Unmasked: The Final Years of Michael Jackson

I don't think I've seen a book, outside of partisan political tomes, that's generated the kind of venom leveled at Unmasked. Online reviewers slam the book and all but wretch in print (although very few seem to have actually read it) and I've met an MJ fan whose face wrinkled in disgust when I mentioned I was reading a copy.

Much of the anger seems to surround a chapter that alleges Michael was homosexual. In the end the correct response to that is that it shouldn't matter if he was gay, straight, or asexual. However, I'll agree that the lurid need to 'out' everyone famous, whether they are truly gay or not, gets tiresome and offensive. Moreover, the allegations in that chapter are backed by 'secret' sources, all "sworn to anonymity", and some of it is counter-intuitive: somehow I doubt a hypochondriac like Jackson would be keen on having sex in a roach filled hotel room.

If he was gay, you won't find the proof here.

The problem is when author Ian Halperin engages in speculation, or ventures into an area where there are no hard facts to guide him, the book completely falls apart. His prose is readable but he injects himself into the story at every opportunity, often painting himself as the hero going the extra mile for a story. Frankly, it sometimes reads like a bad blog post.

But what the fans ignore - stupidly - is that the book, which originally set out to pin MJ as a chronic molester, ends up exonerating him.

Whenever Halperin has documents and on-the-record sources to guide his hand, the book maintains a steady and believable footing -and there are certainly enough resources about the alleged molestation cases to fill the bill. Among other evidence, the book includes a *45* page transcript of a session between his '90's accuser and a child psychiatrist.

This isn't the time or place to go over all the facts, but it appears to be a clear case of extortion orchestrated by a man who'd had his medical licence suspended for unethical behavior and who (oddly) dreamed of Jackson financing his screenplay. Many of the media 'revelations' were also patently untrue, and often seem to have been consciously manipulated by D.A. Tom Sneddon.

Most shocking - his accuser, who comes off as an intelligent and well spoken teenager in the transcript, stated to authorities that Micheal was circumcised. This, along with other 'distinguishing marks' he identified, were the reason behind the infamous nude photos the D.A. took of Jackson.

The problem? To quote the doctor on scene: "The subject is clearly not circumcised."

At the time the media jumped on the photos as 'proof' of the accusations, when at the very least they strongly cast doubt on the intimate details of the case.

As for the trial in the middle of this decade . . . start to finish it appears to be a farce. To quote Stephen King:

This came down to a prosecutor either so sure Jackson was bad or so offended by
Jackson's combination of celebrity and wackiness that he rushed into a case that
looked shaky from hello. It looked worse as Tom Sneddon went along, and had
become nearly ludicrous by the time Jackson's ex-wife left the stand. No matter
how pure Sneddon's motives may have been (and I'm not saying they were, believe me), he began to look like a man pursuing a vendetta, one whose chief hope of
securing a conviction lay in the obvious fact that the trial was a sideshow and
the accused was . . . well, a freak.

Would I let my kids sleep in the same bed with a grown man? HELL TO THE NO. Did Jackson display horrific and naive judgement in continuing his behavior even after the '90's debacle? Yes. Was Jackson, as one detective theorized, a grown man only in business affairs, and a 'regressed 10 year old' otherwise? It certainly appears so.

An interesting book, and I'd give it a read . . .just maybe not at full price.