According to comedian Robin Williams, "If you remember the '60s, you weren't there". However, it seems that the majority of people who were old enough to remember can tell you where they were when the news came in that John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the current president of the USA, had been shot in Dallas, Texas. Whether or not this fact is always true is just one of the controversial points that is now part of the JFK legacy. This incident seems to have crystallized the dark cynical twist that much of the '60s optimism brought. Heroes of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King and JFK's brother, Robert, would both also meet their ends by the bullet of lone lunatics. The appearance of more freedom for a youth that had seen their parents fight a bloody war would find themselves being conscripted into a 10 year war that would end in defeat. The '68 Summer of Love and the peaceful hippy movement that drove it would yield an ugly child in the form of the Manson Murders. The Beatles' psychedelic melodies were somehow checked by the dark foreboding of The Doors. However, like a prophesy of what was to come - the dream and the apparent destruction of that dream.
I have mixed feelings about the proliferation of tragic biographies. This newish sub-genre is a bit like the reverse of a true crime biography. Like Steve Salerno’s definition of self-help styles, empowerment and victimization, the true crime biography caters to a perverse idea about empowerment whilst the tragic
Image via WikipediaTrue crime, at its best, is a fascinating combination of historical investigation dominated by primary source evidence often with strong aspects of prominent scientific psychological theory and an understanding of cultural dimensions. Their authors range from thorough historians who have enough discipline to not be led away by confirmation bias or too many preconceived ideas and prejudicesto objective interviewers who gain a unique insight into their subject's personality. Unfortunately the majority of books that go under title "true crime" are actually close cousins of the ghost story or urban legend. They range from tabloid style reports on cases to outright fabrications to ghost-written romantacized autobiographies of criminals trying to capitalize on their parasitic and rather sad lives. However, we shouldn't be too hard on all these modern day evolutions of penny dreadful compilations. Often they are the tantilizing baits that draw us in originally.
Below is a list of 10 particularly significant books that come under this genre and, for the most part, will steer you in the right direction to get the most out of this landmine filled area of non-fiction reading...
Of all the main icons of the Prohibition/gambling era of gangsters, Maier Suchowljansky, known as Meyer “The Brain” Lansky ( July 4, 1902 – January 15, 1983) is perhaps the most understated. In fact, he is famed for being the reserved “chairman of the board” in popular mythology.
Elizabeth Bathory, “The Blood Countess”, is often accepted in the mainstream, without question, as one of the world’s most prolific and sadistic serial killers. A 16th and 17th century Hungarian noblewoman, Bathory is often compared to Vlad “Dracula” Tepes, Gille de Rais and Tamerlane the Great. Women are rarely linked to recreational or sexually motivated crimes. There have been very few accepted female serial killers or, more specifically, recreational murderers, and those who have been recorded as such are often hotly debated as not fulfilling the criteria. Bathory, however, seems to tick all the boxes and her position as an almost all-powerful aristocrat who had the legal powers of life and death over many helps forward many of today’s theories on modern serial killers.
I love scary stories and I have a large interest in criminal history. Therefore, the grisly and tragic story of the multiple murderers Burke and Hare is the perfect case for me. It fits in well with Halloween. After all it was at the Hallow-Fair that the two infamous pair met up and at a Halloween party the following year that they committed the last of their terrible murders. In a time when bodysnatching gripped the Edinburgh public with panic, these two “opportunistic low-lives”[i] saw an expedient opportunity to use their lodgings as a slaughterhouse for the poor and vagrant to be delivered to the dissecting slab of the celebrated anatomical surgeon and lecturer Dr Robert Knox.
Up the Close and Doon the Stair, 'But an' Ben wi' Burke an' Hare, Burke's the Butcher, Hare's the Thief, Knox the Man, that buys the Beef.
This was the ghoulish rhyme sung by the children of Edinburgh after William Burke and William Hare were arrested. Newspaper sensationalism made sure the story would enjoy good coverage that would climax with the packed public execution of Burke. His body would later be dissected by Robert Knox’s rival, Alexander Monro, where the lecture room would be filled to capacity by morbid onlookers and police would have to be called to remove others who clamoured to get into the room. This later incident reminds of the overwhelming public response to BBC’s decision to allow Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, to appear on the panel of “Question Time”! Ironically for Burke, Monro had also been his and Hare’s first choice when they first embarked on the corpse selling business.
The Napoleonic Wars and the Industrial Revolution created an increased demand for doctors and surgeons to help treat injured soldiers and workers. In order to better understand the body and to meet these demands surgeons needed to practice and then they needed to teach other surgeons. For this they needed human cadavers. Archaic laws, completely out of touch with the enlightened drive for medical and surgical knowledge, forbid the use of all carcasses other than those taken from the gallows. Out of this necessity was born the trade of stealing corpses from graves and gangs were formed all over the United Kingdom to take on this grim work. It became pretty obvious to everyone where the supply of corpses for competing lecturers were coming from, but so regular was the trade that the authorities did little to stem it.
History always gives us the benefit of hindsight, and looking back it was unsurprising that eventually the worst of the worst would figure out a less difficult and sinister way to obtain corpses. It wasn’t long before families became fearful that their long dead loved ones would be snatched and started spending extra money on security measures making it harder for the gangs. Surely, it was only a matter of time before someone would figure out that there would be an easier and perhaps even less risky way to obtain corpses, if moral and common decency weren’t too much of problem for you.
By all accounts William Burke and William Hare were not particularly intelligent human beings. Immigrant workers from Ulster, they had travelled to Edinburgh to work as navvies on the Union canal. After construction completed Hare would eventually move into the lodging house of fellow Irish Catholic, Margaret “Lucky” Laird, a recent widow, and become her common law husband. Later Margaret would end up drinking with William Burke and his new female partner, Nelly (aka Helen) McDougal (aka Dougal). Burke had left his wife and two children in Ireland for good and after working on the canal joined up with Nelly. Together they repaired shoes and sold them to the poor. According to Burke the fateful meeting occurred in 1827. The couple would move in at Tanners Close and it was there that the scheme was hatched or happened upon.
According to Burke’s confession, an old soldier called Donald died of natural causes in Hare’s lodgings. Apparently the old man owed Hare £4 rent and the heartless landlord felt that he deserved it by fair means or foul. The corpse was sold to Robert Knox’s establishment. It was easy money. Next time they didn’t wait for a tenant to pass on under natural circumstances. Old Joseph, a very sick lodger whose symptoms were beginning to scare other lodgers, threatened to affect Hare’s livelihood. So he and Burke once again decided to turn a potential financial disadvantage into substantial advantage. Very quickly they adopted the modus operandi that would serve them throughout their career. Old Joseph was intoxicated to the point of virtual unconsciousness then one of the nefarious two pinned him whilst the other pressed a pillow over his face. This is not as efficient or easy method as feature films and stories tell us. It is unlikely that the one doing the pinning just acted as an immobilizer. He probably compressed the chest aiding the suffocation. Later this was probably changed to the more familiar method that would be known as “Burking” – one hand over the nose, the other sealing the mouth and bodyweight to compress the chest again. These murders were committed on drunk and weak individuals in a manner that would leave no marks.
Burke and Hare officially killed 16 people in the course of nine months. The order of victims has been disputed, not just between crime historians but between Burke and, well, Burke. The murderer made two confessions, one to the sheriff and a later, more detailed one, to the Evening Courant newspaper. The two killers’ victims included several truly evocative cases, which ensured that both men and their wives received hatred that bordered on hysteria. Mary Patterson was a particularly attractive prostitute who was known to some of the students who watched her being publically dissected in the lecture theatre. “Daft” Jamie Wilson was a young mentally subnormal 18 year old beggar, well-liked and well-known locally, who apparently put up a very spirited defence before he met his untimely end. There was a 12 year old boy who was murdered alongside his mother.[ii] Finally there was Mary Docherty, a poor old beggar, whose Irish background provided Burke with the perfect story to lure her back to Hare’s lodging house. He claimed that they must be related and invited her over for some porridge and a dram of whiskey. However, her murder did not go unnoticed. A family of lodgers, the Grays, suspected it and saw evidence of the body. When Nelly pleaded and attempted to bribe them, the crime was confirmed and they reported it to the police. The game was up, but the show had only just begun!
Hare, in a move that would cast him forever as the more evil of the two, would betray his accomplice and accept immunity from prosecution in return for disclosing their crimes. Up to this point the evidence was only circumstantial against Burke and Hare, so they needed one member of the gang to testify. Hare even arranged it for his wife to get off. Subsequently Burke’s “wife” also escaped without a conviction. All three fled the country and a myth eventually circulated that made it into nearly every criminal re-telling of the story that retribution was eventually meted on Hare. According to the story he was thrown into a lime pit, after which he would walk the streets of London as a blind beggar. This is all highly unlikely and there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim. Nevertheless, as is the nature of myths, if repeated enough it becomes the “truth” and makes for a satisfactory conclusion to “The Legend of Burke and Hare”. In reality Hare faded into obscurity not long after being released from prison and no credible evidence has surfaced as to what happened to him, his wife or Burke’s wife.
Burke blamed as much as possible on Hare in his confessions. This helped immortalize Hare as the mastermind in most versions of the story, but it didn’t stop the hatred vented against him when he was convicted on Christmas Day. After his public dissection his body remained on show for the public to view. His corpse was then skinned. Apparently pieces of his skin were sold and legend has it that even Charles Dickens used a strip as a bookmark. The Police Museum in Edinburgh has a matchbox made of it on display. Meanwhile his skeleton is on view at the Edinburgh Medical Museum.
Burke and Hare first came to my attention through a feature film that scared the socks off me. Looking back it works more as a dark tragic Faustian tale than the horror film it was intended to be, but nevertheless to a prepubescent boy “The Doctor and the Devils” was a film that made an impression. It was an end of innocence of sorts for me. Beryl Reid, who I had only previously known as a children’s storyteller, plays the Docherty character (here changed to Mrs Flynn) and her inglorious and ignoble death scene followed with having her finger cut off for a ring not worth more than “two bob”[iii] was enough to bring home to me the heartless horror that makes the essence of this story so chilling.
Interestingly “The Doctor and the Devils” changes the names of all the protagonists. Burke becomes Robert Fallon (played by Jonathan Price), Hare is Timothy Broon (played by Stephen Rea) and Knox is changed to Dr Thomas Rock (played by Timothy Dalton). This had been done before for the first feature film based on the lives of Burke and Hare, “The Greed of William Hart”. Robert Louis Stevenson did the same with his novella, “The Bodysnatcher”, which was also made into a 1945 feature film. Although it is perhaps fair to say that Stevenson only used the case as inspiration rather than as the basis for his story. The Doctor and the Devils also has respectable literary origins. The original was a film script written by the famous Welsh poet, Dylan Thomas and presented several themes that were already mainstays of the story. I will come to these later.
Not long after seeing the Doctor and the Devils I began reading a series of booklets written for young teenagers in my school’s library. The stories concerned a group of teenagers who went back in time and found out about 19th century murderers both real and fictional. At the end of each instalment the booklet gave details on the literary or actual history of the particular spotlighted villain. The third book was concerned with Burke and Hare, and for the first time I read a version of the true story. The story, of course, seemed uncannily similar to the film that had scared me previously. The penny began to drop and I began to discover that the facts were even grimmer than the fiction I had seen.
I was 19 years old before I came across the grisly two again. There are several somewhat sensationalist “True Crime” magazines available in the UK. They are marketed and produced like tabloids for the crime historian. An issue with Burke and Hare on the front cover caught my attention. This was at a time when most of knowledge on criminal history stemmed from such books as the pulp non-fiction “World’s Greatest” series, so the mixture of myths and facts without any thorough research didn’t bother me. This account included the fictitious story of Burke breaking the back of the 12 your old boy over his knee.
1960’s “The Flesh and the Fiends” is the best Burke and Hare film ever made. Released the same year as another classic horror thriller, Psycho, The Flesh and the Fiends was old-style horror at its zenith before audiences demanded more gore. I saw it late one night on TV and, once again, I was intrigued to find out more about Burke and Hare. Donald Pleasance stars as the evil Hare, becoming the exact bogeyman caricature most of us imagined him to be. He goads Burke and masterminds the whole murderous scheme, which is pretty much in line with the real Burke’s account of the events. It makes for very eerie viewing and yet is played as a straight drama and pulls it off in good style.
Years later I took my soon-to-be wife and her children in Edinburgh for a long weekend’s holiday. We loved the city so much that we visited it again within a year – and this time on Halloween. Edinburgh is a fascinating city. Fortified for a long time, it became isolated from the rest of Scotland and is often considered to be the most English part of the country. Being a fortified city and densely populated over the centuries houses were built literally on top of one another and there are even some buildings located underground. The result is a maze of incredibly high buildings and dead end closes. It is very rich in history and contains both a palace and a complete castle. This is the city of the tragic Mary Queen of Scots.
I have been accused and I don’t wholly deny it, that I took my family on a Burke and Hare pilgrimage. There were plenty of other reasons why I wanted to go, but it gave me an excuse to really explore the story of Burke and Hare. I bought the films I knew and I found another one I had had no previous knowledge of, The Greed of William Hart. This very low budget horror starring ham legend, Tod Slaughter as the William Hare character, changed to William Hart, seems more at home in the 1930s than 1948 in terms of style. I also picked up the best book written on the subject, “Burke and Hare: The Year of the Ghouls”. Brian Bailey’s book cut the myths away, questioned certain facts about the case and used almost exclusively primary source material. It was an accessible and yet serious historical book.
Whilst in Edinburgh we went on several guided tours of varying degrees of quality. The best for Halloween was undoubtedly the Witchery Tours written and led by a caricature of the ghost of a supposed hanged highwayman called Adam Lyle. We enjoyed the tour so much that we booked it again on our second visit. Of course, Burke and Hare were mentioned along with the stories of the plague, medieval punishments and ghosts.
Recently I got the opportunity to see 1972’s “[The Horrors of] Burke and Hare”, which is the least popular of the films. It is a somewhat misguided fare that tries to add a sex comedy sub-plot into the story. It also has an appalling soundtrack, which makes it sound like an Ealing Studios comedy.
The Burke and Hare films reproduce both facts and myths that have been passed down since the crimes were committed. They have also often repeated several other themes, which have led some critics to claim that each film was a re-make. For example, the tragic prostitute Mary Patterson’s connection with the medical students is turned into a romantic sub-plot used in The Flesh and the Fiends, Burke and Hare and The Doctor and the Devils. This then happens again in 1972’s Burke and Hare, and finally in The Doctor and the Devils. Each film has a different take on the relationship with different results for the fictional smitten student and the Patterson character. In The Flesh and the Fiends this character is played by the great Billie Whitelaw and through her relationship with her ill-fated student lover, we see the terrible divide between the different classes of the time. These contrasts are heightened in both the subsequent films, contrasting the wealth and privilege of the surgeons and their associates with the poor that Burke and Hare live among.
Dylan Thomas blatantly used the theme of the over-reaching hero in The Doctor and the Devils. Dr Rock is easily the most sympathetic version of the Dr Knox character we have seen. Both and he and Robert Fallon, the Burke character, are juxtaposed as driven men. Thomas implies Macbeth in his original script with both characters. Rock over-reaches in his pursuit of knowledge and Fallon in his quest for money. Both, however, become possessed by their own demons and ultimately both end up destroyed in their own way: Fallon on the gallows and Rock with his career in tatters. Cushing’s Knox, however, is a little less sympathetic but has a better ending. There is little to sympathize in the Knox of 1972’s Burke and Hare. He is every bit the callous man of privilege Edinburgh’s people saw him as at the time of the trial of the two murderers. From the accounts I have read I don’t feel this is a fair depiction whereas in contrast Cushing and Dalton’s portrayals of coma across as a bit too kind.
The crimes of Burke and Hare probably influenced copycat killers. In London the term “Burking” had already entered into criminal language. The London Burkers, Bishop and Head, were a gang who apparently modelled their crimes on Burke and Hare. Then there was the Cook family, which featured a female Burker who was testified against by her young son. In the end, Burke and Hare’s crimes led to the creation of the Anatomy Act in 1832, which allowed surgeons to have access to unclaimed corpses for dissection. Coincidentally procedures were already in place as a select committee had already been set up in 1828 the year the majority of Burke and Hare’s crimes took place. Before the discovery of these murders and the further discovery of the murderers in London public opinion was not in favour of the Act. Sentiment, of course, dramatically changed in a very short time.
When we talk of Halloween we think of the supernatural. Each of the main supernatural monsters we have conjured up over the centuries settles into certain human stereotypes. Since Dr William Polidori’s novella, “The Vampyre”, the vampire has become associated with a decadent aristocracy. The self-made monsters, werewolves and Mr Hydes, perhaps fit better in with the middle classes. The ghoul, on the other hand, since its importation from the Middle East is a monster of the common people. Ghouls eat dead corpses from graves and can be found in the masses. Just as the vampire has become a term used for people who sap the energy of others, as parasites, the ghoul is a term used to describe those who are associated with the macabre. Burke and Hare are the perfect examples of the human ghouls. Burke and Hare are unlikely icons for even the most morbid of aspirants. They were a pair of dirty, cowardly, parasitical alcoholics who exploited people of their own class in the most amoral way imaginable. Yet they are perfect icons of real-life horror and also representatives of the symptoms their time.
For further research I recommend Brian Bailey’s “Burke and Hare: The Year of the Ghouls”.
[i] From the sales blurb of Brian Bailey’s “Burke and Hare: The Year of the Ghouls”
[ii] Myths circulated that Burke had killed this boy by breaking his back over his knee. There is no evidence to support this and it would have been a very stupidly violent act for even an intoxicated Burke to carry out.
[iii] Line from the film “The Doctor and the Devils”
If you enjoyed this article please show appreciation by registering and voting for it on these websites. It won't cost you a penny and you can earn money as a member. Thank you!
My generation’s cynicism did not come overnight. First there was Mike Tyson’s conviction for rape. Then there would be the deaths of Brandon Lee and Kurt Cobain. These were our heroes and, of course, their deaths would be surrounded by mystery and supposed conspiracy as such untimely deaths to famous people are destined to be.
The weirdness of “Wacko Jacko” was taken to an irredeemably sinister level. It wasn’t long after Jackson had apparently set the record straight in his first “open” interview with Oprah Winfrey that the first child molestation charges were made. The interview had seemed like a pleasant epilogue to my following of Michael Jackson’s works. Okay, his songs seemed a little childish and superficial at the time when I was getting into apparent “music with meaning”, but at least I could smile and say they guy was just a misunderstood eccentric like many pioneers in history. I remember discussing the interview with my fellow school sixth formers and the consensus was that Jackson was a very sympathetic figure, a victim of the media and his own tough upbringing in showbusiness. Then Jordy Chandler child molestation accusations arrived! And it was like the God of Cynicism that presided over the ‘90s was saying “Not so fast Mr Jackson! You are not going to get away that easily!”
To make matters worse, Michael Jackson agreed on an out of court settlement to let the matter drop. In the eyes of many this was an admission of guilt. This is an understandable public reaction from many people who have never really experienced the full pressure of the media on their backs or the thought of a painful trial to handle. An out of court settlement might seem like “hush money” to some, but to those who have faced both the media and the legal system might have a little empathy for an individual who just saw an easy and quick way out. I know plenty of examples of people who have inadvisably settled for cautions, fines and out of court settlements for crimes – non-sexual I hasten to add – they haven’t committed in order to curtail legal proceedings. I have also seen people settle for virtually anything, guilty or not, to quieten down media interest. It is very easy to sit back in your armchair and be judgmental over situations you barely have third or fourth knowledge or experience of.
Of course, the Jordy Chandler case wouldn’t be the last time such accusations were to be made and the settlement arguably opened the door for future accusations, if we are to believe many Jackson’s supporters. The following decade Jackson would be charged by the state of California on “seven counts of child molestation and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent, in order to commit that felony”.
I may have moved on from the music of Michael Jackson at the time of the first accusations, but I always wanted to believe he was innocent. I acknowledge my influences and teachers with the respect they deserve and I was never embarrassed with being a Michael Jackson fan. And yet I didn’t know the guy or really anyone who was close to him. Why should I care whether he committed the crimes or not? The music and performance can be divorced from the man. Can’t it?
In-between the first and second set of allegations we watched and listened as celebrity paedophiles were shot down one by one. Gary Glitter was convicted more than once for increasingly worse crimes against minors and the campaign against him in the tabloid press continues to this day. I can happily say that I was never a Gary Glitter fan. He worked within my culture, the circus, for a very brief period alongside Gerry Cottle, who mentions him in his autobiography, “Confessions of a Showman”, but that is the only tenuous connection I can draw. Glitter’s music seemed arrogant and nonsensical to me during the time I discovered pop music, and by the time I retrospectively got into punk, glam rock was the anathema of my interests. However, to see him irredeemably fall was a shock to many.
Like Michael Jackson, Glitter, despite his three drink driving convictions in the 1980s, was a character that had become a family favourite. Then there was Jonathan King, once again I was no fan, but as with Glitter he just seemed to be a safe part of the institution. Now, according to the conclusions drawn from his guilty conviction by much of the tabloid press, he was revealed to be a prowling paedophile, enticing young boys into his limousine with promises of fortune in the music industry. Others, like The Who’s Pete Townsend, received a caution and a subsequent statutory five year inclusion on the Violent and Sex Offender Register. Townsend had been no saint during his guitar smashing days with The Who, but he had settled into a comfortable part of the establishment as he hit middle age and was an active campaigner for children’s charities. His conviction came about after he accessed a website that promoted child pornography. No evidence was found to secure a proper conviction and Townsend’s reasonable yet naïve defence was that he was researching material for a now abandoned book against child pornography. He had written an anti-child pornography article prior to the allegations.
Townsend’s career hasn’t really been tarnished. King is still a very strong self-promoter who has continued to produce a huge amount of work and keeps a positive face, but still gets little sympathy from the mainstream press. Glitter’s career seemed pretty much in tatters once he was found guilty for downloading child pornography. This original conviction was not nearly as severe as King’s, but he had some vital extra ingredients which were always going to work against him. Firstly despite the great diversity of King’s career, he was not quite as recognizable a figure as Glitter was and though comical to look at, he was not as eccentric. Secondly, Glitter was a has-been in the public eye and therefore completely safe to demolish. Mike Tyson had been found guilty of rape, but he had an army of defenders and fight fans that supported him throughout his prison term, upon his release and through his fights right up until his disastrous final bouts. This was all in spite of Tyson’s long criminal record and the fact he was accused and successfully sued on at least one occasion for sexual misconduct. Glitter did not have that kind of support or perhaps the British press were less tolerant. They hounded him wherever he went it seemed and eventually he was caught and convicted for several sexual crimes against underage girls in Vietnam. Glitter claimed to being entrapped and set up by the press, which is believable, but nevertheless hardly mitigated his crimes.
With these incidents all in mind (and the promise of more to come) it all seemed inevitable that Michael Jackson was going to be the biggest one of all to fall. This was it, the darker side of the American dream. After the album “HiStory”, Jackson’s career seemed to nose dive in the eyes of the general public. However, as pointed out by his younger sister, Janet, his final album, “Invincible”, was actually a financial success. It topped the billboard chart upon its release in the US and in 12 other countries. Nevertheless, the media mood of 2001 was not all welcoming for Michael Jackson. Aside from his previous allegations, he seemed to only appear in the press as part of some sort of weirdness or un-rock and roll-type controversy or other. The plastic surgery/skin disease problems also didn’t help his physical appearance and just further helped to propagate his general oddness. The sad thing about age is that you can all too easily become a parody of your former self.
It seemed like history was about to repeat itself. Martin Bashir’s documentary/interview served as a far less compassionate and more provocative sequel to Oprah Winfrey’s one that occurred 10 years previously. Winfrey had come across like a concerned parent who carefully asked questions like why do you grab your crotch on stage? Bashir, who had made his media breakthrough with his revealing interview with Princess Diana, seemed to be trying to get a rise out of Jackson. He certainly revealed the singer to be an eccentric – we already knew this – but he seemed to be trying to find this weirdness in everything he did. For example, I remember feeling sympathetic for Jackson when he demonstrated his love for climbing trees. Bashir just came across as a rather pompous stick-in-the-mud when he told Jackson that it wasn’t normal for a man in his 40s to climb trees, as if it were some sort of immature perversity.
Of course, the money shot for Bashir came with the issue of the children that stayed at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch. Most people had been okay with the general eccentricity he had displayed so far, but it became distinctly uncomfortable when the singer started admitting to allowing children to share his bed. Interestingly it was Jackson’s “man-child” innocence and lost childhood angle that protected him in the eyes of some. Others, however, were less believing. In one breath Jackson seemed to be harking back to a more innocent time when he said that there was no greater expression of platonic love than when you shared your bed with someone. In a time when the media has taught us sexualize everything, it is worth taking a step back and considering an age when non-sexual partners did share beds. However, this did not seem to exactly gel with Jackson then clearly asserting that he did not allow (or no longer allowed) children to share his bed.
Like Sister Aloysius in the play “Doubt: A Parable”, many felt that those who didn’t see him as a paedophile were trying to believe in whatever made them feel comfortable again. There may be a deal of truth in this. However, like the good sister these same cynics probably saw other corroborating evidence of Jackson’s guilt in his numerous eccentricities. It doesn’t stand up as a rational argument – more a “poisoning the well” or even a “slippery slope” logical fallacy – but in the minds of many, confirmed weirdness plus allegations of outright wrongness equals guilty. This, after all, is the nature of a witch-hunt.
Not having the facts and not being a close follower of everything that had been happening in the life of Michael Jackson, I didn’t side with the cynics or the all-forgiving acolytes. I just hoped that justice would be done and I hoped that no sexual offences had actually occurred. I didn’t want Michael Jackson to be a paedophile, but if evidence proved this fact without doubt, then this was something I would have to accept without mitigation. Aphrodite Jones’s book “The Michael Jackson Conspiracy” puts forward the idea that those who accused Jackson had agendas of their own. He argues using detailed descriptions of the court proceedings including apparent endless contradictions of prosecuting witness testimony and eye-rolling responses to the revelation of alleged “lies” put forward by the ’93 accusers. The title of the book is enough to make my own eyes roll, but it seems like a fairly strong case in principle. Showbusiness is certainly full of parasites, and celebrities are easy targets once you are inside the proverbial “circle of trust”, but equally there are plenty who abuse their own positions of influence.
Jackson’s huge debts and the immature way he threw money around on the Martin Bashir documentary seemed to back up this image of a child-like personality with little “street savvy” who could easily be taken advantage of. His various religious conversions first to being a Jehovah’s Witness, along with his mother, and then to Islam seemed to speak of a type of inner uncertainty. Apparently his bodyguards were from the Nation of Islam, a far more extreme and diverse version of mainstream Sunni or Shia Islam, but his funeral was Christian. And yet his professional career speaks of an independent man who broke away from his family and gradually took control of all his own projects. I would argue he was far more than “Qunicy Jones’s best instrument” as one British comic glibly quipped.
Death of an Icon
Like David Carradine who died the same year in fairly self-explanatory if rather sordid circumstances, Michael Jackson’s sudden unexpected death at 50 just before he intended to launch his final tour was pounced on almost immediately by the conspiracy theorists. These vary from the concerns of the family about suspicious circumstances connecting his doctor to outrageous Elvis-type claims about him faking his death. I am not going to go into the details, but just say that this was all tragically predictable. There are still documentaries and books to this day on “mystery” surrounding the deaths of James Dean, Bruce Lee, Marylin Monroe, Princess Diana, Elvis Presley and just about anyone who was very famous and didn’t live into old age.
It wasn’t long before Jackson’s estate state negotiating deals on documentaries that covered the singer’s final days. I predict plenty of nonsense thrown in with “exclusive footage and interviews” that will help muddy waters into the public’s perception of the inquest into his death. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the first one that seems to have surfaces, simply titled “Michael Jackson's Last Days: What Really Happened”. The documentary was presented by Michael Jackson fan and journalist, Jacques Peretti.
The documentary’s best interviewee was the advice of a true expert who provided the most plausible scenario for Jackson’s death given the evidence that has been provided. Dr Drew Pinsky is an expert in addictive medicines and has a lot of experience in dealing with celebrity drug addicts. Pinsky believes that Jackson, who had self-medicated with powerful painkillers since the horrendous injuries he sustained in a Pepsi commercial in 1984, killed himself accidentally. The only suspicious drug found in Jackson’s system was Diprivan, which Jackson might have used “off-label” as a “downer” to treat his insomnia. Pinsky gave Sid Vicious’s death as a case study comparison, although he dismissed the unsubstantiated claims that Jackson was also using illegal drugs like heroin. There would be no point, as this drug was not as effective as the prescribed ones Jackson was using. Pinsky’s interviews are interesting in that they give an insider look at the use of drugs by performers. For full details please listen to Pinsky’s interviews taken from the TV programme “Michael Jackson’s Last Days: What Really Happened”.
A Final Reflection
The whole media storm surrounding the death of Michael Jackson has created two opposing camps of thought. We saw a similar division occur during the sex allegations. There are those who are turning him into some sort of saint and those who bemoan the way the hype over him is taking over all the news.
Unfortunately despite Jackson’s incredibly impressive army of diehard fans, their legion have been temporarily joined by hypocrites who probably couldn’t recall a Michael Jackson beyond Thriller before his death. Suddenly it is cool to like Michael Jackson again, but somehow it leaves a very sour aftertaste.
However, it seems just as attractive to join the second camp. It has become just as fashionable to talk about the disproportionate amount of interest generated by Jackson’s death as it is to be one of the born-again fans. The obvious comparison is the huge stream of sentimentality that engulfed the UK when Princess Diana died. This whole incident was rather embarrassing in hindsight for many and many don’t want to see a repeat performance.
My feelings are this performance hasn’t been repeated – at least not in the UK. Sentimentality, as opposed to genuine sympathy and empathy, can be a dangerous thing. It herds and manipulates people through one of their most vulnerable emotions. I couldn’t agree more that the whole response to the death of Michael Jackson, a truly great and legendary performer, singer and innovator of our time, has bordered on hysterical and resulted into some rather sickly and sometimes disturbing scenes of commemoration. However, they haven’t truly crossed the line as I feel happened with Princess Diana.
It is only natural for a star, such as Michael Jackson, who was celebrated and supported for so long, to elicit the type of media and public response that his death has generated. Throughout history we have seen this happen again and again with icons. I agree that it does seem very unfair that his death continued to mug the headlines and news reports whilst the regular tragic deaths of soldiers in Afghanistan scurried past as secondary news items, but did we truly expect anything more? It is easy to say that Michael Jackson was just another human being, which of course he was, but it is very naïve to think that his death would not be met with the response we have seen. Like any icon, he made history and a lot of people invested a lot in him. When an icon dies – as irrational and melodramatic as it seems – many people feel like something of them has died too.
When President Kennedy died, many felt like it was the death of a dream. All his faults, both personal and political, were forgotten in favour of this feeling of youthful and fresh change that was set to lead America into a new age. Michael Jackson’s philanthropy was certainly considerable, but I don’t ever think this is what constituted his position as an icon. Jackson also represented youth; more so he represented childhood. The unsubtle and youthful songs he produced were typical of children’s fantasies, particularly those first teenage years.
On the other side of the coin I think it is good that there was a lot criticism surrounding the hype over Michael Jackson’s death. The same couldn’t be said about Princess Diana’s death. Not long before her death the satire came thick on the “People’s Princess” across the media. This included criticism surrounding Diana’s publicity-seeking filmed attendance of open heart surgery. No sooner had she died then no-one dared speak in any way that was critical of her. For more on this and the subject of sentimentality, which I will no doubt return to in future articles, please read BBC journalist and aggressive interviewer David Humphrys’ book, “Devil’s Advocate”.
Jackson lived his life in the spotlight. He loved it and loathed it. That much appears to be the pattern if we look at his work. He was no tortured musician who just wanted to create art and shunned publicity. Michael Jackson embraced his iconic status and tried to elevate it to god-like proportions. The evidence can be seen in his work from the self-indulgent Moonwalker onwards. Think of the giant dictator like statues and the militaristic image that went alongside them when he promoted the HiStory album. Think of the Jesus like stance he struck on stage surrounded by children as performed Earth Song – a scene that English singer, Jarvis Cocker, felt was so repugnant that he protested by jumping on stage and performing an impromptu routine of his own.
The theme of that particular song also demonstrates the “pop” nature of the kingly status his close friend Elizabeth Taylor bestowed on him. Earth Song was a rather literal affair regarding the environment and the terrible things man has done to cause these problems. It wasn’t that far removed from “Heal the World”, which also seemed blissfully simple in its solutions to societal problems. I will always remember the latter as the song played at funeral for the child murder victim, James Bulger, and the public response to this appalling tragedy.
I don’t like to have regrets in life, but I would have loved to have attended a Michael Jackson concert. He certainly changed things with his music videos and his actual music is regularly sampled and covered, but it was on stage where the “truth” of the Michael Jackson icon was truly realized. Like Elvis, The Beetles, Mick Jagger, Tom Jones and Jim Morrison, Michael Jackson knew how to work an audience and they adored him for it. I remember watching the opening the 1992 concert in Bucharest, when I was officially a lapsed fan. Despite my distancing from all that was pop at the time, I couldn’t help but be snared from the beginning until the end of the concert. All the set pieces were extraordinary and Jackson’s performances were as good as ever, but the show’s opening said it all.
The audience were whooped up in anticipation as they awaited the singer’s arrival, listening to that most dramatic of classical anthems, Carmina Burana’s “O Fortuna”. It happened in a flash as Jackson leaped out of nowhere and then stood perfectly like a statue for what seemed like an eternity, propelling the audience into an ever-increasing state of euphoria. My mother, a born and bred circus woman, always talks about the “Wow Factor” in acts. This the defining moment in a performance that sends a stream of uncontrollable and chaotic energy through an audience. Many performers work for years perfecting and protecting this single element that will ensure they get repeat bookings on the best shows and in the best venues. Jackson’s wow factor is perhaps almost incomparable in at least the second half of 20th century. That time between his arrival and until he hit the first notes of the song, Jam, said everything about the years of hard work put into his career and the huge body of fans he had built around him. The audience knew they were going to get the show of their lives and that certainty is beautifully reflected in those few minutes of nothingness.
If you enjoyed this article and the one before it please vote for it on this website. It won't cost you a penny:Helium
Don't forget to check out Jamie Clubb's main blog www.jamieclubb.blogspot.com
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=2b712989-ccbc-4c6d-957d-c26cbe9c4367)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=2b192d37-1290-4fd2-8141-f7f2b33b3419)