BTW, the prosecution in 1993 were going nowhere with their investigation. They interviewed 40-60 kids (according to some sources up to 100) who used to be around Michael, they did house searches in Neverland, Michael's Century City condo, in Michael's hotel room in Las Vegas, in Encino. They didn't find any evidence or corroborating victim! Nothing! The Chandlers didn't care about the criminal investigation. In fact they were trying to push that back behind the civil trial. That's the only thing they were interested in, ie. money! It was actually Michael's attorneys who were fighting for the civil proceedings being pushed back behind the criminal, because to have the civil before the criminal can potentially violate the defendant's constitutional rights.
There are many precedents where civil proceedings have been frozen to allow the criminal trial ahead, preserving a defendant's right to a fair trial and preventing that right from being violated. According to precedent cases those Geraldine Hughes quotes in her book:
"When both criminal and civil proceedings arise out of the same or related transactions, the defendant is entitled to a Stay of Discovery and trial in the civil action until the criminal matter has been fully resolved."
However, in regards to the case against Michael Jackson, all such attempts by Jackson’s lawyers to stay the civil proceeding were dismissed by
Superior Court Judge David Rothman. Apparently, the Chandler's trump card was Jordan's age. Here is what Geraldine Hughes writes:
„Michael Jackson lost all four motions. It was obvious from a legal standpoint of view that the scales of justice were not pointing in Michael Jackson's favor. Instead, it was weighing heavily in favor of the 13-year old boy. Michael Jackson's attorneys were applying precedent laws which were applied in a similar sexual battery case. Pacers Inc. v. Superior Court specifically held that it is improper invasion of the defendant's constitutional rights not to stay civil proceedings where a criminal investigation is ongoing. But Mr. Feldman's trump card was, "a child's memory is developing," and their inability to, "remember like an adult." This law was designed to protect a small child's ability to recall for prolonged periods of time after being a victim and/or witness to a crime. This case, however, involved a 13-year old boy, who was soon to be turning 14 years old.”
And this is from Ray Chandler's book, All That Glitters:
„Later in the afternoon, after everyone had consumed their holiday repast, Larry Feldman called Evan with news they could all be thankful for. "Hey, Evan, you gotta hear this one. Howard Weitzman demoted Fields again. They definitely don't want your deposition, or June's deposition. They don't want to preserve anything. If they're gonna make a deal they don't want anything on the record about Jackson."
No shit! Larry, these guys are in a real mess."
"Yeah, they fucked this up unbelievably. What could be better? But I'm going forward. We're going to push on. So far there ain't a button I've missed. The only thing we gotta do is keep the criminal behind us. I don't want them going first."
Larry had said it before, but it hadn't registered in Evan's brain till now.
"You mean if they indict, the criminal case automatically goes before us?"
"Yeah."
"Jesus Christ!"
"Right! So we don't want that."
Remember, that it's the criminal trial that can get a perpetrator to jail, the civil cannot. It can only result in monetary award for the plaintiff! So it were Michael's attorneys who fought for the criminal proceedings to get ahead of the civil while the Chandlers fought for pushing the criminal back behind the civil. The fact that because of Jordan's age in this case the civil proceedings have not been frozen to allow the criminal go first is basically the reason that lead to the settlement. Which was a settlement to settle the civil proceedings, not the criminal! (The law doesn't even allow to settle criminal cases.)
So how does this fit in with Michael hiding from a potential arrest? Unless the reason he didn't want to return was that he didn't want to be deposed for the civil trial. If the civil trial is held before the criminal trial it can give the prosecution in the criminal trial a major advantage because they have the opportunity to monitor the civil trial and study the defense's strategy. They can then, therefore, adjust their claims and strategy in kind. Furthermore, unlike in a criminal proceeding, where the defendant can constitutionally refuse to be deposed without consequence, a defendant in a civil trial cannot refuse to submit to a deposition free of consequence. A deposition in a civil case, held prior to a criminal proceeding, has the potential of violating a defendant's Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify in a criminal case. The prosecution can use the testimony from the civil deposition in the criminal trial.
So not wanting to be deposed because his 5th Amendment rights would have been violated, is something I can imagine as a reason for Michael not returning, but that has nothing to do with an arrest. There was no danger of Michael being arrested.
