Skip to content

Was it HUSH money if the family could still TESTIFY?

November 21, 2009

Another succinct article from the great Floacist blog summarizing the matter of the so-called “hush” paid to the Chandlers:

“The Chandlers were not prohibited from testifying against Jackson in a criminal trial, as long as they notified Jackson’s attorneys beforehand. Contrary to popular belief, the settlement did NOT silence anybody. It was the family’s own decision not to testify in the criminal case; they could have gotten money and justice but they only opted to take the money.

Ask yourself this:  if your child was molested, would you not do everything in your power to put the person responsible behind bars?  The Chandlers did not. Instead, they dropped the claims of child abuse against Jackson, signed a document where he basically called them liars, took his money and refused to talk to authorities. I have already pointed out the numerous reasons why Jackson settled the case; what reason did the Chandlers have to not testify?

For the past ten years, the media have been referring to the settlement as a “pay off” but here is my question: what exactly did Michael Jackson “buy” when he settled the civil lawsuit?

How can anyone call it “hush money” when it did not prevent the accuser from testifying against him?

How can anyone call it “hush money” when the entire world already knew about the allegations?

How can anyone call it “hush money” when there was still an ongoing criminal investigation that was not affected by the civil suit?

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: