Dahlia Lithwick, one of the best writers in Slate, wrote this about the Michael Jackson trial:
Don't ask jurors to understand him. Just ask that they revere him. But is it really going to work in this case? Is a trial about whether or not a man can control himself around children best presented by showing a man who can't control his public behavior or image? If ever there was an opportune moment for Jackson to manifest some understanding that he resides in the real world and understands its rules, one would think this would be that moment.
I know a couple of people in law enforcement, and they all tend to believe Michael Jackson is innocent.
Well, "innocent" -- as Lithwick points out, it's unclear whether Michael Jackson really understands what he's doing - it's as if his actions are guided by logic that's entirely (and only) his own. So it's entirely possible that Jackson doesn't quite recognize titillation - in himself or others.
What he did with young boys in his home may be illegal by any standard, but he may honestly believe that it was all about "love," the way he thinks of it. If so, it's likely that he'll opt to defend himself with a candid presentation of the truth, and that is sure to backfire.
Youthful celebrity is so often tragic, I think, because famous people don't get the kind of real-world feedback the rest of us get. No matter what Michael Jackson has done in the last 25 years, none of it was the least bit wrong for a hard core of fans, sycophants, and, well, employees. Michael Jackson is a freak because nobody was in a position to pull him into the real world.
If Jackson is sent to jail, his fate will undoubtedly be tragic.
Comments