Contributions vs. Controversy: Legacy of the departed

Anybody who reads this blog probably knows that I consider Chris Benoit one of the most reprehensible monsters I have ever seen in my lifetime. I don't care if the actions of the last couple of days of his life can be attributed to drug use or brain damage, the fact remains that he knowingly and willingly put himself in that position. As such, I have no sympathy for him, and in my opinion, nobody else can be blamed for the decisions that he made. Because of these feelings, I can't help but shake my head in disbelief when I hear people make comments like, "you have to separate the man from the wrestler.....he was a wonderful ring technician." I'm sorry, what? Are you honestly saying that the fact that he could excellently execute a German Suplex balances out the fact that he brutally murdered his innocent wife and 7 year old son. And he did so with forethought -- by tying up the former and drugging the latter before committing the deed.

Yet here we are, two years later (almost to the day) celebrating the life of Michael Jackson. A man who has undeniably contributed to his field, yet was also marred with a controversial personal life. And yet unlike Benoit, I don't feel that same distaste. Why is this? By no stretch of the imagination do I believe that child molestation is the least bit excusable or forgivable. I should hope that goes without saying. Nor would I make the argument, "he was found not guilty in a court of law." Because, let's face it, the same can be said for O.J. Simpson.

What I think it comes down to, honestly, is that I deep down don't believe that Michael Jackson was guilty of the crimes he was accused of. And much like the McDonalds/hot coffee lawsuit, I think most of what people know about the case (and most of the moral judgments they make) are based on the very skewed and biased reports released through the media. For example, I don't believe that most people are aware of the fact that the father of the first accuser (the 1993 case) was incredibly jealous of his son's closeness to Jackson, and in recorded telephone conversations went on and on about how he wanted to destroy Jackson's career. Further, I'm sure most people don't know that the mother of the second accuser (the 2005 case) reportedly researched the 1993 case, and utilized the same exact individuals who triggered that case to build a case against Michael. And she would allegedly have her children rehearse her side of the story in other lawsuits she was involved in. Basically, her history is as sordid and twisted as Michael's.

And please, don't get me wrong. In my view, if Michael Jackson is guilty of the crimes he was accused of, the evils of those actions far outweigh his tremendous talents. But I really just think that this tragic guy was simply developmentally and emotionally stunted. He didn't have a true childhood and his family situation wasn't ideal. As a result, I think he perhaps related to children and felt an overwhelming desire to surround them with love and support. These relationships were probably inappropriate by societal standards, but I don't think they were sexual. Obviously, I don't know that for sure. But I don't think he's the same as Chris Benoit.