Dave28282 said: "But I was wondering, changing focus from documentary to actual administration of justice. The men are publicly admitting that they committed perjury (lying on the stand). That makes it a legal case.These men could be prosecuted for thatand their parents for child neglect. There are serious chances they will be sued. This is really something to think about. I know this is not what most people will like to hear at this moment, but it is the only treatable case there is at the moment."
Who is going to prosecute it, though? And for what benefit? They don't have $$$, and they testified against precious victims because they were ongoing victims... all over their mutual, deceased abuser?!
And who is suing the parents for neglect, their kids?!
I don't see any path leading to anything you're mentioning...
haterobics said: "Who is going to prosecute it, though? And for what benefit? They don't have $$$,
And who is suing the parents for neglect, their kids?!
I don't see any path leading to anything you're mentioning..."
Money should never be a reason for prosecution in this kind of cases, don't you think?
I can imagine other families from the 2005 trial being not amused, to say the least.
And the men could indeed sue their parents, I know they said they blame them and they are working on it in private conversations, and that is actually good in my opinion. Most of the time it solves more than public judgement and prosecution. But that's their choice.
Dave28282 said: "haterobics said: "Who is going to prosecute it, though? And for what benefit? They don't have $$$,
And who is suing the parents for neglect, their kids?!
I don't see any path leading to anything you're mentioning..."
Money should never be a reason for prosecution in this kind of cases, don't you think?
I can imagine other families from the 2005 trial being not amused, to say the least.
And the men could indeed sue their parents, I know they said they blame them and they are working on it in private conversations, and that is actually good in my opinion. Most of the time it solves more than public judgement and prosecution. But that's their choice.
"
You can't sue for money until the person is guilty of the charges I don't think.
Impossible2 said: "You can't sue for money until the person is guilty of the charges I don't think."
Not necessarily. OJ Simpson was acquitted of the murder charges in the criminal trial, but was still found liable for the deaths of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown in the civil suit later filed by Goldman's family.
Did you know that every day Mexican gays cross our borders and unplug our brain-dead ladies?
Impossible 2 wrote: "You can't sue for money until the person is guilty of the charges I don't think.."
You can bring a civil lawsuit for $ damages against a criminal defendant who is in a criminal trial, but the defendant will ask the court to suspend the civil suit until the criminal case is over.
Reason? The criminal defendant cannot be forced to testify at the criminal trial bc of 5th amendment right against incrimination. But the defendant CAN be forced to testify in a civil case because the only penalty is a $ judgment, not jail. So the defendant cannot be forced to give a civil case deposition until the criminal case is over and all appeals exhausted. OJ was forced to testify in the civil case bc he was acquitted in the criminal case.
As for Bill Cosby, the prosecutor never charged him, and Cosby's crim attorney never got an immunity agreement from the prosecutor to protect him against future charges. So when Cosby was sued in the civil case, Cosby admitted he spiked women's drinks with drugs. The new prosecutor took the admission from the civil case to use against him in a future criminal case since there was no immunity agreement.
Alot of this is moot bc the MJ producers will be the final judge on whether a Bway show could produce $ that will overcome any protests or controversy. I could be wrong, but I don't think they'd take that chance. Money talks, all else walks.
Dave28282 said: "Money should never be a reason for prosecution in this kind of cases, don't you think?
I can imagine other families from the 2005 trial being not amused, to say the least.
And the men could indeed sue their parents, I know they said they blame them and they are working on it in private conversations, and that is actually good in my opinion. Most of the time it solves more than public judgement and prosecution. But that's their choice."
Given the statute of limitations, and the main dude being dead, I would imagine civil litigation is the only path here. There is no chance of prosecution, I wouldn't imagine.
One also imagines the other families of the prior trials would be upset (save for the ones who got $23M), but at the end of the day, their outcome was because of the same abuse their family members suffered, so it would seem unlikely to lead to anything. No one believed our son was abused because these other boys were still actively being abused and lied about it? No one's taking that to court.
And it seems unlikely the Robson and Safechuck would sue their parents, since they were groomed by the same person, for the same reasons, just with different methods and toward different ends.
Impossible2 said: "Dave28282 said: "haterobics said: "Who is going to prosecute it, though? And for what benefit? They don't have $$$,
And who is suing the parents for neglect, their kids?!
I don't see any path leading to anything you're mentioning..."
Money should never be a reason for prosecution in this kind of cases, don't you think?
I can imagine other families from the 2005 trial being not amused, to say the least.
And the men could indeed sue their parents, I know they said they blame them and they are working on it in private conversations, and that is actually good in my opinion. Most of the time it solves more than public judgement and prosecution. But that's their choice.
"
You can't suefor money until the person isguilty of the charges I don't think."
THIS IS NOT CORRECT. OF COURSE ONE COULD SUE IN CIVIL COURT, BUT IT IS TOO LONG AFTER THE FACT IT APPEARS.
I finished the documentary today and I found it upsetting. There's no damning evidence provided beyond their words, but if he did it it's upsetting and if he didn't do it and they're lying it's also upsetting. We may never know. The slumber parties, and the faxes and phone messages which are documented are all very unusual and highly unsettling. How any of this will effect the musical remains to be seen.
CATSNYrevival said: "I finished the documentary today and I found it upsetting. There's no damning evidence provided beyond their words, but if he did it it's upsetting and if he didn't do it and they're lying it's also upsetting. We may never know. The slumber parties, and the faxes andphone messages which are documented are all very unusual and highly unsettling. How any of this will effect the musicalremains to be seen."
If Robson and Safechuck are lying, then they are Baron Munchausen-level inventors. The sheer quantity of detail--most of it mundane--argues convincingly in favor of their credibility. As does that the degree to which their stories match one another, even though they'd only met a time or two when they filmed the doc. Again, the banality of some the recollections--such as MJ telling each boy that he would be helped to become the next Stephen Spielberg--is convincing. How could both of them invent such an unsensational detail?
Rarely have I seen subjects in a documentary take such painful care to be precise.
I never understood how anyone could accept the claim that MJ "innocently" brought young children into his bed night after night after night. I understand it even less now. I don't believe there's another entertainer on the planet who would be given such a large benefit of the doubt.
Michael Jackson was a talented composer, singer, dancer. He was not the Messiah.
If you actually watch the doc, there are several points that have evidence beyond just their word, but corroborated evidence.
For instance, why would Safechuck tell his mother of the abuse 15 years ago, after sever bouts of anxiety and depression (which mirrored the same effects felt by Robeson, separate and apart), and cause pain for his family without even going public? And when you see the bomb that is set off in Robeson's family by him telling, Robeson would have to be psychopath to cause his family that much pain.
As for those blaming the parents, watch the doc. They do. In fact, the truth coming out has caused giant rifts and enormous pain for the families. You don't put the ones you love through this kind of stress and trauma for maybe getting money one day.
That seems to be the answer for a lot of people in online discussion on this topic, who seem to skip the documentary, but still want to project theories onto what they think it includes based on what they heard online.. but it's four hours long with the vast majority of that time shared by the two accusers, so there is a lot of unpacking and detail.
As well as contemporaneous accounts corroborated by others *at the time*. So much of that simply makes no sense if it’s all for money. Why tear your family apart if you’re going to file a lawsuit *a decade* later?
The director of the film has stated that none of the contributors to his film received any money for giving the interviews, nor would they receive any money from its profits.
They can also no longer sue the Jackson estate for damages.
So if they are doing it for money, they don't have very good managers...
Actual question: we know the Jackson Estate filed a lawsuit against HBO over airing the documentary, which they claim violates a non-disparagement clause in a 1992 contract between the estate and HBO.
Is the estate able to sue Robson and Safechuck for defamation (or something along those lines)? Does the fact that Jackson has been dead for a decade prevent them from doing so? Is there any legal action the estate can take against these two men specifically, if the estate feels they are being untruthful in order to profit?
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
Kad said: "Actual question: we know the Jackson Estate filed a lawsuit againstHBO over airing the documentary, which they claim violates a non-disparagement clause in a 1992 contract between the estate and HBO.
Is the estate able to sue Robson and Safechuck for defamation (or something along those lines)? Does the fact that Jackson has been dead for a decade prevent them from doing so? Is there any legal action the estate can take against these two men specifically, if the estate feels they are being untruthful in order to profit?”
This IS a very interesting question. Unlike the suit against HBO, whatever money the estate might be able to get from these two - particularly from Safechuck, a computer programmer - would make it seem hardly worth the effort, but that hasn’t stopped lawsuits before. So my knee-jerk take is that there are only two principal reasons for the estate not to sue: 1) that on some level they know the accusations to have merit (hence their beef being with HBO for broadcasting and publicizing said accusations), or 2) that even if they genuinely believe the accusations to be baseless, they know that going after two men persuasively claiming sexual molestation would be even more ruinous to the estate in the court of public opinion (whatever the outcome of the case). So I don’t see any suits being filed there, but I’ve been wrong before Would be curious to hear what actual legal minds have to say about this question you pose.
Kad said: "Actual question: we know the Jackson Estate filed a lawsuit againstHBO over airing the documentary, which they claim violates a non-disparagement clause in a 1992 contract between the estate and HBO.
Is the estate able to sue Robson and Safechuck for defamation (or something along those lines)? Does the fact that Jackson has been dead for a decade prevent them from doing so? Is there any legal action the estate can take against these two men specifically, if the estate feels they are being untruthful in order to profit?”
This IS a very interesting question. Unlike the suit against HBO, whatever money the estate might be able to get from these two - particularly from Safechuck, a computer programmer - would make it seem hardly worth the effort, but that hasn’t stopped lawsuits before. So my knee-jerk take is that there are only two principal reasons for the estate not to sue: 1) that on some level they know the accusations to have merit (hence their beef being with HBO for broadcasting and publicizing said accusations), or 2) that even if they genuinely believe the accusations to be baseless, they know that going after two men persuasively claiming sexual molestation would be even more ruinous to the estate in the court of public opinion (whatever the outcome of the case). So I don’t see any suits being filed there, but I’ve been wrong before Would be curious to hear what actual legal minds have to say about this question you pose.
I didn't read through this whole thread yet but whether you think these two are lying or not there's no debating that Jackson actually slept in a bed with numerous different young boys throughout his life, held hands with them in public and had them travel with him.
He was always a creep and doesn't deserve a pass because he didn't have a proper childhood and made some overrated pop music.
nycblurb wrote: You can't suefor money until the person is guilty of the charges I don't think." THIS IS NOT CORRECT. OF COURSE ONE COULD SUE IN CIVIL COURT, BUT IT IS TOO LONG AFTER THE FACT IT APPEARS.
I'm an attorney. I answered this question. Again, depends on who is suing whom, for what, and when. Not necessarily too late. See earlier reply on 3/09.
Kad wrote, "Is the estate able to sue Robson and Safechuck for defamation (or something along those lines)? Does the fact that Jackson has been dead for a decade prevent them from doing so? Is there any legal action the estate can take against these two men specifically, if the estate feels they are being untruthful in order to profit? "
As an attorney, answer is no defamation suit on behalf of MJ unless it began before he died.. Estate would have to show damages to enterprise but would need standing to sue and show damages. Likely none of it would work unless they could possibly show tortious interference with a contract that estate had with production company that now wanted to back out bc of allegations.
joined:4/16/07
joined:
4/16/07
Posted: 3/9/19 at 11:44pm