T.
LOS ANGELES (Reuter) – A judge Friday threw out a lawsuit against Michael Jackson by five of his former security guards who said they were fired for knowing too much about nighttime visits with young boys.
After a three-day trial, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Richard Neal dismissed the case on the grounds that all the guards had signed releases providing for severance pay when they left Jackson.
”Michael Jackson is thankful for the court’s ruling,” Jackson’s attorney Howard Weitzman said in a statement.
”He has consistently maintained that he has not engaged in wrongful conduct with any minors. The stories told by these guards on various tabloid shows, for which they were paid, were false.” The security guards had brought the case against Jackson in 1993, alleging they were spied on and harassed by a private
investigator hired by the pop superstar to impede the investigation into
charges he sexually molested young boys.
At the time, Jackson was being sued by a 13-year-old boy who charged the singer had molested him, and was also under criminal investigation. Jackson denied the allegations of the boy, whose family later settled the lawsuit for millions of dollars, and prosecutors decided not to pursue the charges.
The security guards had alleged they had firsthand knowledge of Jackson’s personal life, and had witnessed him fondling young boys and keeping them in his bedroom for days at a time.
They also alleged Jackson attempted to discredit potential witnesses and destroy incriminating evidence, at one point instructing one guard to retrieve a photo of a naked boy left in the singer’s bathroom.
Jackson maintained that the dismissal of the guards was related to a decision to hire an independent security firm rather than employ guards on an individual basis.
JUDGE DISMISSES GUARDS’ CASE AGAINST MICHAEL JACKSON
The Associated Press
Date: July 22, 1995
A lawsuit by four ex-guards who claim Michael Jackson fired them because they knew about his alleged trysts was thrown out of court on Friday.
The men sued in 1993 despite the fact they had signed a release after they were fired in which they promised not to.
They claimed the release was invalid because they signed it under duress, but Superior Court Judge Richard C. Neal dismissed the case.
The guards’ lawyer, Charles T. Mathews, said he would appeal.
”If we’d been able to get to a jury, I’m quite confident they’d find the charges we alleged were true,” Mathews said. Jackson’s lawyer disagreed.
”Michael has said from day one he never did anything inappropriate with any minors,” Howard Weitzman said. ”This was (the guards’) way of getting their 15 minutes in the limelight.”
Jackson settled a sex abuse lawsuit filed by a 13-year-old boy in 1994, reportedly for as much as $15 million. No charges were filed. Jackson denied wrongdoing and called the boy’s claim an extortion attempt.
Administrator’s Note: Please share this article with anyone who may not know or may have never heard the facts as presented here. We have to keep sending the message that Michael was innocent. I pray that one day I live to see Michael’s name fully cleared from the stigma of these treacherous lies that have been spread through the perpetrators and the lying mass media!
We DEMAND TOTAL VINDICATION for Michael to clear his name from FALSE ALLEGATIONS, but to also bring to justice ALL THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS DEATH!!!
veritas et aequitas!! (Truth and Justice!) Cutie ♥
Michael Jackson is responsible for improving the lives of so many people around the world, and has left an indelible mark on this earth.
We are very happy to present an interview with Matt Semino, a New York City attorney who has written extensively on various legal issues, including the upcoming Conrad Murray trial. Matt has kindly agreed to share his thoughts and opinions on a number of topics, many of which address our deep concerns about the court system and potential issues and strategies to be faced in the coming weeks. Matt shares with us his strong support for Michael and a legacy of enormous impact on world culture. Intelligent, educated and experienced insight is surely welcomed and necessary during this difficult time. Please welcome Matt, as he hopes his words and input are informative and helpful to all.
Lauren: Matt, thank you for agreeing to this interview. Would you give us an idea of your background, what area of law you practice and what your current interests are in legal matters, media or journalism in general?
Matt:I am a private practice attorney in New York City, where I advise domestic and international clients from the entertainment, real estate and finance industries on a diverse range of legal matters, including strategic business transactions, compliance with government regulations, policies and investigations as well as complex litigation. As an attorney, I have also provided pro-bono legal defense and advocacy representation to U.S. political asylum seekers, and economically marginalized clients through New York based human and victim rights organizations.
As a legal analyst, I write and provide commentary on high-profile cases, trials and legal topics in the national media. My analysis is informed by my experiences as an attorney, as well as my work in the fields of entertainment, finance and public policy. I am fascinated by the frequent intersection of law with celebrity culture, as well as the tremendous power of media to shape public discourse on social, economic and political issues through popular legal stories.
My interests in law, policy, entertainment and media were initially shaped through my earlier educational and work experiences both in the United States and abroad, and have developed further through my legal practice.
I graduated from Columbia Law School and Cornell University, and studied at the London School of Economics. Prior to attending law school, I was a Fulbright Scholar in Southeast Asia. I gained exposure to the political and legislative system by working in Washington DC in the United States Senate for the late Senator Edward Kennedy, in the Justice Department under Attorney General Janet Reno, and in London in the British Parliament for parliamentarian Quentin Davies. My experience in the entertainment industry includes hands-on work with several film and television productions in New York and Los Angeles.
Lauren:Besides The Huffington Post, what other outlets do you contribute to?
Matt:In addition to my legal column on The Huffington Post, my commentary has been featured through such national media as FOX, CNBC, CBS, Forbes, Business Insider, Daily Candy and Bloomberg online, among other domestic and international media outlets. I also contribute stories to the national news site Examiner, which are focused on entertainment, celebrity and society topics.
As a New Yorker, I support and serve on the committees of a variety of philanthropic and arts organizations, and have appeared in Town & Country, Gotham, Hamptons, Avenue and Quest magazines as well as New York Social Diary, in connection with my involvement through these cultural endeavors.
I am excited about future opportunities to share my legal analysis and commentary, particularly on the Dr. Conrad Murray trial, through The Huffington Post as well as other print media, radio and television sources.
Lauren:What was your experience like as a Fullbright scholar?
Matt: My time as a Fulbright Scholar was one of the most personally and intellectually enriching experiences of my life. From 1998-1999, I had the opportunity to attend the National University of Singapore as a research fellow through the generosity of the Fulbright Program. The Fulbright Program is sponsored by the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, and is the U.S. government’s flagship educational exchange program.
As a Fulbright Scholar, I conducted research on the currency crisis that was occurring during that period of time in Southeast Asia. I examined the impact of that financial crisis on human rights, democracy and monetary policy throughout the region. Through my academic and field research in Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, I concluded that although the economic and social upheaval in the region had caused tremendous economic suffering and led to increased violations of human rights, it also generated powerful calls from citizens in these countries for greater governmental transparency, democracy and institutional reform. These citizen led movements created positive and lasting policy changes. In addition to my research in Southeast Asia, I had the opportunity to travel and gain exposure to the cultures, religions and societies in such countries as Tibet, China, India, Russia, South Africa and Bolivia, among others.
Lauren: What musical interests do you have?
Matt: As a child of the MTV generation, I have always been drawn to pop music and videos. However, if a song or an artist moves me, I will listen and explore no matter what genre. I am addicted to iTunes which makes discovering new music very easy! New York City is also home to some of the best musical performance venues in the world. Living in Manhattan, I have heard live performances of and developed an appreciation for classical, Broadway, opera, Latin, world, rock, alternative and jazz music as well.
Lauren:When was your first experience or knowledge of Michael Jackson?
Matt: I was hooked when I first heard “Thriller” on the radio and saw the epic video for that song on MTV. The rest is history!
Lauren:Do you have specific favorite songs, films, albums or other artistic work?
Matt:In terms of sheer pop classics, dancing and Michael Jackson iconography, the music and videos from the albums Thriller and Bad stand in the forefront of my mind as favorites. To me, they truly represent Michael Jackson as the ultimate showman talent. However, the somewhat darker, more emotional and political albums Dangerous and History, offer an authentic glimpse at what I believe was a deeply thoughtful, caring man and humanitarian. The music and videos from these albums are interesting to me because of their nuanced artistic and psychological layers, as well as their socially conscious messages. Specifically, “Man in the Mirror,” “Heal the World,” “Black or White,” “Scream”, “They Don’t Care About Us” and “Earth Song” best capture for me Michael Jackson’s human complexity, his compassion for the world and his personal struggles. These works make you feel and think all at once which, in my opinion, is the beauty of true art.
Lauren:How have you personally been affected by his artistry and body of work and the kind of person he was?
Matt:Michael Jackson’s artistry as well as his humanitarian efforts, unwavering commitment to social justice and generous contributions to charitable organizations throughout the world, have served as an inspiration to me to follow my dreams with the goal of having a positive impact on society. His example of always looking to assist those less fortunate and of using one’s given talents to improve the state of the world in any way, large or small, are examples that I strive to follow in my everyday life.
When I was a child and young adult, Michael Jackson’s creative body of work and public service actions shined an even greater light for me on such difficult but timely issues as homelessness, environmental degradation, AIDS, famine and racism, among other salient topics. Jackson demonstrated that if you want to create positive social change, it is entirely possible. Motivated in part by the philosophical underpinnings of his messages, I was drawn to the law because I know it is a powerful tool that can be used for helping others and working toward solving some of the world’s most complex problems.
Lauren:As an attorney, what was your general impression of the prosecution and trial in 2005?
Matt:I believe the case People vs. Jackson andthe 2005 trial involving Michael, represented the culmination of anti-Michael Jackson sentiment that had been building for years within certain segments of American society. Michael Jackson was tainted by the Chandler family’s accusations against him from the early 1990s, and as his music and persona evolved over the decade, the once adoring public and media generally began to turn their back on him. Sorely misunderstood, a variety of actors in law enforcement, the legal system and the media seemed convinced that Michael Jackson’s actions, lifestyle and public image painted the picture of a guilty man. They wanted him to be put away for good and would not stop until that happened. The 2005 trial was a modern day witch hunt.
Fortunately, the prosecution’s case against Jackson revealed that the accusations lacked any substance or element of truth. Sloppy investigative work, extremely weak and conflicting evidence, disastrous witness testimony as well the accusing family’s history of attempting to extort celebrities, were all factors that contributed to the prosecution’s inability to convince a jury of Michael’s guilt. Yet, despite being found not guilty on all charges, Michael Jackson was still unfairly vilified by segments of the media in their hungry quest for ratings. This type of abysmal treatment by elements of the public and media, in my opinion, only led to further destruction of his image, career and soul.
Lauren:Have you studied or researched or simply had an interest in Michael as a person and artist and his difficulties in life?
Matt:As a Michael Jackson supporter, I followed his artistic career, humanitarian endeavors and the various stages of his life since childhood. As an attorney, I have always been intrigued by Michael Jackson’s complicated legal and financial history, as well as his business dealings during the course of his adult life. Since his untimely death, I have studied and conducted extensive research on the events and circumstances leading up to that tragic moment, as well as the complex cultural legacy and impact Michael Jackson has had and will continue to have in modern society.
More specifically, I have recently been focusing my attention on the criminal charges against Michael Jackson’s personal physician, Dr. Conrad Murray, in connection with his death. Through each stage of the Dr. Murray case, I have been following and evaluating the hearings, evidence, witness and media accounts, the jury selection process and anticipated legal strategies of the prosecution and defense as it proceeds to trial. I have also been providing legal analysis and commentary on the case through a variety of media outlets, particularly on The Huffington Post.
Lauren:What are your thoughts or impressions of Michael?
Matt:Michael Jackson was larger than life. He is arguably among one of the most famous individuals in modern popular culture. The intensity and magnitude of his celebrity, talent, wealth and notoriety, allowed him to touch and connect people across the world through a common creative language. Yet at the same time, the amalgamation of these characteristics built a complex man who, although loved and adored by millions, was an enigma to many. Sadly, the combination of his extreme power with his extreme vulnerability made Michael Jackson an easy target for the unscrupulous. While Michael Jackson’s enormous and positive impact on culture and humanity will be felt by future generations, his life story is ultimately a modern-day Greek tragedy. It was a tragedy though that did not have to happen.
Lauren:Can you speak to the issues in the upcoming Murray trial, physician responsibility, financial gain, power, celebrity?
Matt:The Dr. Conrad Murray case represents the potentially lethal power that celebrity, power and greed can have on the patient/physician relationship in Hollywood, and in communities beyond the exclusive enclaves of the stars. When accepted standards of professional practice and ethics are abandoned in the pursuit of fame and financial gain, the human toll is disastrous.
As this is a case about the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the death of Michael Jackson, one of the most famous figures in the world, it will no doubt set precedent. The outcome of the case will be particularly influential in connection with the medical establishment’s future oversight of the private patient/physician relationship, and in the regulation of routine sales of potential addictive and lethal drugs to medical practitioners.
Hopefully, some of the important legal and social questions that this trial will address include; (1) What are the permissible professional and ethical boundaries of the physician/patient relationship, particularly those of a private nature? (2) What are the expected standards of care that a physician owes to his patient, and how can these standards be better enforced by the medical establishment and legal system? (3) How can the sale of excessive amounts of harmful medications and drugs to physicians, be better regulated to prevent systemic abuse and ultimately harm to patients? (5) Does the power and allure of celebrity and the prospect of financial gain contribute to unethical professional practices in Hollywood and beyond? If so, what policy steps can be taken to prevent future tragedies?
Lauren:Many fans, friends and advocates for Michael are angry, and feel powerless to stop the anticipated smear campaign by the defense. What are your thoughts on that issue? Is there any concrete action that can be taken to avoid or lessen this trauma?
Matt: In order to convict Dr. Conrad Murray on the charges of involuntary manslaughter, the prosecution through the presentation of its case, must convince a jury of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. In a criminal case such as that of Dr. Conrad Murray, if the jury has any reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt the jury should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors have no doubt as to the defendant’s guilt or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecution has proven the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
The sole object of Dr. Murray’s defense team will be to present its case in any manner that it believes within permissible ethical and legal boundaries, will place reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors to ensure that their client is found not guilty.
To the distress of many of Michael’s fans, accomplishing this will likely mean that the defense will dig up and play to past negative stereotypes and public perceptions of Jackson. The defense will also likely paint a picture of Michael Jackson as a demanding, drug dependent pop star who used the power of his celebrity to force Dr. Murray to obtain, and give him excessive amounts of propofol and other prescription drugs. It is also anticipated that the defense is planning to go as far to claim that Jackson injected himself with the lethal dose of propofol while Dr. Murray stepped out of his bedroom. While Dr. Murray’s legal team has every procedural right to present the strongest case possible, their arguments will no doubt be grounded in a classic ‘blame the victim’ defense.
It is inevitable that some segments of the media will cling to the defense’s less than favorable depiction of Michael Jackson. However, Jackson fans can take concrete actions in response. As the trial proceeds, fans can continue to petition and peacefully campaign against and/or boycott news programming and reporting that is perceived to support the distortion of facts, and that blurs the boundaries of ethical journalistic practice. The Michael Jackson fan base was highly successful in preventing the airing of a Discovery Channel show depicting a simulated autopsy on the star through these powerful means of collective action. Fans should continue to employ such tactics wherever they see factually false stories or inaccurate depictions of Jackson being presented to the public.
The Michael Jackson fan base can also engage in its own form of citizen journalism and attempt to shape the news through their personal interpretations of events. With the explosion of online media and blogs, there are many new opportunities and outlets for individuals with a viewpoint to share their perspective with a global audience. Such venues can provide vocal and informed Michael Jackson fans with a platform to counter what they believe is tabloid journalism by some mainstream media outlets. Finally, the Michael Jackson fan base can seek to promote and place into the mainstream media those journalists, commentators and media personalities that they believe best exemplify integrity and ethical practice in their reporting, and who will provide balanced analysis of the issues at hand.
Lauren: Given what is known about this case, what are your thoughts on the charge of involuntary manslaughter vs. murder II or a higher charge?
Matt:Many Michael Jackson supporters have expressed to me their anguish and disbelief that Dr. Conrad Murray was only charged with involuntary manslaughter, and not a higher charge such as second or even first-degree murder. They also believe that it is a slap in the face to Jackson, his family and his fans that he would only face a maximum of four years in prison if found guilty on the charges, particularly for a physician who acted so negligently in the care of his patient.
I do understand and empathize with the thoughts of many of the fans on these issues. It all looks to be quite unjust on its face. However, when looking at these charges it is necessary to understand the legal distinctions between various degrees of criminality in the law of homicide.
The reason Dr. Murray was only charged with involuntary manslaughter and not a higher charge boils down to what his likely state of mind was in the commission of the alleged crime, and what level of charge the existing evidence in the case will best support for the prosecution to ensure a conviction.
The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea or the state of mind of the accused. Within the law of homicide murder requires (i) either the intent to kill (with a state of mind called malice) or (ii) knowledge that one’s actions are likely to result in death (with a state of mind called malice aforethought). On the other hand, manslaughter requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or to create a deadly situation that may lead to death. Manslaughter is usually broken down into voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. Dr. Murray’s charge of involuntary manslaughter is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought. Involuntary manslaughter is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention.
In my interpretation, the evidence that has been collected and presented so far in the Murray case indicates that Dr. Murray violated his Hippocratic Oath, deviated greatly from proper standards of medical practice and professional ethics, and acted in a manner that was so negligent that Michael Jackson died under his watch.
However grossly negligent Dr. Murray was in his care of Jackson, that same body of evidence though does not seem to indicate that he actually had the intent to kill or the intent to cause serious harm to Michael Jackson, the necessary state of mind under the law to warrant a higher charge in this case. In order to increase their odds at a conviction it is likely for this reason, the lack of demonstrated intent, that the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office did not seek a higher charge against Dr. Murray.
Lauren:Patrick Treacy, Michael’s physician when he was in Ireland, is quite definite about the inevitable shredding of Michael’s reputation once again. Do you have any suggestions from a legal standpoint on how Michael’s fan base can brace or respond to this onslaught by the media?
(Below is Treacy’s interview with Aphrodite Jones)
Matt: From a legal standpoint, one of the most effective means for Michael Jackson fans to address any social, political or economic issues that are of importance to them or that effect them as a group now and into the future, is to directly address those issues through the legislative process. If the fan base perceives that greater media regulation and reform is needed in the United States, then they should continue to build advocacy organizations and lobbying groups that will vocalize the importance of these issues to their elected representatives in local, state and federal government. With effective leadership and strategic action by the Michael Jackson community, such organizations and groups may ultimately be able to influence the legislative process and have laws and policies enacted that can achieve the desired reforms.
Lauren:Michael’s fans are repeatedly marginalized in the media as ‘crazy’. What has been your experience with those you have had contact with?
Matt:Michael Jackson fans across the world are passionate people. Rightly so, millions of them are emotionally connected to what he symbolized as an artist, a humanitarian and a man who faced his own personal struggles throughout life. People from all races, religions and nationalities feel that they can relate to Jackson on many different levels and for a diverse range of reasons. Ultimately, he connected humanity.
Because Michael Jackson truly inspired and gave tremendous hope to so many people around the world, fans are angry that he was taken so soon by circumstances that could have easily been prevented. They are justified in their emotions. Michael’s fans have felt distressed for a number of years that a human being who they viewed was so talented, compassionate, kind and generous could be bullied in such a highly destructive manner by certain elements of society. Michael’s fans see injustice, and because they are highly vocal and visible they have been incorrectly labeled as ‘crazy.’
Since I began to write about Michael Jackson following his death, I have been contacted directly by legions of his fans from every corner of the earth. From Russia to Egypt, India to England and everywhere in between, the Michael Jackson fans that I have communicated with are some of the most sensitive, caring, thoughtful and eloquent people I have ever spoken with. Each has shared personal stories with me about how Michael Jackson touched their lives and how he gave them hope amidst their own personal challenges. They have also expressed to me highly intelligent thoughts and analysis on why they believe Michael’s rich life was cut short, and have offered their interpretations of the facts in the Dr. Conrad Murray case helping to shape my analysis along the way.
One of the most impressive aspects of the Michael Jackson fan base has been their ability to peacefully organize through the establishment of a powerful online community and tangible advocacy groups, to further Michael Jackson’s cultural legacy and humanitarian efforts. They should continue these activities also through the establishment of nonprofit entities that will advance the causes Michael Jackson supported.
Ultimately, Michael’s fans have the collective power to right what they view as wrongs in society whether it concerns Michael Jackson or other issues, by employing their strong voice and unified vision. Michael Jackson fans should never be discouraged by disparaging labels!
Lauren:What are your thoughts about old, familiar media faces that maligned Michael repeatedly in the past and now re-appear to do it again?
Matt:This does not surprise me at all. Ironically, many of the media figures who maligned Michael Jackson in the past have achieved even greater financial success and professional notoriety through their biased and sensational reporting. If these media personalities continue to garner ratings and are rewarded by networks for doing so, there is no incentive for them to change their approach to “The Michael Jackson Story” no matter what the set of facts they have before them. At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the viewing public to demand truthful reporting, ethical professional practices and accountability from journalists, media personalities and news organizations. As the media is primarily a profit making business, there will be no commercial advantage to story manipulation and the distortion of facts if the public refuses to buy it.
Lauren:What are your opinions about ‘blame the victim’ defenses; not just in Murray’s case, but overall? How is that in any sense justice, when the victim has no voice?
Matt:The relationship between a victim and a victimizer is typically characterized by an imbalance of power. It is usually the victimizer that holds, manipulates and then exerts their power over the victim, exploiting the victim’s weaknesses with dangerous effect. Although a victim may engage in behavior or place themselves into circumstances that contribute to them being exploited and ultimately victimized, it is the victimizer who should ultimately be held responsible for abusing their power in the relationship.
As Michael Jackson’s physician, Dr. Murray possessed a great deal of power over his patient even though he claims the opposite. He had the professional responsibility not to abuse that power for personal gain no matter what Michael Jackson, the victim, had done to find himself in a position of weakness. Yet, the ‘blame the victim’ defense that Dr. Murray’s legal team is expected to present at trial, serves as a very easy and convenient litigation strategy. Michael Jackson will be unable to refute any negative characterizations whether true or false that are made about him and the circumstances that caused his death, while Dr. Murray, on the other hand, will have the power to testify and state his interpretation of events.That seems quite unbalanced to me.
The defense will likely play to the jury’s emotions by perpetuating the popular, but not wholly accurate perception that Michael Jackson was an emotionally and physically weak pop star who was addicted to propofol, forced Dr. Murray to administer it to him regularly and ultimately caused his own death. It is difficult to image that justice can be fully served when the same imbalance of power that characterized the Dr. Conrad Murray/Michael Jackson relationship in Jackson’s home, will now rear its ugly head in the courtroom.
Lauren: Do you expect to participate in the discussion/discourse about this trial?
Matt:Absolutely! I will be covering and providing legal commentary on significant aspects of the Dr. Conrad Murray trial and its verdict for The Huffington Post, as well as on national radio and television news shows as requested. I am looking forward to contributing my legal analysis of the evidence presented at trial, witness testimony, the strategies of the prosecution and defense, as well as the social and policy implications of the verdict. My overall objective is to provide a truthful and balanced perspective on the facts and issues presented by this monumental case through a diverse range of media outlets.
Lauren:Are you aware of the importance of people like yourself and also Tom Mesereau, Patrick Treacy, those who knew or worked with Michael, cultural historians and researchers like Joe Vogel, friends and others who have a platform to speak about Michael and the truth as we know it?
Matt: That is very kind of you to say and to include me in this distinguished group. I believe it is essential for those fortunate enough to have a platform to address issues of injustice, inequity and abuses of power to do so whether it is concerning Michael Jackson or others. Though, with the power of such a platform comes the responsibility to speak with honesty, and to avoid the manipulation of news subjects and facts solely to serve ulterior commercial and/or personal interests. Unfortunately, as we have seen in the past with reporting on Michael Jackson, not all who possess such a platform act with ethics and professional responsibility.
Lauren:Why do you think the media focuses so fiercely on negative aspects in regard to Michael, and virtually ignore his humanitarian and artistic legacy?
Matt: Ratings. Easy sound bites. Profit. As long as media can continue to draw viewers and advertisers through a certain type of reporting style or story angle, whether it is about Michael Jackson or any other public figure, it will continue to do so. Many people could not understand Michael Jackson’s appearance, lifestyle, interpersonal relationships, child-rearing choices and other aspects of his personal actions. It became popular to ridicule Jackson, viewing him as an eccentric who stood outside of society’s norms and was to be feared. Whether or not these perceptions were justified, the media found it easier and more profitable to play to and reinforce sensationalized accounts of Jackson, as opposed to digging deeper into his humanitarian or artistic contributions to society.
After years of this fiercely derogatory reporting, and as Michael Jackson’s legal and financial problems continued to mount, it became ingrained in the public consciousness that any news about Michael Jackson was going to be negative news. In my opinion, no matter what Michael Jackson did, this tidal wave of destructive media attention became too overwhelming and it ultimately broke his spirit.
Lauren:Do you have an opinion about racism playing a part in negativism toward Michael?
Matt: Yes, racial stereotypes played a significant role in the public and the media’s growing negativity toward Michael Jackson. As Jackson’s skin color and facial appearance changed over the years, many people became confused about why these changes were occurring. There was constant speculation about his race, and Jackson was consistently interrogated about whether he still identified himself as African American or was trying to be Caucasian or another race.
In my opinion, this type of questioning and negative examination of Jackson’s surface appearance and racial identity were borne out of pre-conceived, and narrow societal constructs of what are the expected physical characteristics of different races. As Michael Jackson’s appearance changed, many people became uncomfortable with the fact that they could not place him squarely into a defined racial box. Very few sought to understand the physiological and psychological reasons that were driving the changes in his physical appearance. Instead, his skin color and facial characteristics became just another easy sound bite and eccentricity to point the finger at. I always thought there was an underlying element of racism that perpetuated this highly debated topic.
Lauren:Is there anything you would like to add?
Matt:I want to thank the Michael Jackson community for providing me with the opportunity to share my thoughts and perspective on an individual who I believe was not only a tremendous artist, but a humanitarian of the highest order. Michael Jackson is responsible for improving the lives of so many people around the world, and has left an indelible mark on this earth. I commend the millions of passionate and compassionate Michael Jackson fans who continue to work so tirelessly to preserve his legacy in our culture and on humanity. Thank you!
Administrator’s Note: I’d like to add that I wholeheartedly support Matt in his efforts as a journalist and in his support of Michael. I first started corresponding with Mr. Semino back in 2009 after I read his article about Michael being the Wounded Messenger, which is also featured here on All Things Michael. I was so moved by the article that I wrote to him about it and he and I have been keeping in touch ever since. I follow all his articles featured in the Huffington Post. I appreciate all that he has done. Much love to Matt!!
I highly commend this judge for sticking to the issue of the negligence of this so called doctor and not letting the defense turn this into a trial about the finances and character of Michael Jackson. He deserves justice!! Val
LOS ANGELES (AP) — With lawyers raising a new theory involving money and its role in Michael Jackson’s death, a judge is summoning a third panel of prospective jurors for the involuntary manslaughter case against Dr. Conrad Murray.
Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor, who has already screened 340 prospects and cleared 147 of those for availability, has said a larger pool is needed from which 12 jurors and six alternates will be chosen.
The judge, who has seen some of the answers to questionnaires from those who have the time to serve, indicated many prospects will have to be eliminated because they hold strong views on the highly publicized case. Only three of the initial pool said they hadn’t heard about the upcoming trial.
After this initial phase, prospects who remain will be questioned in person beginning May 4. Pastor has set opening statements for May 9.
On Wednesday, defense lawyers disclosed a new component of their case — a claim that Jackson was on the brink of financial ruin and feared he would be unable to fulfill his commitment to a concert tour because of severe insomnia.
Attorney Edward Chernoff posed the theory that Jackson was so distraught over his inability to sleep that he took “desperate measures.”
Defense lawyers previously suggested the pop star might have self-administered an overdose of the anesthetic propofol while Murray was away from his side.
While seeking access to Jackson’s financial records, Chernoff added that the singer was in anguish over his financial situation and faced ruin if he failed to perform during the upcoming tour.
“The crux of the defense is going to be that Michael Jackson engaged in a desperate act and took desperate measures that caused his death,” Chernoff told the judge. “We believe at the time Michael Jackson died he was a desperate man in relation to his financial affairs.”
Deputy District Attorney David Walgreen accused Chernoff of trying to distract from the main issue of the trial — whether Murray acted with gross negligence when he gave Jackson propofol and other sedatives on the day he died.
“This is an irrelevant sideshow designed to take issues away from the jury and smear Michael Jackson,” Walgren said. “It has nothing to do with the case on which Dr. Murray is being prosecuted. “
Murray has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter. He is accused of gross negligence in administering propofol, an anesthetic not intended for home use or as a sleep aid. Jackson died of an overdose of that drug and other sedatives.
Attorney Howard Weitzman, who represents the Jackson estate, questioned the defense theory.
“Is the theory that Michael Jackson committed suicide, took his own life?” Weitzman asked. “I don’t think that’s a salable theory.”
Defense lawyers have never used the word suicide and implied Jackson’s death was accidental but self-inflicted. At a preliminary hearing for Murray, the singer was quoted by a witness as saying if he didn’t sleep he would have to cancel the tour.
Chernoff’s attempt to see Jackson’s financial records was blocked by Judge Pastor, who said he would not allow such a “deep sea fishing” expedition.
“I’m not going to turn an involuntary manslaughter trial into some kind of an escapade in analysis of the finances in Michael Jackson’s entire life,” Pastor said.
Hinting at how they intend to get Dr. Conrad Murray off the hook, his defense team continues to float trial balloons of how they’ll plant reasonable doubt in jurors’ minds. Dying from a Propfol overdose at age 50 June 25, 2009, pop singer icon Michael Jackson was on the threshold of restarting his brilliant career, winning him more Grammies, platinum albums and praise from a worldwide audience. When he hired 57-year-old Trinidad-Tobago-born physician Dr. Conrad Murray in May 2009 for $150,000 a month, he thought he was in good hands. Preparing for a 50-concert British Tour, Jackson had just finished a powerful dress rehearsal at Los Angeles’ Staples Center the night before he was found dead in the morning of June 25. Murray treated Jackson’s insomnia by administering Propofol, a common short-acting anesthetic used by qualified anesthesiologists in certified operating rooms.
Murray set up an intravenous drip in Jackson’s bedroom, administering various doses of Propfol to keep Jackson asleep, without proper training or monitoring equipment. Never before had Propofol been used to treat insomnia. Only Murray’s distorted thinking and poor judgment created such a high-risk procedure, acceptable to no one but him. When his patient died from his gross negligence and incompetence, he scrambled to cover his tracks, fleeing from the crime scene, until the Los Angeles Police Department tracked him down. Now facing trial for felony involuntary manslaughter, Conrad put the blame on Jackson, not on himself. When Michael finished hours of grueling dress rehearsals, no one questioned his fitness. Only after Murray overdosed Jackson does his he want to blame the mishap on Jackson’s failing health and history of drug abuse.
Showing their cards, Murray’s lawyers seek to blame Jackson’s death on (a) his failing health and (b) on a voluntary self-administered Propofol overdose. Consistent with Los Angeles County Coroner Feb. 8, 2011 findings, the Murray’s defense claims Jackson had Profofol in his stomach, signaling the pop singer drank Propfol from a bottle without the doctor’s knowledge. Murray pleaded not guilty Jan. 25, 2011 to involuntary manslaughter charges, despite Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor’s finding that there was sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. Murray told police that Jackson “craved” Propofol, referring to the drug as his “milk,” something related to the drug’s milky appearance. Traces of Propofol in Jackson’s digestive tract doesn’t automatically mean the pop singer swallowed it himself or, for that matter, that Murray is off the hook.
Murray’s self-concocted insomnia machine, hooking Jackson up to an IV and administering Propofol without any medical precedent or proper training, constitutes gross negligence, warranting the more severe charge of voluntary manslaughter or even second degree murder. Regardless of Murray’s intent, acts of gross negligence that result in the death of innocent patients warrant more that involuntary manslaughter. Given the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s decision to try Murray for involuntary manslaughter, there’s plenty of evidence for conviction. Murray’s defense team hopes to hang the jury with enough “reasonable doubt” with respect to the coroner’s findings. When Jurors hear testimony from medical experts at how utterly outrageous Murray’s Propofol insomnia treatments crossed the medical line to gross negligence, trace amounts in Jackson’s stomach won’t matter.
Whether the coroner found trace elements of Propofol in Jackson’s stomach has nothing to do with gross negligence by treating insomnia with fast-acting anesthesia. Murray had no business giving Jackson Propofol or creating a dangerous, untested treatment that resulted in Jackson’s death. He can’t argue with a straight face that Jackson killed himself when he engaged in such gross negligence, no matter how well intentioned, or, for that matter, whether Jackson asked or begged for the treatment. No responsible physician gives a patient dangerous treatment simply because of patients’ demands. “Jackson could have swallowed Propofol,” said anesthesiologist Dr. Barry Friedberg,” signaling at Murray’s defense. Whether Jackson “self-ingested” Propofol or not doesn’t excuse Murray from engaging in the egregious gross negligence that caused Jackson’s death.
When Murray found Jackson lifeless in the morning of June 25, 2009, he did everything in his power to cover-up the crime scene, dispose of evidence and escape police questioning. Now that he’s about to stand trial for involuntary manslaughter, his defense team led by Atty. Ed Chernoff seeks any way to find reasonable doubt. “I’m curious as to how ‘safe’ Dr. Friedberg thinks a doctor must be to prevent a patient from injecting himself or drinking as drug when he leaves the room,” asked Chernoff rhetorically, floating too much info before trial. Chernoff must convince a jury that Murray—without proper training, equipment or medical precedent—did not engage in gross negligence, administering Propofol for Jackson’s insomnia. Diverting jurors’ attention on what the coroner found in Jackson’s stomach doesn’t excuse Murray’s gross negligence and guilt.
About the Author
John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.
Administrator’s Note: I first had the pleasure of reading Mr. Semino’s article on Michael Jackson, The Wounded Messenger back in 2009 in the Huffington Post. I was so moved by his words and truth that I just had to write him. He responded back. He has written this current article on Michael and the upcoming trials, which he sent to me personally. I am honored to present them here on my blog. Please support Mr. Semino as he covers the events of this trial. I am confident that he will tell the truth and present the facts accurately. Please let other MJ fans know about him as well and give him all of our support.
Brace yourself. It’s starting again. The stage has been set for another legal drama featuring the King of Pop. Dr. Conrad Murray, Michael Jackson’s personal physician, was arraigned on Tuesday morning in Los Angeles Superior Court. Stating, “Your honor, I am an innocent man,” Murray pled not guilty to the charge of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the star’s death. Jury selection for his trial is set to commence on March 28. If convicted, the maligned doctor could face a maximum of up to four years in prison.
Can anyone bear to watch Michael Jackson be dissected yet again in the court of public opinion? Fortunately, unlike the child molestation cases, there are socially prescient issues that will be addressed by a Dr. Conrad Murray trial. Issues that have the potential to generate useful policy discourse.
Michael Jackson will now be presented by the prosecution as the victim rather than the victimizer. This trial will unfold without the star ever having to personally defend his actions or perceived predilections. Instead, the focus will be on Dr. Murray, the man who was privy to Jackson’s exclusive daily life leading up to precise moments of his death. Murray’s attorneys will need to explain what exactly happened on June 25, 2009. Why did Michael Jackson die and who was responsible? The tables have turned, not out of vengeance brought by “crazy” Jackson fans, but by the law seeking truth where injustice has occurred.
Confident and seeking a speedy trial, Dr. Murray’s defense team has already begun to draw their Michael Jackson portrait. Predictably, they will argue that he was a demanding, drug dependent pop star who was sick, suicidal and ultimately responsible for his own fate. Inevitably, certain media outlets will jump on this characterization with stories that blur the line between honest journalism and tabloid sensationalism. Of course, some will argue that every human being, including Jackson, should be held accountable for their personal decisions, actions and even their own death. But come on now! Let’s not fool ourselves into believing that mantra is really the crux of this debacle.
While there are many actors in this story, the Michael Jackson tragedy is foremost a tale of the abysmal ethical choices, disastrous professional judgment and horrendous medical practices of a trusted caretaker. Dr. Conrad Murray exploited loopholes in the system, turned a blind eye, became sloppy, tried to cover up his mistakes and then got caught. It certainly could have ended differently.
Giving Murray the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he was working in the wrong place, at the wrong time and with the wrong man. The cash and Hollywood allure though were too seductive for him to resist. Dr. Murray’s reputation, livelihood and career now hang in abeyance. Even if acquitted, what he will have sorely learned is that when playing carelessly with a raging fire, you are guaranteed to get scorched.
Hired in 2009 by concert promoters AEG to serve as Michael Jackson’s personal physician, Murray was paid the exorbitant sum of $150,000 a month for his position. He was charged with caring for the star and ensuring that Jackson was healthy enough to attend rigorous rehearsals as he prepared for a comeback tour. That spring, Murray promptly closed his Houston and Las Vegas medical practices and moved to Los Angeles to care for the music legend on a full-time basis at his rented Holmby Hills mansion. What eventually developed turned out to be a highly destructive patient-physician relationship.
The Los Angeles County coroner’s office determined that Michael Jackson died of acute propofol poisoning. A powerful surgical anesthetic which is only to be administered in a hospital, propofol was being given to Jackson in his home as a sleep aid to combat chronic insomnia. Dr. Murray has claimed that he was unaware of Jackson’s propofol use prior to accepting his post and that he eventually became concerned the star was becoming addicted to the drug.
Despite glaring red flags and against his sound professional judgment, Murray continued to administer propofol to Jackson regularly during the two months leading up to and on the day of his death. He allegedly left Jackson unattended under the influence of the drug on that fateful morning, failed to properly resuscitate the star when he stopped breathing and then delayed calling 911, all while seeking to hide evidence. When help finally arrived, Murray did not inform medics that he had ever given Jackson propofol. Negligence?
According to witness testimony from Murray’s preliminary hearing, the doctor also crossed clear ethical boundaries on a number of occasions during the time period when he was caring for the star. Such testimony revealed that Murray employed tactics of blatant misrepresentation to obtain excessive amounts of propofol and other sedatives from a Las Vegas pharmacy for Michael Jackson’s use. Large quantities of these drugs were later found in Jackson’s home after his death. Fraud?
If Dr. Murray believed that Michael Jackson was becoming an addict, why did he continue to administer potentially harmful and addictive drugs? If Dr. Murray was so concerned for Jackson’s welfare, why didn’t he proactively seek help from family members or handlers to stage an intervention on the star’s behalf? Why didn’t Dr. Murray just remove himself as Michael Jackson’s physician? Whether or not Jackson demanded propofol, his “milk,” is irrelevant in this case. Dr. Conrad Murray, a medical professional once licensed in three states, should have never given the drug to Michael Jackson.
The question of whether Murray was negligent in administering propofol to the pop icon will be the central legal issue in this case. However, this saga extends far beyond the universe of esoteric drug names, technical medical evidence and narrow interpretations of law. At its heart, it is a morality play ripe with classic, Shakespearean themes. The opiates of money and power, combined with the lust for celebrity and fame, drove a once respected member of the medical community to breach his responsibilities to his patient, his profession and ultimately to society. How did this happen?
Getting to the nut of the Dr. Conrad Murray case is going to be a dizzying affair. Enduring it though will possibly unearth a precedential jewel. Guilty or not guilty, it is highly questionable whether emotional justice will ever be served to the millions who seek it.
What can be the certain outcome of a Dr. Murray trial is that the legal system, the medical establishment and the public will begin to address some pressing policy questions. What are the acceptable parameters of the private patient-physician relationship? How can the fraudulent trafficking of potentially lethal pharmaceutical drugs be stopped? Through what institutional mechanisms can proper standards of medical professional ethics and practice be effectively enforced? Michael Jackson would undoubtedly want an element of humanity and positive social change to come from this imperfect storm. That is its simple potential.
With the mask finally removed, her tearful goodbye humanized him in the eyes of millions of adoring fans and even skeptical detractors across the globe. Paris Jackson was the poignant conclusion to her father Michael’s celebrated memorial service. At the same time, her few words served as a painful reminder of the conflicted legacy that, as some proclaim, the greatest entertainer of all time leaves behind in the wake of his sudden, tragic and mysterious death. In Michael Jackson’s passing, this international icon casts as many if not more unanswered questions about the out of the ordinary life he led behind the curtain of his private stage.
Michael at the White House in 1984
Intense speculation over the star’s actual cause of death has ranged from an accidental overdose to explosive allegations from some family members of foul play and even murder. In the later stages of his life, Jackson was caught in a downward spiral of prescription drug abuse fostered through a tangled web of star-struck enablers and unscrupulous members of the medical establishment. As in his life, Michael Jackson was engulfed by complex legal and ethical dilemmas even at the precise moment of his death. Questions concerning the custody of Jackson’s three children, whether those children are connected to him biologically, control over and division of his complex estate, burial procedures and a final resting place for the star’s remains, use of Los Angeles public funding for a celebrity laden memorial service at the Staples Center and countless more controversial issues moved in swiftly like an ominous and heavy fog in the days and weeks following June 25th.
Upon his death, the Pandora’s box that is Michael Jackson’s secretive but highly scrutinized life burst open once again and the media as well as the public’s insatiable appetite for all of the juicy details immediately became palpable. The daily headlines read like vivid medical records. ‘Michael Jackson’s Autopsy Photo,’ ‘Michael Jackson’s Hair on Fire,’ ‘Michael Jackson’s Leg Wounds and Needle Marks,’ and ‘Michael Jackson was Sterile’ are just a few. Only the most imaginative fiction writer could create a story with such high drama and sordid twists and turns. Even with all of its tabloid entertainment value, it is a monumental disservice to Michael Jackson’s memory that a thoughtful analysis of his significant cultural contributions, particularly in the realm of human rights and social justice, are being obscured in the process of examining his death and now his corpse.
Through his prolific body of work, advocacy initiatives and multi-million dollar charity efforts, Michael Jackson raised international awareness and support for some of the most complex and timeless issues confronting the human condition. AIDS, cancer, famine, homelessness, gang violence, racism, totalitarianism, environmental degradation, child abuse, violations of animal rights, restrictions on freedom of speech and other infringements upon basic civil liberties are just some of the difficult subjects Jackson tackled by leveraging the power of his celebrity. Michael Jackson’s intuitive understanding of the problems besetting the human ecological system was uncanny and uncharacteristic for any entertainer close to his magnitude.
Many have been so dazzled by Jackson’s masterful showmanship and the consistent controversy surrounding his life and death that it would be easy not to recognize the overarching social and political themes embodied in his music, videos and public interviews. The intense emotional pull, messages and raw feelings that reverberate through the lyrics and sometimes disturbing video imagery of songs such as “They Don’t Care About Us,” “Heal the World,” “Earth Song,” and “Man in the Mirror” are gut-wrenching. A deeper analysis of Michael Jackson’s work reveals an individual with a burning concern for improving the lives of the disadvantaged and persecuted around the world. The passion and verve with which Jackson digs his hands into the soil and grasps the trees in his video for “Earth Song,” an operatic piece where he addresses environment and animal welfare, is a reflection of a leader of humanity who cares deeply about the issues he is challenging.
Global events in the weeks surrounding Jackson’s death alone directly mirror the complex problems for which he attempted to raise international awareness. In Iran and before the world’s eyes, civilian demonstrations were squashed and innocent victims like the young Neda Agha-Soltan brutally murdered by instruments of a totalitarian state. In Washington, D.C., a white supremacist motivated by pure hate attempted a killing spree at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, murdering an African American security guard in his rampage. In North Korea, U.S. journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee were unjustly sentenced to twelve years of hard labor to merely serve as international bargaining chips for an evil dictator. Michael Jackson spoke out loudly against these forms of racism and repression and attempted to ignite our passion to prevent the continuance of such abuse, neglect and discrimination. How are we now missing this message when it is even more crucial for it to be absorbed into the public mind? Not only do Michael Jackson’s cries of awakening continue to be ignored but his reputation continues to be smeared.
With the current fixation on the gruesome details surrounding Jackson’s physical demise, we have lost focus on the social relevance of Michael Jackson in our cultural timeline. Jackson’s symbol has the power to force what might be a difficult and uncomfortable period of public self-reflection. What progress has been made on the global humanitarian and civil rights issues that Jackson brought to light for the masses? What realistically still needs to be accomplished in each of these realms to actually make future progress? These are the crucial questions that need to be contemplated in the context of Michael Jackson’s death.
Many may ask why this controversial figure, a man who has been the subject of intense criticism and public backlash, should be given such gravity in framing public discourse over the day’s most important topics. Sometimes it takes one person, not just a political or spiritual leader, who stands out symbolically from the rest of society, to make that society reflect on the principles that it follows and the values it embraces. Jackson, throughout his life and in his death, has been ridiculed and revered, vilified and vaunted. In many respects, his story represents the highest possible highs and the lowest possible lows that life can present to a human being. Michael Jackson’s tremendous talent, success, wealth and public adoration were at odds with his extreme loneliness, fear, addiction and destruction of reputation by public opinion. In the end though, Michael Jackson was much more than an entertainer. His contributions to the entertainment field are no doubt profound. However, it is his broad cultural impact that truly transcends economic, social, political, racial, religious and generational barriers. Jackson rose from being simply a magical performer into becoming a humanitarian of historic import. He was a modern day messenger, a visionary storyteller who raised the level of consciousness for citizens across national boundaries. This level of contribution is what the social contract demands of those who are blessed with natural gifts, power and wealth. Shouldn’t we then embrace and support people who are destined for this life mission instead of deriding them? As history progresses and Jackson’s symbol and work are analyzed in conjunction with the unfolding of human events, the important cultural relevance of his persona will be uncovered. Like a piece of classic Greek literature that embodies timeless themes of human striving and suffering, Michael Jackson’s canon and celebrity will come to hold a similar place in the modern day cultural pantheon. Why then was it necessary to shoot the messenger?
Martin Bashir’s highly controversial 2003 TV documentary, ‘Living with Michael Jackson’ is just one of the many examples of the ways in which Jackson was unfairly portrayed in the media. The documentary was a PR nightmare for the star. Bashir’s video interviews and commentary were cleverly edited as to purposely paint Jackson as a megalomaniac child molester. The film focused, in a highly negative manner, on the abuse Jackson suffered as a child at the hands of his father, the rumors behind his drastic physical transformation, his intense friendships with young boys, the nature of his past romantic relationships and questions concerning the genetic lineage of his children, among other sensitive topics. Bashir conveniently cut out footage that presented a countervailing impression of Jackson. Bashir’s documentary and Michael Jackson’s subsequent rebuttal, in the form of a TV special hosted by Maury Povich, provide a candid, never before seen glimpse into what made this man tick. In many respects, Michael Jackson was a lonely soul who found the greatest comfort isolated behind the gates of his Neverland ranch and in the company of animals, children, carnival rides and opulent possessions. In the last years of his life, Jackson became reclusive to the point that he was unable to function even within celebrity society due to the immensity of his fame and the parasitic attention drawn by even the briefest public appearance. Examining these interviews, it becomes clear that Michael Jackson is one of the most misunderstood figures in modern day popular culture.
The incessant media backlash against Michael Jackson throughout his career and now in his death is driven by the fact that Jackson, as a symbolic figure, forces us to look in the mirror and face the difficult and sometimes intractable problems of our society and in ourselves that we may not want to acknowledge. How dare he? Jackson brilliantly shines light on civilization’s accomplishments and failures in their most extreme forms. To be repulsed by the drastic transformation of his face was to simultaneously recognize the excessiveness of a beauty obsessed culture that allows money to change even the most fundamental components of our DNA. When looking and commenting on his mask, weren’t we also secretly acknowledging both the literal and figurative masks that we sometimes hide behind? Ironically, Michael Jackson’s physical changes led him to be branded as an “oddity” or “freak” by a media culture that promotes physical perfection through any means necessary. As Jackson proclaimed during his interviews with Bashir, “Plastic surgery was not invented for Michael Jackson!”
The child molestation charges brought against Jackson first in 1993 and again in 2005, for which he was skewered and roasted by the media and public, were baseless extortion attempts fueled by the petty greed and jealousy of his accusers. Despite settling the 1993 case and being acquitted of the 2005 charges, Michael Jackson’s commercial appeal and public image were severely damaged by the allegations. The child molestation charges against Jackson represented a modern day witch hunt in its most base form. Unfortunately for Jackson, the hunt was not localized to Salem but played out globally through the aid of modern media technology. The molestation charges were fueled by likely feelings of inadequacy in the parents of the alleged child victims who were so enamored by Jackson. Perhaps these parents did not believe that they could compete with the love and material fantasy that Michael Jackson provided to their children which caused them to lash out in desperation. Jealousy combined with greed is highly combustible. The media’s depiction of Michael Jackson as a plastic surgery obsessed eccentric made him an easy target and an unsympathetic victim. It just wasn’t believable that someone that acted and looked like him could be kind, sensitive, compassionate and loving. What was the motivation behind it all? What was wrong with him? There had to be something askew. What if Michael Jackson’s motivation was simply to give hope to those less fortunate? Was all of this then just the senseless destruction of a human being to satisfy our insecurities and quell our fears of the unknown and misunderstood.
As we reflect upon Michael Jackson’s life and now death, it is difficult not to feel sad for the man and view him in a tragic light. With all of his power, wealth and fame, he now lies before us like a bird crushed after being pelted repeatedly by outsized stones. Dejected, Jackson continued to turn inward, fearful of what the world he cared so deeply about changing for the better was throwing at him. The drugs just served as an opiate to the pain of an artist and humanitarian that was overburdened by a mission that he didn’t believe he accomplished. Addicted, it was the greed of those surrounding Michael Jackson who continued to indulge his desires out of self-preservation. The numbness of the painkillers relieved the ache caused by knowing that despite what he sought to give and change in the society around him, the burden of his creations and the scathing critique it engendered had become too overwhelming for one person to sustain. Michael Jackson was a modern Sisyphus, the loin clothed man condemned to repeatedly pushing a rock up a mountain only to see it roll back down. Sadly though, our Sisyphus collapsed under the weight of his struggle.
Michael Jackson was inflated to the position of a pop deity, a mythical figure, only to be crucified and stoned by the media gods who created his success. His bold eccentricities lied outside of the norm of standard, socially acceptable behavior but were they necessarily illegal or wrong? No. Most of Michael Jackson’s actions were unconventional yet, at the same time, wasn’t the grandeur of his celebrity and global status beyond anything that modern day culture has ever witnessed? His grandeur, his eccentricity, each influenced and exaggerated the other.
It is undeniable that Michael Jackson’s immense celebrity and wealth allowed him to remove himself from mainstream society and observe the world from a privileged vantage point. Sometimes though, it takes that fortunate but isolated position to be able to make the least polluted social observations and ultimately produce the most effective societal commentary through art. Throughout history, the work and lives of multiple artists have been ridiculed and scorned by the public during their heyday, only to be placed posthumously into the canon of the Greats. It is without doubt that Michael Jackson will, in due course, garner this same level of critical acclaim as an artist and most importantly, as a humanitarian.
Matt Semino is a New York attorney and legal commentator. He is a graduate of Columbia Law School , Cornell University and is a Fulbright Scholar.
This was a major victory in the fight to clear Michael’s name. Much love to Jennifer Marino and all the MJ fans who fought the good fight of faith until it happened.
