Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 20 of 20

Thread: Why did Pellicano & Bert Fields resign in 1993?

   
  1. #16
    Points: 3,039, Level: 33
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 11
    Overall activity: 25.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registeredOverdrive

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    667
    Points
    3,039
    Level
    33
    Thanks
    2,412
    Thanked 699 Times in 371 Posts

    Default Re: Why did Pellicano & Bert Fields resign in 1993?

    Quote Originally Posted by ScreenOrigami View Post
    I’m somehow glad they didn’t try. I’m convinced T-Mez could have pulled it off, but I’m not so sure about MJ’s legal team at the time.
    Yep, that's another angle indeed. It's nice that in theory MJ's first lawyer team didn't want to settle but apart from this conviction they didn't really deliver. In all fairness though all those denied motions perhaps weren't their fault after all.

    BTW that's another detail about what I would like to hear an objective explanation, as ensuring a civil trial before the criminal seems unfair not only towards MJ but against the interests of society as well (how come a criminal proceeding is not above the civil one?).

    Quote Originally Posted by ScreenOrigami View Post
    It’s sad, though, that the difference between civil and criminal case wasn’t communicated more clearly.
    Even more sadly, I think the mixing/blurring was deliberate. :/
    I look to greet the stars
    But there's no stars to see

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to ozemouze For This Useful Post:


  3. #17
    Points: 4,596, Level: 43
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 154
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points3 months registeredOverdrive

    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,457
    Points
    4,596
    Level
    43
    Thanks
    1,375
    Thanked 1,712 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Why did Pellicano & Bert Fields resign in 1993?

    Quote Originally Posted by ozemouze View Post
    Yep, that's another angle indeed. It's nice that in theory MJ's first lawyer team didn't want to settle but apart from this conviction they didn't really deliver. In all fairness though all those denied motions perhaps weren't their fault after all.

    BTW that's another detail about what I would like to hear an objective explanation, as ensuring a civil trial before the criminal seems unfair not only towards MJ but against the interests of society as well (how come a criminal proceeding is not above the civil one?).
    T-Mez did a couple of lectures (was it for Harvard?) that are on YouTube. I haven’t gotten around to watching them, but maybe he addresses it in more detail there?

    Quote Originally Posted by ozemouze View Post
    Even more sadly, I think the mixing/blurring was deliberate. :/
    Definitely! I meant to say that MJ’s team should have communicated it better. But then again, we only know the bits that made it to the news. I just remember the press conference (“No one’s silence was bought” etc), but that was really just a few sentences without much explanation. Then again, of course, one should assume the public already knows how the legal system is supposed to work in regards to the difference between civil and criminal cases. It’s actually quite shocking that many people don’t seem to know the difference, and many who do try to abuse it to their financial advantage.
    Twitter: @ScreenOrigami
    Pokémon Go: 5702 7276 8494

  4. #18
    Points: 3,039, Level: 33
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 11
    Overall activity: 25.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registeredOverdrive

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    667
    Points
    3,039
    Level
    33
    Thanks
    2,412
    Thanked 699 Times in 371 Posts

    Default Re: Why did Pellicano & Bert Fields resign in 1993?

    Quote Originally Posted by ScreenOrigami View Post
    T-Mez did a couple of lectures (was it for Harvard?) that are on YouTube. I haven’t gotten around to watching them, but maybe he addresses it in more detail there?
    I don't think he elaborated the topic there either, but I didn't study those lectures thoroughly like some fans did, so please feel free to let us know if T-Mez (or anyone else for the matter) ever explained the possibilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScreenOrigami View Post
    I meant to say that MJ’s team should have communicated it better. But then again, we only know the bits that made it to the news. I just remember the press conference (“No one’s silence was bought” etc), but that was really just a few sentences without much explanation. Then again, of course, one should assume the public already knows how the legal system is supposed to work in regards to the difference between civil and criminal cases. It’s actually quite shocking that many people don’t seem to know the difference, and many who do try to abuse it to their financial advantage.
    Oh I see. I'm perhaps a bit negative in this regard but I don't see how this could be achieved. You're right that “No one’s silence was bought” isn't enough or convincing, but the situation can't be explained in brief and a press conference isn't suitable for explaining legal terms from the basics. Or remember the Estate's letter to HBO? It was a great letter but hardly referenced in MSM and too long for the general public to read it through (not to mention they didn't even know about it).

    I think the problem lies in two fields:

    1) Communication-wise MJ's side is at a disadvantage from the start:
    - They are constantly forced to be on the defensive as he is the one being attacked (be it by gossips or allegations). That's already a bad starting point as many see it as just explaining themselves.
    - They should communicate a complex topic with dry facts and legal expressions successfully against bombastic, simplistic headlines to an unconcerned public.

    2) Platform: MJ's side simply isn't given one and that's not something they can control.

    BTW all this shouldn't be the task of the PR representatives of MJ but of the press and then the platform would be given as well...

    Bonus reason: some part of the public simply doesn't want to think :/, and I don't talk about researching the facts (that, again, would be the job of the press) just using some basic logic. Like asking "what's the difference between civil and criminal proceedings?" It's fine if someone who doesn't know the legal background asks "why would an accused settle if there wasn't any crime" as long as it's continued with "and why would a parent settle if there was?!". Etc. Any of these are (would be) good starting points.
    I look to greet the stars
    But there's no stars to see

  5. #19
    Points: 15,829, Level: 80
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 21
    Overall activity: 8.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    over the rainbow...
    Posts
    1,827
    Points
    15,829
    Level
    80
    Thanks
    320
    Thanked 190 Times in 95 Posts

    Default Re: Why did Pellicano & Bert Fields resign in 1993?

    I think, the fact that MJ hired Pellicano is proof in itself, that he is and was innocent... always....
    heal the world

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to mysterygirl7 For This Useful Post:


  7. #20
    Points: 5,513, Level: 47
    Level completed: 82%, Points required for next Level: 37
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    301
    Points
    5,513
    Level
    47
    Thanks
    199
    Thanked 101 Times in 40 Posts

    Default Re: Why did Pellicano & Bert Fields resign in 1993?

    Quote Originally Posted by ScreenOrigami View Post
    I can’t find a source for it, but somewhere in the back of my mind I think I heard Tom Mesereau say that they should have fought it through without a settlement. So did he see options that they didn’t at the time? Or am I remembering it wrong?
    Every time I heard Mr. Mesereau talk about the 1993 allegations, he said that the settlement was the worst advise Michael could ever get. If I'm not wrong he mentioned on some occasions Cochran and Weitzman as the biggest supporters of the settlement idea. I'm not aware of any other lawyers, but I'm pretty sure that there was others on the team.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •