^ that's always the case whenever someone settles out of court. There's a natural suspicion in people when it doesn't get played out in front of them.
They'll get over it, and if they don't it's their problem cause MJ is moving on and if they're too snide and rude they'll miss out on their chance to get involved in his next endeavour.
There is nothing to be suspicious about this case. One party is saying there was a contract and the other is disputing that. Simple. The reason why Michael is wanting to settle this is probably because in a case like this his financial situation and health would be questioned and become public knowledge.
Michael argued that he signed the contract under undue influence, during cross- examination questions that would be asked would have been 'what was the pressure forcing you to sign the contract?' 'Was you physically threatened?' or 'was the need for money a factor in making you sign the contract?'
Other questions during cross-examination would have been:-
'do you have any proof that you were emotionally exhausted when you entered signed the contract? '
people treat you like the king of pop, always giving you gifts, 'did you not think that this large amount of money would have to be paid back in some way?'
If you knew that your legal team didn't look over the contract, then why did you not read the contract before signing it yourself, assuming you have signed contracts like this in the past?
Michael put forward many positive defences, the above questions are a few that Michael would have answered in the court room.
