Michael Jackson: Abuser or Abuse-Excuse (Separating Fact from Fiction)

March 11, 2005

As the Michael Jackson case unfolds with more twists and turns than the entertainer himself, let's try and separate the wheat from the chaff. Thus far, multiple children have implicated Jackson saying, in part, that he seduced his accuser with alcohol, coaxed him to peruse pornographic magazines and internet web sites, and masturbated himself and the boy at his Neverland ranch.

And if the testimony from the children has not been graphic and damaging enough to the self-proclaimed King of Pop, it probably also caused his recent psychosomatic illness and, very recently, his abbreviated hospital stay. However, what lies ahead could be the prosecution's smoking gun. Judge Rodney Melville has yet to rule on whether or not the sexual allegation incident which netted $23 million for his 1993 accuser is admissible. If the accuser (now an adult) in that case testifies, he will unleash even more graphic events that could seal Jackson's fate. Let's not forget actor Corey Feldman who is supposed to tell the jury he, too, was cajoled by Jackson to view pornographic magazines at the age of 14. And we have no clue as to what Jackson's ex-wife Debbie Rowe is going to say about him. Her testimony could pour gasoline onto an already incendiary situation for Jackson. And remember that Neverland search -- the one that allegedly netted CD's, DVD's, poems, letters, et al, implicating Jackson to his current accuser? Don't turn that dial!

Let's compare Jackson's case to that of many of the priests from the child sex abuse scandal of 2002 within the Catholic church. Like those priests, Jackson is not accused of pedophilia, but a typology of sexual deviancy called ephebophilia or hebephilia. In other words, Jackson is accused of being sexually aroused by young, adolescent boys and acting upon those arousals. To be more specific, he is criminally charged under California Penal Code 288(a), which states: "Any person who willfully and lewdly commits any lewd or lascivious act, including any of the acts constituting other crimes provided for in Part 1, upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child who is under the age of 14 years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person or the child, is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years."

While most pedophiles seek out their prey by cavorting around schools, parks, and other places where kids hang out, ephebophiles or hebephiles oftentimes are in positions where the children come to them. Relative to the Catholic church, abusive priests preyed upon choir boys and boys who flocked to their congregations. And we all know what recently happened to Father Paul Shanley. While there's no evidence linking Michael Jackson to NAMBLA (North American Boy Love Association), he, too, was in a position where young boys would flock to him -- to come and play at his Neverland Ranch and behold the star. Did Michael Jackson wield his celebrity and molest young boys to satisfy a sexual appetite for the same?

In a case that may or may not witness the testimony of bona fide forensic child experts, independent corroborative testimony may be Jackson's achilles heel. After all, experience (20 years) tells me the more graphic the testimony implicating Jackson, the more jurors (especially female) pay attention. Maybe Michael Jackson needs to call upon David Copperfield, not Elizabeth Taylor, and have him pull a rabbit out of a hat.

What about the defense argument of the abuse excuse? It's very possible that the accuser's mother had motive, method and opportunity to get Jackson, and she saw him as her get-rich-quick-scheme. After all, she had a history of suing for money and was involved in a bitter custody battle with her son's father. While Jackson's lawyer, Mr. Mesereau, paints the picture of her as a professional plaintiff to the jury, did she point a gun at her son's head and force him to falsely accuse Jackson?

While Mr. Mesereau may succeed in impeaching the accuser's mother, can he impeach the psychologist who reported the boy's disclosure to the authorities? Has Mr. Mesereau subpoenaed the psychologist's copious notes, progress notes, and interview notes, albeit, via audio, video, or transcript? Did the boy report abuse to the psychologist contemporaneously? Or did the psychologist use unacceptable protocols such as scripting, guided imagery, sodium amytal, hypnosis, dream therapy, art therapy, or cognitive behavioral therapy to implant false memories in the boy's mind, inducing him to talk about abuse that never happened? Which begs the question, knowing that Quincy Jones and Eddie Murphy do not have Ph.D.'s, why haven't we heard about the use of experts for the defense?

Dean Tong