[Discussion] Sexual Abuse Claims Against MJ Estate - Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe

[Soundmind]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Of course he agreed to settle. Weitzam and Fields were against the settlement. However, once Cochran was hired he pushed for a settlement which was greatly in Fieldman's best interest .

 

[shelly_webster]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Lawyers do but they make the decisions based on depositions and they listen to their client.

So MJ could have said no.

 

[shelly_webster]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Yes , he consented to it, but IMO, as I felt it at the time, he felt he had no choice, because his lawyers told him there was a risk.
About the details of the settlement, the settlement is about confidentiality, so he was not supposed to talk about it at all.

I think you have to understand the american legal system to understand it. I don't know about the Netherlands , but here in France, it would sound absolutely crazy to pay for something you haven't done.

Important points for me about the settlement :

- civil trial would have happened before a criminal trial, harming Michael's defense for a criminal trial, giving "weapons" to the prosecution, since they would have known his defense. The fact that a civil trial can happen before a criminal trial is beyond illogical, it would not have happened in many countries, and it was corrected in the mid 90s, partly because of the allegations. In 2005 it was not possible anymore : the Arvisos had to go through a criminal trial first.

- settlement was signed before the grand jurys were done. The settlement was filed with the court : no way Michael could have pressured Jordan into not testifying, it was illegal, Jordan could have promised to shut up, sign the settlement, and go testify in front of those grand juries. The Chandlers never intended to go to a criminal trial. It was THEIR decision, Michael could not have influenced them.

- both grand juries did not file charges. Meaning the prosecution had NOTHING to even create a doubt, NOTHING that could have convinced the jurors that a trial was needed, at least to decide if Michael was guilty or not. The people who doubt Michael need to understand that the grand juries were not there to convict Michael, they were only asked if there was enough to go to trial or not. If things had not been clear for them, all they had to do was to send Michael to trial. Then other jurors would have decided if Michael was guilty or not.

In hindsight, i wish they had. A criminal trial was the only way for him to clear things up.

I don't think it's even possible to settle a claim for rape in France. I am not a lawyer but if I remember well the law said that you can't have a civil liability if there is not a criminal conviction. The notion of punitive damage doesn't exist either.

This article explains it

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/world/americas/26iht-damages.1.11433403.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

"Under French law, damages must fully, but only, repair the harm caused (the 'principle of full compensation'). As a result, punitive damages are not admitted."

http://www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/detail.aspx?g=e7a347a7-6212-4a27-8216-1611a74c3447

 

[LindavG]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Yes , he consented to it, but IMO, as I felt it at the time, he felt he had no choice, because his lawyers told him there was a risk.
About the details of the settlement, the settlement is about confidentiality, so he was not supposed to talk about it at all.

He was not allowed to speak about the content of the settlement but he could still say whether or not he agreed with settling this case in general.

I think you have to understand the american legal system to understand it. I don't know about the Netherlands , but here in France, it would sound absolutely crazy to pay for something you haven't done.

In The Netherlands, such settlements are almost unheard of too. I think that's why many people find it so hard to believe that nothing happened back in 1993. There's the assumption that no one would choose to pay for something they haven't done.

Important points for me about the settlement :

- civil trial would have happened before a criminal trial, harming Michael's defense for a criminal trial, giving "weapons" to the prosecution, since they would have known his defense. The fact that a civil trial can happen before a criminal trial is beyond illogical, it would not have happened in many countries, and it was corrected in the mid 90s, partly because of the allegations. In 2005 it was not possible anymore : the Arvisos had to go through a criminal trial first.

- settlement was signed before the grand jurys were done. The settlement was filed with the court : no way Michael could have pressured Jordan into not testifying, it was illegal, Jordan could have promised to shut up, sign the settlement, and go testify in front of those grand juries. The Chandlers never intended to go to a criminal trial. It was THEIR decisions, Michael could not have influenced them.

- both grand juries did not file charges. Meaning the prosecution had NOTHING to even create a doubt, NOTHING that could have convinced the jurors that a trial was needed, at least to decide if Michael was guilty or not. The people who doubt Michael need to understand that the grand juries were not there to convict Michael, they were only asked if there was enough to go to trial or not. If things had not been clear for them, all they had to do was to send Michael to trial. Then other jurors would have decided if Michael was guilty or not.

In hindsight, i wish they had. A criminal trial was the only way for him to clear things up.

All of these are valid points. Again I wonder, why didn't Michael ever mention this? Also, how incompetent are those lawyers to unanimously advise a settlement when the Chandler's obviously had no leg to stand on? It's all so frustrating. :no:

 

[LindavG]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I don't think it's even possible to settle a claim for rape in France. I am not a lawyer but if I remember well the law said that you can't have a civil liability if there is not a criminal conviction. The notion of punitive damage doesn't exist either.

This article explains it

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/world/americas/26iht-damages.1.11433403.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

Michael didn't settle for rape though, he settled for negligence. Also something he should've emphasised more when asked about it.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^MJ wd never have settled in a million years by admitting he molested chandler. Feldman knew this so that's why the complaint was made one of negligence.

Yes i agree with soundmind, mj wanted to settle. I'm not sure where fans get the idea that mj was forced into it and it was the insurance company making him do it etc etc - maybe it was the legal jargon that was used on the document idk. But mj made clear his reasons in the diane sawyer interview with lmp, so if fans are wanting to argue mj was set against settling they'll have to say mj was lying here. He was between a rock and hard place with that civil trial and i think the lawyers' advice to settle was pretty solid imo. They couldn't guarantee a not guilty in a civil trial, child abuse allegatons are hard to prove but even harder to defend against. The arvizo allegations made it to trial and it was horrible for mj - emotionally and psychologically. He may have won in court in 05 but not in the court of public opinion, his rep took a real beating and the stupidity of the pros case was not made apparent to the general public, so why wd it be any different in 93, esp in a civil case where there is less protection for defendants?

 

[shelly_webster]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Michael didn't settle for rape though, he settled for negligence. Also something he should've emphasised more when asked about it.

I know, but the civil suit was for sexual abuse and he settled over the claim of negligence. I don't hink you can file a civil suit for sexual abuse in France, and I believe it's why lots of people don't take the US seriously.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It could ALSO be Robson's payback for not getting the opportunity to be director of the MJ-inspired Cirque show.

It's very clear that ole boy wanted that job pretty badly. So much so, that he was actually giving interviews speaking as if the gig was in fact already his. I would have to say that a gig like that could have been the pinnacle of his career. Not to mention the HUGE payday he missed out on when the gig was given to Jamie King instead. (In little Richard's voice, I can hear Wade saying "I was robbed!")

In my opinion, Wade Robson is PISSED he didn't get that job. After BRAGGING about it to anybody who would listen to him.

Why then did the estate not mention this in their statement about wade? It would have provided a useful motive. All they've said is a reply to tmz that wade was due to work on immortal but his son was sick and he couldn't be used. The son is sick excuse sounds like something wade told them instead of saying he was having a breakdown. If the estate let him go because of drugs which is a rumour i've read here a few times now, then to be sure the estate would be coming out and saying something to that effect - wade has now declared war against mj and his estate so the estate will be using everything they have on wade to fight him and his credibility. They know what went down between themselves and wade more than we do.

 

[LindavG]

^MJ wd never have settled in a million years by admitting he molested chandler. Feldman knew this so that's why the complaint was made one of negligence.

I know, but you'd be surprised how many people are unaware that the settlement was not for child molestation.

Yes i agree with soundmind, mj wanted to settle. I'm not sure where fans get the idea that mj was forced into it and it was the insurance company making him do it etc etc - maybe it was the legal jargon that was used on the document idk. But mj made clear his reasons in the diane sawyer interview with lmp, so if fans are wanting to argue mj was set against settling they'll have to say mj was lying here. He was between a rock and hard place with that civil trial and i think the lawyers' advice to settle was pretty solid imo. They couldn't guarantee a not guilty in a civil, child abuse allegatons are hard to prove but even harder to defend against. The arvizo allegations made it to trial and it was horrible for mj - emotionally and pscyhologically. He may have won in court but not in the court of public opinion, his rep took a real beating and the stupidity of the pros case was not made apparent to the general public, so why wd it be any different in 93?

It's not that hard to understand where this idea comes from if you consider the motion that was filed in court in 2005 on behalf of MJ, that said this:

“The 1993 Civil Settlement was Made by Mr. Jackson’s Insurance Company and was not within Mr.Jackson’s control. The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr. Jackson’s insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr.Jackson and his personal legal counsel.
It is unfair for an insurance company’s settlement to be now held against Mr. Jackson or for the Settlement Agreement to be admitted as evidence of Mr. Jackson’s prior conduct or guilt. Mr. Jackson could NOT CONTROL NOR INTERFERE with his insurance carrier’s demand to settle the dispute”.

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/the-questions-asked-about-the1993-settlement/

 

[HIStory]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I haven't seen that particular interview either, but I sure would like to.

And if he knows in advance that he can't OR WON'T be answering certain questions, then why bother going on television in the first place. In my opinion, his entire approach has been misguided and full of holes.

Although I didn't see this interview, I believe this interviewer was tougher on Wade then Matt Lauer was and Mr. Wade wasn't prepared for it.

Shoot, if you are big and bad enough to go on television with your bogus claims then you should be able to withstand the heat that comes with it, in my opinion. Not everybody is going to treat him with kit-gloves and his behind should be prepared for that.

That interview was mentioned on another board and I have never seen any evidence of it ever since, so I'm not sure it really happened. Had it happened surely it would have been mentioned by some media, no? Or would be up on YT or there would be some trace of its existence. So I don't think we should talk about it as if it definitely happened.

 

[Big Apple2]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

That interview was mentioned on another board and I have never seen any evidence of it ever since, so I'm not sure it really happened. Had it happened surely it would have been mentioned by some media, no? Or would be up on YT or there would be some trace of its existence. So I don't think we should talk about it as if it definitely happened.

Why shouldn't we talk about it?

We're talking about Wade's bogus claims, and we know they definitely didn't happen.

P.S. That interview was also mentioned on THIS board.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Could he choose his own witness for the 2005 trial or is it something decided only by his lawyers. I know it seems a stupid question but I'm really trying to understand why he chose wade if what wade claims is true.

There is someone on Twitter vouching for Wade (apparently a friend of his - I don't remember his name now) and he tweeted about a week ago that MJ begged Wade to testify in 2005. He wanted to make it seem like something suspicious of MJ but actually it's the other way around. If he really begged Wade to testify that means he really wanted him on that stand. Why if he molested him for 7 years? Yes, Blanca told that shower story, but her testimony was shaky in itself. It's good that Wade refuted it, but it wasn't desperately needed. The potential risk of Wade testifying, if MJ truly molested him, was a lot bigger than the potential benefit from his testimony.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Why shouldn't we talk about it?

We're talking about Wade's bogus claims, and we know they definitely didn't happen.

P.S. That interview was also mentioned on THIS board.

Yes, and I was the one who posted that info about the interview from another board, because someone who seemed trustworthy claimed it there. But I have never seen any evidence of it and to be honest now I'm starting to be sceptical of its existence. I just think we should not treat unproven info as fact.

 

[Big Apple2]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Why then did the estate not mention this in their statement about wade? It would have provided a useful motive. All they've said is a reply to tmz that wade was due to work on immortal but his son was sick and he couldn't be used. The son is sick excuse sounds like something wade told them instead of saying he was having a breakdown. If the estate let him go because of drugs which is a rumour i've read here a few times now, then to be sure the estate would be coming out and saying something to that effect - wade has now declared war against mj and his estate so the estate will be using everything they have on wade to fight him and his credibility. They know what went down between themselves and wade more than we do.

I'm not sure about anything that is posted on TMZ. I mean, they ALSO said that Wade would be claiming a "repressed memory." Did they get that information from Wade's attorney? Or did they just add that little tidbit on their own? Who knows.

That being said, I don't believe The Estate Of Michael Jackson is planning to go tic-for-tat with Mr. Robson. When the time is appropriate, they will do what they have to do as usual.

That still doesn't explain why Wade was going around talking about being the director of the MJ inspired Cirque shows, and how challenging it was, when The Estate said that they NEVER had a contract with Wade.

 

[Justthefacts]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

If it was for a local station then it prob was not picked up

 

[bouee]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I don't think it's even possible to settle a claim for rape in France. I am not a lawyer but if I remember well the law said that you can't have a civil liability if there is not a criminal conviction. The notion of punitive damage doesn't exist either.

This article explains it

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/world/americas/26iht-damages.1.11433403.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

"Under French law, damages must fully, but only, repair the harm caused (the 'principle of full compensation'). As a result, punitive damages are not admitted."

http://www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/detail.aspx?g=e7a347a7-6212-4a27-8216-1611a74c3447

I think as a MJ fan, i know more about the US system, than the french one, unfortunately....

i think in both countries, there's nothing you can do about a criminal trial. Not even the victim can stop it (for ex Polanski). If the prosecutor wants to prosecute, he will (with certain limitations in both countries , grand juries/ preliminary hearing in the States- "judge of instruction" or however you would call that, but you know what I mean, In France. The role of this judge, in certain very serious cases, such as rape, or complicated cases, would be to oversee the investigation WITH ALL the parties involved, and then decide if you go to trial or not) .

I think the civil part comes right after a conviction in a criminal trial in France, so no conviction , no damages. I'm not sure, but I think it's the same procedure, you wouldn't have 2 trials, resulting in opposite outcome, such as OJ Simpson.

So MJ's situation in 93 would not have happend (settlement), and it makes it pretty shocking for uneducated French people.

I agree about punitive damages, I at least I have never heard that the damages allowed could depend on what you earn.

 

[Big Apple2]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Yes, and I was the one who posted that info about the interview from another board, because someone who seemed trustworthy claimed it there. But I have never seen any evidence of it and to be honest now I'm starting to be sceptical of its existence. I just think we should not treat unproven info as fact.

I appreciate your input, but as long as I abide by the board's rules, I believe I can discuss whatever I want to discuss.

YOU posted that information here and I commented on it. I really don't see a problem. Maybe next time you should add a disclaimer as to the accuracy of you're postings if your not sure whether they are true or not, or don't post unsure information at all. No offense, just a suggestion.

Aside from that, I can totally see Mr. Robson "pleading the fifth," when he feels uncomfortable with a question. That's what lying punks usually do, in my opinion.

 

[shelly_webster]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think as a MJ fan, i know more about the US system, than the french one, unfortunately....

i think in both countries, there's nothing you can do about a criminal trial. Not even the victim can stop it (for ex Polanski). If the prosecutor wants to prosecute, he will (with certain limitations in both countries , grand juries/ preliminary hearing in the States- "judge of instruction" or however you would call that, but you know what I mean, In France. The role of this judge, in certain very serious cases, such as rape, or complicated cases, would be to oversee the investigation WITH ALL the parties involved, and then decide if you go to trial or not) .

I think the civil part comes right after a conviction in a criminal trial in France, so no conviction , no damages. I'm not sure, but I think it's the same procedure, you wouldn't have 2 trials, resulting in opposite outcome, such as OJ Simpson.

So MJ's situation in 93 would not have happend (settlement), and it makes it pretty shocking for uneducated French people.

I agree about punitive damages, I at least I have never heard that the damages allowed could depend on what you earn.

Yes, it's what i understand from our system. I never heard of a civil suit for rape or child abuse in France.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Yes , he consented to it, but IMO, as I felt it at the time, he felt he had no choice, because his lawyers told him there was a risk.
About the details of the settlement, the settlement is about confidentiality, so he was not supposed to talk about it at all.

I think you have to understand the american legal system to understand it. I don't know about the Netherlands , but here in France, it would sound absolutely crazy to pay for something you haven't done.

In the US people and companies do settle even if they haven't done anything wrong. They settle, for example, if the potential damage from a long, drawn out trial is bigger than the money they settle for. For PR reasons. JC Penny's guards did not molest Janet Arvizo as it was proven at Michael's 2005 trial. Yet, JC Pennys chose to settle. Probably because it would have harmed them more in terms of PR if they went against the family of a "poor cancer victim" in trial.
In Michael's case there were PR reasons, emotional reasons (he was really at the end of his nerves, as evidenced by his drug addiction at the time) but the main reason was IMO that they could not push the criminal trial behind the civil and so it would have given an unfair advantage to the prosecution in the criminal trial.

 

[shelly_webster]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

In the US people and companies do settle even if they haven't done anything wrong. They settle, for example, if the potential damage from a long, drawn out trial is bigger than the money they settle for. For PR reasons. JC Penny's guards did not molest Janet Arvizo as it was proven at Michael's 2005 trial. Yet, JC Pennys chose to settle. Probably because it would have harmed them more in terms of PR if they went against the family of a "poor cancer victim" in trial.
In Michael's case there were PR reasons, emotional reasons (he was really at the end of his nerves, as evidenced by his drug addiction at the time) but the main reason was IMO that they could not push the criminal trial behind the civil and so it would have given an unfair advantage to the prosecution in the criminal trial.

Here in France you can settle a claim but not when it's a criminal problem. If the state ask for more money for your income tax than you really owe, you can choose to pay and then sue the state. But you can't do that for criminal matter.

 

[Big Apple2]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Is it just me, or does it appear like Wade's "BIG REVEAL" has already fizzled out?

 

[HIStory]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I appreciate your input, but as long as I abide by the board's rules, I believe I can discuss whatever I want to discuss.

YOU posted that information here and I commented on it. I really don't see a problem. Maybe next time you should add a disclaimer as to the accuracy of you're postings if your not sure whether they are true or not, or don't post unsure information at all. No offense, just a suggestion.

Aside from that, I can totally see Mr. Robson "pleading the fifth," when he feels uncomfortable with a question. That's what lying punks usually do, in my opinion.

You discuss whatever you want. I just told you that I haven't seen any evidence of the existence of this interview and that is suspicious, because I'd expect it would have been mentioned by the media by now if it happened. Yes, I maybe should have told that the info is unconfirmed. I think I mentioned its origin though (that it was said by someone on another board). I did not post it as something that is sure fact. My disclaimer that I became sceptical of it's existence was what I posted now. I don't know why you get so upset about it.

 

[shelly_webster]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Is it just me, or does it appear like Wade's "BIG REVEAL" has already fizzled out?

Wait for June, when the claim will probably be leaked.

 

[Big Apple2]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

because I'd expect it would have been mentioned by the media by now if it happened.

Why would the media mention it?

If in fact Wade is "pleading the fifth," it makes him dumber then claiming that "he remembers EVERYTHING." The media only wants to repeat stuff that they can spin and twist in order to make MJ look bad, can't do much spinning and twisting when the accuser pleads the fifth during a televised interview.

If anything they wouldn't repeat that, because they don't want folks to know how stupid Wade and his claims really are.

 

[MJJ Fan4321]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Here is a body/language analysis of Wade Robson interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w_QbTglW3E

 

[HIStory]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

In The Netherlands, such settlements are almost unheard of too. I think that's why many people find it so hard to believe that nothing happened back in 1993. There's the assumption that no one would choose to pay for something they haven't done.

But I find that less people believe MJ to be guilty outside of the US than in the US. When the US public should actually be more familiar with cases being settled even if the sued party didn't do anything wrong.

All of these are valid points. Again I wonder, why didn't Michael ever mention this? Also, how incompetent are those lawyers to unanimously advise a settlement when the Chandler's obviously had no leg to stand on? It's all so frustrating. :no:

Sadly, I think MJ's lawyers made a lot of mistakes in 1993 and I can only hope they won't now. This conversation between Larry Feldman and Evan is from Ray Chandler's book. It's about that motion in which Michael's lawyers tried to push the civil proceedings behind the criminal. It seems like they weren't very smart about it and Feldman clearly outsmarted them...

"On Monday we'll file a motion to compel his testimony, because he won't show up as planned, and a motion for priorities."
"Because Jordie's under fourteen?"
"Right. And if Weitzman or Fields had a ****ing brain in their heads and knew anything about how to litigate, they would have delayed this till Jordie's fourteenth birthday. Because then we'd be ****ed, because I wouldn't get this motion."
"What makes you so sure you'll get it?"
"Oh, it's an absolute right. Jordie is entitled to a trial within one hundred and twenty days. There's absolutely nothing anybody can do to stop it. I mean, I don't know if there's a case where that right has come up against the Fifth Amendment, but there's no question it's our statutory right. There's no discretion, the judge has to do it. He has to find us a courtroom. We're gonna argue to the court that we want a trial date by January tenth.
"They're out of control, Evan. They don't know what the hell they're doin'. If they were smart they would have ****ed around with me on jurisdiction and kept delaying this as much as they could to prevent themselves from having to answer. And they only had to **** around for a couple of months!"
"Then why did they choose to go ahead with this?"
"I don't think they know what they're doin'. They're kid's moves! But we'll know in three weeks if we get our motion. The worst is if they're granted a stay, then we go to the court of appeals. You think the Supreme Court is going to let this criminal stop this case for six years! No ****ing way!"

 

[Big Apple2]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Wait for June, when the claim will probably be leaked.

I wonder if the claim will be for "repressed memory" or "I remember everything."

Because when those claims were filed, it was noted that Wade would be claiming repressed memory. That's what TMZ reported and if it was incorrect, Wade's attorney should have corrected them. It's not like they were not in contact with each other. Then out of the blue comes the "I remember everything" claim. I guess time will tell.

 

[bouee]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

But I find that less people believe MJ to be guilty outside of the US than in the US. When the US public should actually be more familiar with cases being settled even if the sued party didn't do anything wrong.

from what I remeber of 93 in France
- less tabloid press than in other countries, especially anglo saxon countries, and that kind of press was often not taken seriously
- no internet back then
- less tabloid shows on TV (err I wouldn' have watched anyway) - Generally, from what i remember, the "serious" media would present the news with a lof doubts, reminding that the damages at stakes could be very high, and that could be the reason of wrongful accusations. They didn't say Michael was not guilty, but they said that the story had to be taken with a grain of salt. At least that's what I remember.

It was very very different in 05 since Michael was arrested and there was a trial. What I remeber from 05 is most media implied he was guilty, at least until the Arvizos testified. After their testimonies, some journalists started to predict he would be acquitted.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

I'm not sure about anything that is posted on TMZ. I mean, they ALSO said that Wade would be claiming a "repressed memory." Did they get that information from Wade's attorney? Or did they just add that little tidbit on their own?

Agree about tmz should not be taken as tablets of stone, but in this case tmz's info that robson was considered but not used for cirque because his son was sick, is directly attributed to 'a spokesperson for the michael jackson estate' - tmz are not some blog, i assume they are v careful when they are not just quoting 'sources'. Also in the 2 very similar statements that the estate has put out, there is just no mention of any cirque connection. It would be a great argument to use - mj's accuser was desperate to work with us on his tribute show but was rejected, this is his payback just as we're launching the new cirque show. They haven't so there's a reason for that, prob because it's not true - i just think that they're the ones who are in a position to know this type of info, not us.

It's not that hard to understand where this idea comes from if you consider the motion that was filed in court in 2005 on behalf of MJ, that said this:

“The 1993 Civil Settlement was Made by Mr. Jackson’s Insurance Company and was not within Mr.Jackson’s control. The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr. Jackson’s insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr.Jackson and his personal legal counsel.
It is unfair for an insurance company’s settlement to be now held against Mr. Jackson or for the Settlement Agreement to be admitted as evidence of Mr. Jackson’s prior conduct or guilt. Mr. Jackson could NOT CONTROL NOR INTERFERE with his insurance carrier’s demand to settle the dispute”.

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/the-questions-asked-about-the1993-settlement/

As i said it looks like legal jargon and it is directly refuted by mj himself in a tv primetime interview with diane sawyer. Nowhere did mj ever say he was forced to settle and blame his lawyers for their advice. I know tmez thought it was the wrong thing to do but I think it was an incredibly hard decision for mj to make, and each option, settle or go to civil trial held great dangers. Instead of 94-5 being taken up with a debilitating trial with allsorts of horrible allegations coming out, mj got married, released the history album.

 

[StellaJackson]

Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Wade was supposed to work on One?

http://www.squidoo.com/Wade_Robson

That's why his claims came out just before the show is about to open.