Michael Jackson & my shattered illusions

Michael Jackson and the recent Leaving Neverland documentary: I feel compelled to say something about this. Mainly because it brought me to a self-awareness and revelation I have never experienced before. I have always felt certain about my judgments and perceptions and like to feel that I am not unduly influenced by the media and am not a blind follower of trends, popular opinion or celebrity. However, I have to admit that I was completely and utterly sold on the popular, idealised, propagated image of Michael Jackson as a sweet, misunderstood, weird but completely innocent idol. I totally believed that he was like a child himself, that his fascination with children was completely harmless and that people who questioned it just misunderstood him. Perhaps this was because I grew up with his amazing music and with Michael Jackson as such a huge celebrity icon (before celebrity was commonplace) or perhaps I was, like so many other people, including the mothers of the two boys in the documentary, blinded by his star power and apparent gentleness and beneficence.

People question why the mothers of James Safechuck and Wade Robson allowed their boys to be alone so much with Michael, and even to sleep in the same bed with him and I would like to think that I would not have been so naive or trusting in their place. But my revelation came when I realised how very powerful celebrity and the propaganda around it can be (I still believed and wanted to advocate for Michael’s innocence only a few weeks ago when I read a scathing article calling him a paedophile). These mothers were “seduced” and groomed by Michael almost as much as their children. I saw something similar happen with the parents in another documentary, “Abducted in Plain Sight,” and that deviant wasn’t even a rich, famous celebrity with all of the power and influence that brings! Those mothers were completely bedazzled by Michael Jackson, by the wealth and lifestyle he gave to them, by his status and charm and the focused attention he bestowed on them. If they, as adults, were taken in so completely, what chance did those poor boys have? Especially Wade Robson, who had mimicked and idolised Jackson from a young age.

Those mothers’ naivety was also fostered by a belief in Michael’s own naivety and guilelessness. They, like I used to and so many still do, must have believed that Michael was just like a child himself and that letting their boys stay over with him was as safe as letting them sleepover with any other friend of the same age. I think both of them questioned it at first but eventually their natural suspicions were overridden. Perhaps one of their motives was greed, and we can criticise them for this, but I really don’t believe that Wade and James’s motive in speaking out now is greed.

One of the biggest eye-openers for me was, not actually any of the things Wade and James said, but discovering (a fact no-one can deny) that Michael Jackson kept pornography in his room. This was like a foundation brick being taken out of my wall of belief. Because, in my mind, Michael Jackson was a child, had no sexual desires, was essentially sexless. But if he had pornography, any kind of pornography, that means he was a man with sexual desires. And if he was a man, and not like a child, at least in terms of his sex drive, then why did he keep children around him so much? Why did he have relationships and such “love” for young boys in particular but no adult relationship that was fundamentally real? You then really start to question why he was, and even admitted to, sleeping in the same bed with boys. Even without James and Wade’s testimony, this made me start to see Michael Jackson in a new light. And once you see all the film clips and pictures and his clear affection and physical closeness with young boys, you cannot help but find it, not just weird, but sinister. In some ways, his very brazenness about it, is what protected him. No one wanted to believe that he would display his love for young boys so openly if there was anything perverse in it.

Wade and James’s own testimony, strengthened my suspicions about Michael until they became, not suspicions, but certainty. Especially as the love those boys felt for Michael Jackson shone out of them, particularly Wade. It made it so clear why they lied about what had happened and why it was so difficult for them to finally speak out. Michael Jackson seduced and manipulated them utterly. They were lured into an addictive, warped and abusive relationship that neither their bodies nor emotions were anywhere near mature enough to cope with. And this had insidious, damaging repercussions for the rest of their lives.

I do believe that Michael thought he wasn’t doing anything wrong. Perhaps in his own mind, he was still a child and that’s why he was so convincing at getting others to view him that way. When he said he would never harm a child, I think that he did not see the abuse as harm. And he did so much in such plain view of everyone, he must have felt vindicated in it. He was called out for it so many times, but still managed to escape any punishment. Wade Robson once described himself as a “master of deception” (regarding lying about what really happened) but he had been taught by the best. If anyone was a master of deception it was Michael and he may have been deceiving himself the most of all.

The question I think should be obvious, but no-one has thought of asking is, why, after being accused of abuse the first time, did he carry on having young boys in his bed? Surely, any sane, healthy man who truly wanted to show a completely platonic and selfless love for children could have carried on showing his love and kindness towards them but averted all suspicion by no longer having boys sleep over in his own bedroom! So why did he still feel the need to carry on with this questionable behaviour if there truly was no darker motivation?

Fans still impugn his accusers as copycats and money-grabbers but why would so many accuse him (five in total), Michael Jackson, perhaps the biggest superstar ever, benefactor and granter of wishes, of such a heinous thing? It now seems so implausible. Just for money? Yes, Jordan Chandler did accept a pay off but there must have been so much pressure brought to bear on him. And, like with the other boys, did a part of him still love Jackson? Here was another boy, who in the end refused to testify. Perhaps he did not want to pursue a lengthy, painful trial that may not achieve anything but his own denigration. People have accidents and receive compensation. When they accept money, we don’t say, well, that means the accident never happened in the first place.

Watching that documentary was, for me, like the wool being lifted from my eyes. And the final convincer was the unusual and graphic detail given by the two men, which differed and yet shared disquieting similarities. So much of it just didn’t seem in any way contrived or like anything you would or could just make up. I was especially moved when James Safechuck revealed the jewellery, including the “wedding” ring, Jackson had given him. I really don’t think you could fake the wretched expression on his face or the way his hands shook. A very many people have been hoodwinked for such a long time and it gives me a greater appreciation and understanding of how brainwashing by cults and figures at the centre of cults can happen and how it could happen to anyone, even those of us who think we are immune.

Perhaps, with the advent of social media, we are even more susceptible and we need to sometimes take a step back and try and view things more objectively. It is still a mystery to me now why I did not step back once and ask myself: why do you believe that a grown man, with no serious adult relationships and no children of his own (at least until he engineered some), loves being around children so much and having close and “special” friends who are young boys? Well, I believed the image, believed the fairytale, believed the whitewashing. I could say I have now lost a part of my childhood. But no, I haven’t. I’m not sure if I will still be able to listen to his music. But it will still be a part of my growing up and is tied to happy memories. It is James and Wade whose memories are forever interlinked with something they should never have been subjected to. Who may never fully resolve the emotional turmoil and distress they still endure. Whose childhoods were stolen from them and can never be given back. And who now I hope feel some sense of justice in knowing that they have finally laid Michael’s ghost to rest and have told their story; a truth I hope that more people will open their eyes to and believe.