Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
@Barbee, you said it yourself that the very fact of the settlement turned people against MJ. However, that is not KOPV's argument. His argument is that it were the terms of the settlement that turned the public against him. How so when people don't even know and care about those terms - as you said: "It doesn't matter what's in there."
Had it made a difference if MJ had been allowed to go into more details in defending himself in public? I doubt that. One, just because an accused says he is innocent that won't necessarily make people believe him. And BTW, MJ did say several times he was innocent. He did address the allegations in the Diane Sawyer interview, on HIStory etc. That did not make people who thought he was guilty suddenly believe him. And the other side would have been that the Chandlers too would have been allowed to make their rounds in the media, unlimited and with whatever BS they wanted to claim as the media never gave them hard questions, never approached their claims in an analytical way - only in a sensationalist way. They would have been allowed to cash in on things - movies, documentaries, you name it. And since the media is always more interested in sensationalism and trash, they sure would have given them more platform than MJ's side. They would have probably done so to the extent that MJ couldn't have competed with the media blitz unless he dedicated his whole life to replying to whatever nonsense the Chandlers decided to spout in the media. Evan Chandler was a vile, obsessed one - so the harassment would have never ended.
Two, MJ was never really the type who addressed these things in public in elaborate, detailed ways. There was no settlement in the Arvizo case, but have you ever seen him giving a detailed account on what happened in public? Have you ever seen him point out the discrepancies with the timeline, the contradictions in the Arvizo's testimonies etc? You could tell that for MJ it was very traumatic to speak about these things, he didn't like to speak about these things in public and when he did he became easily upset and emotional. Which is the reaction of an innocent man who was traumatized by being falsely accused, but he was not the type to address them in a calm, analytical way. So I don't think not having a CA in the settlement would have changed anything - in fact it probably would have been worse, as you can be sure the Chandlers would have taken full advantage of the situation, by constantly selling twisted crap to the tabloids.
We are talking about a person (Evan Chandler) who constantly tried to play media games like this, had the Court not stopped him. This is a complaint by Lisa Marie Presley's lawyer in the 1996 Evan Chandler vs. MJ case:
"Based on speculative and unfounded "conspiracy" allegations, plaintiff Evan Chandler has improperly dragged defendant Lisa Marie Presley into this lawsuit that is really between Chandler and Presley's former husband, defendant Michael Jackson alone. Chandler's recent actions prove that his reason for improperly suing Presley is, pure and simple, publicity, for himself and his counsel. Two weeks ago, Chandler took Presley's deposition, and secretly called the media to tell them when and where Ms. Presley would be deposed. When they arrived at the deposition, Ms Presley and her counsel were unexpectedly besieged by the press. Chandler's counsel also went on the air in a nationwide tabloid news program to publicize the Presley deposition. It would not be surprising if counsel had been paid for that. The deposition included questions about such private issues as Ms. Presley's marriage to Jackson. Yet when asked to make the transcript confidential, Chandler's counsel refused, showing that Chandler intends - unless stopped by this Court - to further improperly publicize Ms. Presley's private life.
It is bad enough that Chandler has improperly sued Ms. Presley. He should not now be able to exploit Ms. Presley's role in these legal proceeding for the publicity benefit of himself and his counsel. By this motion, Presley is asking this Court to limit the harm already caused to her by Chandler's lawsuit by prohibiting the dissemination and disclosure of her deposition testimony, or the video tape of her testimony, to non-parties to this lawsuit (such as the media)."
"On March 7 and 8, 1997, pursuant to this Court's order, Chandler deposed Presley for two days. When Presley and her counsel arrived at the deposition site, they were confronted at the door by reporters and television cameras. Chandler's counsel did not deny that he had called the media to cover the deposition. Chandler's counsel made all the arrengements for the deposition, and never told anyone he had invited the media. Also, apparently before the deposition, Chandler's counsel gave a private interview to a natiowide tabloid news program about the deposition. Right after the deposition, a major network broadcast the interview, along with clips of Ms. Presley and her counsel entering the deposition room, on the tabloid show. Chandler's counsel obviously carefully orchestrated this media blitz to exploit Ms. Presley's fame for the private benefit of himself and his client.
During the deposition Chandler's counsel delved into Presley's private life, including her marriage to and relationship with Jackson. Because the deposition covered such private topics, and in light of the TV cameras outside, Presley's counsel asked counsel for Chandler to agree to keep the deposition transcript and video tape confidential. Chandler's counsel refused as to both the transcript and the video tape. He even refused to agree to confidentiality during the time it would take Presley to file, and for this Court to hear, a motion for protective order."
So IMO, a CA that at least limited the Evan Chandler in his tabloid whoring abilities is actually one of the better aspects of the settlement.
It's easy to say something else than a settlement would have been better, but we are only saying that because we don't know what would have happened without the settlement. For all we know, the media's reporting of the civil court case could have been just as biased as their reporting was about the Arvizo case and then it would have been the same publicity backlash for MJ as the settlement regardless if he had won or lost the case. People like to say they would have fought to prove their innocence in court because their reputation is more important, but those people do not know the legal Catch-22 (criminal vs. civil case etc.) that led to the settlement, nor were they in MJ's shoes in that moment (drug addiction etc). And well... in 2005 did fight in court, did win in court, but it did not change anything about his reputation. It's a bit hypocritical because the same people who say he should have fought in court in 1993 if he was innocent are typically the same people who do not accept the 2005 verdict as the right one either. So they basically admit that they are not willing to give MJ the benefit of doubt no matter what he did. If he settles that is the problem. If he goes to court and wins then they won't accept that either. So why do we believe them when they claim had MJ gone to court in 1993 and won their opinion would be any different than it is now? If people are brainwashed by the media they will believe whatever they want to believe regardless of settlements or verdicts and regardless of what was being said in a court.
We have to accept that being accused of child molestation - especially as a celebrity who is already considered "weird" - is simply a no-win situation.
