Jenny Jones: Memorex or Murder? Analysis The verdict came in last week in the Jenny Jones Murder Case, a civil trial pursued by the family of the slain Scott Amedure against the producers of the Jenny Jones talk show. The civil suit ended with the jury finding the Jenny Jones show guilty for wrongful death, and with an allotment of $25 million to the family of the victim, Scott Amedure. The 1995 murder case concluded in 1996 with a criminal jury finding Jonathan Schmitz, 26, guilty of manslaughter in the shotgun death of Scott Amedure, 32. It was a killing that Schmitz ascribed to his humiliation at being propositioned by Amedure on Jenny Jones' national TV show. The verdict was recently overturned on appeal due to a court error. The Jenny Jones civil case gained visibility for raising the issue of free speech and for the star-quality of its opposing counsel, Geoffrey Fieger, for the plaintiffs, and James Feeney, for the accused. Under all the hoopla of the civil trial, several problems of timely concern raise their ugly heads. Are we breeding a generation of knee-jerk killers capable of Rambo-like vindication? Does today's generation confuse Memorex and "real" sound? Do men and women, as well as same sex individuals, engage in predatory relationships? Countless common sayings reinforce the natural goodness of predatory practices in the conduct of love. This perhaps antiquated relation of the sexes, whether same sex or opposite sex, elicits issues of communication and understanding. For centuries, love has been channeled in directions of social breeding: like seeks like, aristocrats marry aristocrats, and the middle classes and poor muddle their way through a consensus involving town and family, within the parameters of social support and protection. Society seems to have progressed from dictated love to free love, without declaring any rules of free association . In the abscence of such rules, Schmitz may well have been declaring his superiority to Amadure with his violence. Jenny Jones' producers seem to have concocted an explosive mixture by bringing together a homophobe and a militant gay. Amadure assumed a lot by coming on the show, and the show taped in disregard for the situation it was creating. In an era where the search for individual identity represents almost an obsession with youth, the show casually mixed budding urges, stoked the flames of hate-love, and sat back to see what would happen. Jenny Jones herself expresses much candor about her life and thought. She talks openly about wanting as a youth to achieve identity through breast transplants, a decision that has caused her much pain and psychological hurt. Yet, she disavows blame for the Amadure murder, like a hostess that has invited mad dogs to a fight and later feels compelled to defend the sanctity of her home. On the other hand, is a court of law the place to resolve such issues? In a practical sense, perhaps; Jenny Jones' producers have money and quite likely legal insurance, and lawyers are taught to beat the money trail. But haven't the courts also become a false forum where Memorex and reality become confused in the confabs of highly-paid lawyers. Haven't arguments to the jury become as manipulative as the forum of Jenny Jones? Haven't juries, themselves, become contestants glorying in media fame? The masses today want to contribute to their own social reality -- the small but potent reality of the everyday. This explains in a positive way such shows as Jenny Jones. Average people want to replace the dramas of elites on the world stage -- dramas that also have their component of Memorex -- with intense dramas of their own. Still, like homemade bombs, the small dramas tend to go off explosively when handled clumsily. May 10, 1999