Superficial Analysis Hinders Understanding of Jackson MB#306 APRIL 24 2006 – #306Can Michael Jackson really be blamed for the actions of liars, shysters and criminals? The question has been a hot topic off and on at various sites and forums around the world. When approaching this analysis of Jackson, some public figures have openly and rather unfairly based their opinions on him being a “monster” that “society created”. This is a ridiculously off-base and rather superficial analysis. At times during the 2005 trial, even celebrity ‘friends’ would proclaim to know the answer to all of his troubles, and prescribed that he isolate himself from children because, after all, it’s his fault for allowing them into his home, right? Aside from the isolation theory being a shallow and incomplete solution, it is also akin to a doctor putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound and sending the patient home. It may seem like a simple analysis to those who have never been in Jackson’s shoes – as they wag their fingers and dispense advice from atop their high horse. But what gets me is their nerve. How do you tell a person that it’s their own fault when some crook uses a kid and the legal system to try to get that person falsely convicted? No one – not Steve Harvey, Mac Culkin or anyone else for that matter – is going to convince me that it’s Jackson’s “fault” that his most recent walk through hell was caused by anything other than a family of grifters. It’s that word I have such a problem with. Is it his “fault” this family decided to lie to police – lies documented by various sources including thesmokinggun.com? Is it his fault they decided to engage in what some analysts have called felonious activities causing him to be falsely indicted? It’s not his “fault” that elements within the law enforcement of Santa Barbara county have been gunning for him for a decade; some of its members being so desperate that they reportedly flew to different countries in search of an accuser. Sure, he could have been a hell of a lot more wary and cautious, if not outright suspicious, about everybody around him. But certainly that’s not unique to Jackson. Regular people get screwed-over by shysters everyday. In all my outside observations, it seems as if part of his sustained sanity – like us all – used to come from seeking out people who don’t treat him like garbage; even if that treatment is rooted in their own greedy efforts or initially used to hide on-going treachery. It’s the latter part of that equation which reveals itself only when it’s too late. Maybe what’s simple to many is quite difficult to him because of what children, in general, offer: childlike, fresh-eyed, non-judgmental innocence. It’s quite clear that children have generally treated him with the respect which many adults purposely withhold from him. They listen and take people at their word…ironically and unfortunately much like Jackson used to. They, by his own admission, have been like a lifeline to him and many people because there is a sense of wonderment and hope for the future contained in how they treat people. Any parent can tell you that much. Why is that a liability when it comes to Jackson? It’s a liability because he’s a walking dollar sign to many losers who would sooner scam their own mothers than get a real job. Most of us are suspicious and distrustful by nature because of how our various environments cause us to purposely shed our wide-eyed innocence. And so when some people hear comments made by Jackson, the gut response is to see the fault lying with him instead of realizing that getting duped and railroaded is not a phenomenon solely unique to him. It’s deeper than that. But, can you blame him for letting these people get close to him in the first place and not being suspicious of what they could do? Again, I have trouble with the word “fault”. Unless he’s psychic, you can’t really put that on him. Apparently Jackson isn’t totally senseless. It came out during the trial that he has at least 2 security cameras just in his multi-level personal living quarters (ie “bedroom”). Frank Tyson gave an interview to ABC (Primetime) where he says that after the accuser asked if he and his brother could sleep in Jackson’s room, Jackson also made Tyson stay there as a third-party witness. From that interview:

TYSON: “He says to me, ‘Frank, if they’re staying in this room, you’re staying in this room too.’ And you know what, I’ve actually stayed in his room. The two kids slept in the bed. It was Michael on the floor here (indicating) and I was on the floor here (indicating).” (see Primetime: Frank Tyson)

So some kind of suspicion kicked it. It was overruled by his idealism, apparently. __Should…Could…Would…May…Might__ If we’re going to get into a game of ‘shoulda-coulda-woulda’, I suppose one could also say that he should have known the accuser’s mother was seeking out attorneys before her son had ever actually met Jackson; as evidenced by a line of questioning asked of her by Mesereau at a pre-trial hearing. According to reports, the mother retained “no less than six” attorneys before she met Jackson in an attempt to seek some form of financial settlement. Court observers reported, as written in MJEOL Bullet #204, that Mesereau brought out the fact she retained an attorney and private investigator in January 2000. This was about 7 months before her family had even met Jackson. The reported purpose of said lawyer and investigator was to find out “information” on Jackson and “settle with him”. This savvy, manipulative move is quite the contrary to the ‘poor, uneducated, bible-reading mother’ image which some in the media tried to sell. Given this information, is it really a question as to whether or not they would have taken a run at Jackson whether or not Jackson had ever allowed them to spend any time in his home? Take the Joseph Bartucci lawsuit, for example. Did Jackson being in California when this reported “nutjob” claimed he was being kidnapped/molested in Louisiana, stop Bartucci from filing a federal lawsuit? Hell no. That lawsuit, by the way, was recently thrown out of court by a federal judge. More on that on an upcoming MJEOL Bullet. How could he have avoided that lawsuit? By not being around him? Well guess what? He wasn’t. This is why the advice of simply not hanging around children he isn’t related to is shallow. It is part of a change in attitude which may have some positive effect, but certainly isn’t a full solution. __To ‘fault’ or not to ‘fault’…that is the question__ I don’t much care for criticism about his isolation as being the reason why some think he can’t tell a rat from an angel. Mac Culkin made an appearance on Larry King Live (March 16 2006) where he was asked about Jackson. During the interview, he claimed that Jackson’s purposely isolating himself is a reason why he is the way he is. This doesn’t quite jibe with comments from Jackson about his early life. In Take Two: The Footage You Were Never Meant to See, Jackson talked about literally walking the street look for people to talk to because he was so lonely. Doesn’t quite sound like a self-imposed isolation to me. If Jackson was so isolated, how in the world did Culkin and family ever meet him? He couldn’t have been TOO isolated. He couldn’t have allowed people like Culkin into his life AND at the same time be so isolated that he didn’t know how to act around people. That doesn’t quite make sense. That’s why it seems like a superficial analysis. I don’t know Jackson, but I would guess that his search for normality — by allowing so-called normal people into his life — may have been a more descriptive analysis of how crooks and usurpers were able to position themselves around him for their own advantage. Allowing people around him, some have said, was the cause of his most recent tribulations. So ‘isolation’ as far as I can tell, wasn’t the cause of his troubles either. And for Culkin to put the fault on him because of it, again, doesn’t quite make sense. Will history be HIStory? The bigger issue of someone’s analysis of Jackson’s life has to do with who is telling the story. For example, if the phrase “It’s his own fault for trusting the wrong people” becomes part of Jackson’s history, it will be just as inaccurate as many current reports about him have been. Let’s break this down just a bit. The fact that he has trusted the wrong people is a statement of fact. However, to state as fact that it’s his own “fault” for having to deal with perjurers and vindictive prosecutors, is another issue altogether. As evidenced by the latest ‘comedian’ turned social commentator on a new HBO series (which I won’t promote by naming), the accuracy of historical fact does depend on who gets to write history. While making the point about obvious fallacies in history, the comedian took time to include a Michael Jackson insult, saying something to the effect that erroneous historical data could set Jackson up as the most normal human being among us all. But, that’s the problem right there. He certainly isn’t lying when he proclaims that history is only as accurate as the person writing it. If it were left up to him to write Jackson’s story, for example, you can be sure his analysis would be just as wrongheaded and distorted as he claims a ‘normal Michael Jackson’ label would be. Jackson’s history would surely be filled with bull$hit if the telling of it is left to a bunch of know-nothing, lazy-a$s pricks who would sooner go deaf and blind than to actually do in-depth factual research about his life. Or make room for the possibility that their general opinions about him have been totally wrong. But enough about Diane Dimond……….I’m kidding! Well……..no, I’m not. Being too forgiving, too lenient, too trusting and getting rid of the right people while holding onto the wrong ones has caused much more harm than good. Will that make it into the history books? Or will he himself be blamed for not being treated with respect, for being taken advantage of, and for someone choosing to commit perjury to try to get him thrown in jail? Well, unless he starts to verbally slap-down some of the nonsense – without interference from opportunists like Martin Bashir – the general public may be stuck with the cartoonish tabloid version of history where Jackson is a ‘monster’, planet Earth really is flat, and George Bush is the greatest president in history. Yikes! -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *