Michael Jackson Trial: Unhinged Fan Receives Restraining Order
Published June 10, 2005
As jury deliberations continue in Santa Maria on the fate of Michael Jackson, the erstwhile King of Pop, who if convicted on any of the ten felony counts against him would likely end up eating lunch with Charles Manson and Juan Corona in the Protective Housing Unit of California's Corcoran State Prison, tension mounts among the hardcore Jackson fans, who appear to sweat the verdicts almost intensely as Jackson himself.
And the lead loon of the Jackophiles holding court daily outside the Santa Maria courtroom is 18 year-old B.J. Hickman from Knoxville, Tennessee, who stepped off a bus the very first day of Jackson trial in October and has been a very vocal and visual Jackson supporter — and nemesis of media figures he views as unsympathetic to MJ — ever since.
Hickman says he was inspired by Jackson's words in the track "Will You Be There?," released 14 years ago, "In our darkest hour, in my deepest despair, will you still care? Will you be there?"
''Michael Jackson has been here for us, so we have to be there for him,'' he said. "He has helped so many people all over the world. He is the greatest.''
"I believe Michael Jackson has been wrongly accused," he told USA Today. "If he was Paul McCartney, this wouldn't be happening. If he were white and not black, this would not be happening."
"Michael Jackson has given so much to the world. He is music, and it's not possible that he is guilty, regardless of what the jury says. He will always be a star to us," Hickman announced to the Miami Herald.
Hickman gets up at 4:30 a.m. each trial day and arrives at the courthouse at 6:30 a.m., then waits another two hours for Jackson to arrive. Hickman yells "Stop the lies! Michael's innocent" and waves a giant "Michael-Jackson-is-Innocent" poster.
Just before court concludes for the day at 2:30 p.m., Hickman sets his poster outside the wire fence, standing on a stepladder, with an umbrella against the summer sun, waiting for Jackson to leave the courthouse.
When Jackson gets into his black SUV, Hickman collects his things and hurries to the corner to greet the car as it exits the complex.
To fund his vigil, Hickman works as a clerk at a local mall and on a ranch on the weekends. He will stay in Santa Maria until Jackson ''is found innocent'' and then move to Los Olivos to be closer to Jackson's Neverland estate.
But Hickman doesn't just support Jackson, he actively taunts prosecutors and reporters he views as anti-Jackson, and Court TV anchor Diane Dimond, who has reported on allegations of child molestation against Jackson since 1993, is in the center of his bull's eye.
Yesterday, Hickman was served with a temporary restraining order which requires that he stay 20 yards away from Dimond at all times. He is banned from communicating with her in any way until a June 29 court hearing.
"Every day since early in the Jackson trial he comes to court and yells," Dimond wrote in her application for the order. "He incites others to threaten me harm. He posts incendiary messages on various Web sites. I believe he wants people to attack me."
The day before he had interrupted her broadcast, screaming, "Burn in hell, Dimond, you bitch!"
- Michael Jackson Trial: Unhinged Fan Receives Restraining Order
- Published: June 10, 2005
- Type: News
- Section: Culture
- Filed Under: Music: News, Culture: Society, Culture: Media, Politics: Law and Rights
- Writer: Eric Olsen
- Eric Olsen's BC Writer page
- Eric Olsen's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
actually, those who have stuck around have been generally quite moderate and swell folks indeed - I do not at all equate our regular visitors with this poor fellow
Eric ,I was thinking about some of the interactors in your previous blog on the MJ case....they were pretty intense , to say the least...and it was fun to watch you lose your cool as well..hahaha...
never lose my cool, it's all planned and scripted like a reality show
Yeah, Eric maintains completely control at all time. Who you gonna believe? Your own lying eyes and those bulging veins and the spittle at the corners of his mouth? Or him? Hunh? You wanna say that a little louder, punk?
SO yeah, it's all him in control. :-)
Apparently the jury is debating it vigorously. Generally the rule is that the longer it takes to reach a verdict, the greater the initial disagreement among them.
The 'evidence' seen by the public via the media is vastly different that the legal evidence seen by the jury, so the vast division of opinions is understandable. Even with identical evidence, there would still be multitude of contrasting opinions. Many of the things the public heard from the media coverage were never mentioned in the courtroom at all.
Either way, fanatically supporting either side is morally and logically wrong. Just because someone likes his music, doesn't make him immune to human failings. You can be guilty of any crime, regardless of your occupation.
The term 'fan' is derived from the word 'fanatic' and at times like this, we can easily see why.
How can anyone, whose only knowledge of him is through the media and his work, possibly know with rigid certainty whether he's guilty or innocent?
I've been on the receiving end of a few cruel injustices in the past myself, that's the reason I'm so sensitive on the issue of fairness and logic when it comes to judging someone else. That's what I would want too if I was accused of such a serious crime. Everyone deserves justice, from the wealthiest to the scum of the earth and everyone in between.
Suppose he is found guilty. Should the charity work he's done overrule that? I'm sure some of the lowest criminals in history have given big sums to charities. It's easy to be charitable when it's only a penny out of each $1000 and a big tax break, especially with a media crew recording it all and an ego too big for it britches.
Many stars commit crimes, such as illegal drug or firearms possession, assaults, etc., and often avoid jail time even after multiple offenses. Many of them also do charity work. Does that mean their crimes don't matter?
A fair reasoning mind would strive to ignore that and focus only on the criminal accusations and the evidence alleged to support those accusations. Charity work or any other work is actually irrelevant in this context and has nothing to do with proof one way or the other, so it should not be considered as part of any defence strategy.
Fanatics who defend him are acting like the proverbial good mother who defends her son, refusing to believe he's guilty of a terrible crime regardless of whatever evidence is submitted. "I know my son and he simply wouldn't do anything like that!", she would say. If he was found guilty, she would most likely still refuse to believe it.
Fanatics who want him to fry are guilty in the same way, amounting to little more than a lynch mob mentality. If he was found innocent, they would most likely still refuse to believe it.
You can't win!
That's why a trial is necessary, considering the severity of the charges - to prevent either of these extremes from prevailing in the hope that something that resembles justice is done.
I'm not aware of any better system, despite its faults.
The best we can hope for is a jury that's sound enough of mind and honest enough to form a competent and accurate verdict on the available evidence.
Hopefully, it will all be over soon.
In any event, it's good that the jury is taking its time... I'm sure it's not easy to sort out. And although it shouldn't factor in, each jury obviously feels the pressure of this decision now being agaonized over.
Yet another scary factor here: parents who thought it would be a good idea to let their child go through life saddled with the name "B.J. Hickman."
With the various connotations of a name like that, becoming something like Michael Jackson's unhinged fan is a destiny hard to avoid.
You just couldn't make this stuff up.
and at 18, he wasn't even around for real Jackomania
" The day before he had interrupted her broadcast, screaming, "Burn in hell, Dimond, you bitch!" "
Ok, I'm sorry but that's funny! LOL
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/30836)
Typical Jackson Supporter to Mr.Eric : ""Burn in hell, Eric, you bitch!""