0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Dr Susan Ession Etok
January 16, 2010, 12:13:07 PM
This is her latest reply on her blog, in reply to someone who asked her if she spoke to MJ about the press and slander:

I didn’t talk much to Michael about this, by the time I knew him, his reputation had already taken a huge battering (1993 – Jordy Chandler case). I just had to decide what to believe and what not to. He was very sensitive about this issue so I didn’t ever probe.

It upset him to hear about some of things that were being said about him. Even his PR people filtered the information that they fed to him. He was shielded from alot of it because he didn’t watch TV and read papers much, but of course curiosity sometimes got the better of him.

With respect to libel (from a legal standpoint) one of the elements that has to proven (in UK Jurisdiction) is damage to reputation. In the early days Michael courted the media to increase interest in him (mystery and elusiveness). This clearly backfired and he was labelled “Wacko Jacko.” He did fuel some of this by his sometimes unconventional behaviour.

Being in the media eye is a dangerous game. They can make or break your career in a heartbeat. Chasing up every inaccurate or potentially damaging comment would be time consuming and very costly – don’t forget the emotional toll. [This is what Firpo Carr has tried to exploit in my case.]

After 1993 (Jordy Chandler case), his reputation was severely damaged a) because of the allegations against him and b) because it was settled by way of non-disclosure agreement and “severance” payment. These factors left Michael open to media scrutiny. Because of the way that this matter was settled, he could not prove that he was not guilty in the Jordy Chandler case.

It would be difficult for Michael to sue a media outlet for defamation of character (injury to his reputation) because one could argue that his reputation had been irreparably damaged by the first child molestation allegations. He could be deemed libel-proof by a court. However, this does not mean that the court would dismiss libel action brought about by Michael, but his reputation could very much make his case weaker.

In addition, if his reputation was not an issue, it is difficult to prove that statements by the media outlet are untrue without disclosing things that he might want to keep private.

It is not easy to win a libel case particularly if you are a public figure because the rules are different. In the USA, libel laws are not plaintiff friendly and there is alot that one can say within the realms of the law, so to speak.

So, I think that libel action would perhaps have been more damaging to Michael than just letting it lie. That’s my verdict!


See how the woman never answers a question about MJ with any facts?  She has just replied "i never spoke to him much about it" and then preceded to talk about the law and her own experience.

I really think she did not know MJ at all.   And if that is the truth then she is a vile woman indeed.
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
181 Replies
23437 Views
Last post December 07, 2009, 03:39:47 AM
by juliet
8 Replies
1781 Views
Last post December 04, 2009, 09:19:28 AM
by Harleyblonde
40 Replies
5292 Views
Last post January 10, 2010, 08:21:16 AM
by the_gloved_one

SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal