Michael Jackson musical...new documentary — Page 7

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.

Another point of view, like it or not: https://talunzeitoun.com/2019/01/30/michael-jackson-and-me/?fbclid=IwAR1WrK6Kk6Rxa2nYctaVjNZlhvEohwD2j8kuCOTKQ8fMod6VAkwbbxXhY9Y

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?

"

Kad, I'm not a lawyer, but one article I read (NEW YORKER, I think) said it is nearly impossible to sue for defamation of a dead person. That is why the Estate is resorting to an obscure clause in a 27-year-old contract as the basis for their suit. I'll be surprised if the suit survives a motion for summary judgment, but who knows? As the Manafort sentence demonstrated, the law for rich people and institutions is "different".

Broadway Joe said: "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."

That's an extreme and inaccurate oversimplification of a very complex progression of abuse(s) that began with the abuse to Jackson, himself. ...and the phrase, "made some overrated pop music" falls far short of Jackson's accomplishments.

GavestonPS said: "For the life of me, I never understand why "Well, he didn't molest me" is considered a reliable defense to a charge of molestation and/or rape."

Even stranger when the famous kids that hung out with Jackson (Culkin, Feldman, etc.) trot this out... why would it be a surprise that someone would potentially molest a bunch of unknown kids and avoid the famous ones? No one said he molested every single kid that ever set foot at Neverland...

haterobics said: "GavestonPS said: "For the life of me, I never understand why "Well, he didn't molest me" is considered a reliable defense to a charge of molestation and/or rape."

Even stranger when the famous kids that hung out with Jackson (Culkin, Feldman, etc.) trot this out... why would it be a surprise that someone would potentially molest a bunch of unknown kids and avoid the famous ones? No one said he molested every single kid that ever set foot at Neverland..."

Though I'm beginning to wonder.

Absolutely re the child stars, who probably had their own support systems protecting them from outsiders. I suspect Culkin and Feldman were far more difficult to groom than unknowns and show biz outsiders like Safechuck and Robson.

Feldman walks it back, says he can no longer defend Jackson:

So true.  Considering what his best friend went through, you would have thought he would have spoke up (if true) earlier.

haterobics said: "ArtMan said: "So true. Considering what his best friend went through, you would have thought he would have spoke up (if true) earlier."

For the link-clicking challenged, Feldman doesn't say he knows what Jackson did or didn't do, but this is better than his previous "He didn't do it to me" stance."

The fact of the matter is these people should just shut their mouths as they don't know anything.

The only people who know what happened were the ones in the room when it happened.

Everyone else is a hanger on whose opinions actually mean nothing.

Both alleged victims are extremely believable and in almost all incidents of sexual abuse of children, there's no evidence other than their words.  It's also quite common that disclosure of the abuse doesn't happen until years later due to fear, confusion and implied consequences the perpetrator stated if they told.  In any case, there is hard evidence of Jackson's inappropriate relationships with children from his having them stay with him in his hotel rooms to stating that he shared his bed with them, which under any circumstance is totally inappropriate.  There is every reason to believe these two men and certainly enough to say that what Jackson practiced, per his own admissions, in his multiple relationships with children was extremely harmful and damaging to them.

Producers and theater owners will make their decisions about this musical from a money and reputation standpoint: if they believe it will be a moneymaker and their reputations won't take a hit, on with the show.  I can't imagine myself or anyone I know sitting through it.  If it ends up on Broadway they'll find out soon enough if it was a mistake.

That helps a little? I guess? Did she need to say anything at all?