By Jen Clay
A&E Editor
On Nov. 18, more than 70 police officers retreated from singer Michael Jackson’s sprawling 2,500-acre Neverland Ranch near Santa Maria, Calif. Two days later, Jackson returned from a video shoot in Las Vegas and surrendered to California authorities who promptly handcuffed and arrested the singer.
The formal charge which arrived within the month was seven counts of “lewd” conduct with a minor and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent to molest the child, charges that could land the singer in jail for more than 20 years.
Through it all, Jackson and his supporters have maintained the singer’s innocence.
At one time the most successful artist in the world, Jackson has found himself at the center of controversy yet again. With Jackson’s procedural hearing set for tomorrow and the larger implications of yet another celebrity criminal case yet to be determined, Jackson fans, critics and indeed the world wait to hear what will become of the self-titled “King of Pop.”
The Pepperdine community finds itself affected by the charges as well, with students and faculty weighing in on a subject on the tip of the public’s tongue.
In 1993, Michael Jackson was riding high. Fresh off the success of his 1991 “Dangerous” album, Jackson boasted one of the most successful track records in the music industry, owned a multimillion dollar estate near Santa Barbara and was adored by fans the world over. But his reputation suffered a critical blow in December of that year when a 13-year-old boy accused the singer of molesting him. Jackson appeared on national television pleading his innocence. While no criminal charges were filed in the case, Jackson and the plaintiff settled out of court for as much as $40 million according to media speculation. For some, the settlement appeared to be an admission of guilt on Jackson’s part.
The controversy was re-opened in February 2003 with ABC’s broadcast of “Living with Michael Jackson,” a documentary on the singer by British journalist Martin Bashir. In the program, Jackson admitted to sharing a bed with children and defended it as “the most loving thing to do.” Stating that nothing sexual was involved, Jackson described the process to Bashir.
“We go to sleep,” Jackson said. “I put the fireplace on. I give them hot milk, you know, we have cookies. It’s very charming.”
As ABC’s most successful non-sports Thursday night program in more than a decade, “Living with Michael Jackson,” which saw a British crew follow Jackson for eight months, garnered an audience of 27 million according to Nielsen ratings. At the time, audience response varied from pity, to respect to disdain. With the current charges levied against the singer, the documentary and Jackson’s behavior in it could take on new meaning.
Junior Taneekia Collymore, an English major and Michael Jackson fan, watched “Living with Michael Jackson” and still believes Jackson’s relationships with children ultimately stem out of love.
“I thought that he was really sincere (in the interview),” Collymore said. “I think that he is a person that is very caring, and I think that at the same time, I feel like he’s troubled because he didn’t have a childhood. So I don’t think that he wants to hurt children, I just think that he likes being around them.”
Another fan of Michael Jackson, junior Randall Reynolds came away from “Living with Michael Jackson” with a different perspective.
“It was mildly disturbing to see his ‘minions’ hold hands with Michael, but as the interview ensued I felt sorry for Michael,” Reynolds said.
The media have reported that the victim in the case was featured in the documentary. Jackson’s alleged misconduct occurred between Feb. 7 and March 10 of 2003. “Living with Michael Jackson” aired Feb. 6.
While the public response for “Living with Michael Jackson” was overwhelming, a Michael Jackson trial could prove that much more divisive. The first clue as to what a Jackson criminal trial may be like came the public’s way Jan. 16. At his formal arraignment in Santa Maria, Jackson unsurprisingly plead “not guilty” while a caravan of as many as 1,500 fans, many rounded up by Jackson’s brother Jermaine, and hundreds of members of the press swarmed the courthouse.
CNN’s Charles Feldman described the scene for the network.
“I have covered lot of trials over the years, but this is one of the more bizarre things,” Feldman said that day in a report. “This is very odd.”
Jackson, who arrived 20 minutes late, received a scolding from superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville. Following the two-hour proceedings, in which Melville informed Jackson he need not be present for future hearings in which only legal motions will be argued, the singer jumped atop his SUV and performed an impromptu dance for the supportive crowd. Members of Jackson’s team handed out invitations to a post-arraignment party at the Neverland Ranch.
Judge Melville established that the search warrant for the case would remain sealed and approved District Attorney Tom Sneddon’s request for a gag order, which meant investigators, prosecutors, Jackson and his attorneys were and still are prohibited from talking about the case with the press. In his ruling, Judge Melville said the “unrelenting comment and speculation in the tabloid press” could threaten Jackson’s fair-trial rights.
And with the procedural hearing tomorrow, which Jackson is not required to attend, the question of fairness is of the utmost importance to some for its future implications. While he believes a fair trial is possible, Pepperdine School of Law Professor Harry Caldwell said Jackson’s celebrity could sway the case either way.
“Is it possible for the prosecution to receive a fair trial given the celebrity and the fame of the defendant in this case?” Caldwell said. “I think it’s a two-way street.”
Professor Caldwell, who said he understands the merits of cameras in the courtroom but when “push comes to shove” doesn’t support them, believes the defense will mount a surprisingly straightforward case.
“I think this is all about the credibility of the victim and the victim’s family, and I think it’s just a matter of the defense trying to, without being abrasive and offending the sensibilities of the jurors, being able to raise questions as to the credibility of the victim and victim’s family and the motives behind the victim’s family and so on,” Caldwell said.
Come what may, one thing’s for sure. While currently free on $3 million bail, Michael Jackson faces the very real possibility he may not always be free.
“If (the charges are) true and if they result in a conviction, then I think Michael Jackson is a definite candidate for prison,” Caldwell said.
And the public will undoubtedly be as divided here as they are on all things Michael Jackson.
Submitted April 1, 2004