|
Michael Jackson Dead at 50 (pg. 25)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| VDub |
I my edit was too late...
But I don't get why it would be hard to prove...
Because of this family, ppl are STILL going on about him being a pedo... |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by VDub
I my edit was too late...
But I don't get why it would be hard to prove...
Because of this family, ppl are STILL going on about him being a pedo... |
Defamation suits are difficult because one must first prove the statement made was a falsehood, then they must prove that the aggreived party suffered pecuniary damages (they lost money), then they must prove that the damages suffered were a direct result of the false statement. This is a heavy burden to satisfy.
So, in this case the Estate would need to first prove that Michael Jackson did not have any sexual contact with this child... this would be difficult in this case because the investigation done by the Santa Barbara Sheriff's office would be admissable and while the State chose not to press charges as without the boy's testamony they could not prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt it may be enough to prove sexual contact on a balance of probabilities (defamation is a civil claim therefore the test of proof is "more likely then not"). Additionally, you can bet that if the Estate sued the kid he would recant his statements about the allegations being false. If the Estate were able to prove the statements were false they would then need to prove that Michael Jackson suffered a pecuniary loss. This may or may not be difficult to do; without knowing his finances at the time one can only speculate. The last hurdle is the toughest by far... proving that the allegation of molesting this particular child caused a particular financial loss. This would be exceedingly difficult as it would essentially require them to prove that the only factor in any loss of income was this particular allegation. Given that Jacksons's income was derived from a combination of royalties from Jackson's music catalog, royalties from the Lennon/McCartney music catalog, royalties from Jackson 5 music catalog, endorsements, album sales, ticket receipts, merchandising, investments, etc. there would be a tremendous number of factors to be ruled out in order to prove any causal link between the loss and the allegation. It is primarally the causal link between the allegation and the damages that ends up being the killer in most defamation suits... this one would probably be worse then others. |
|
|
| VDub |
| Well how does it work for slander?? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by VDub
Well how does it work for slander?? |
libel and slander are just subsections of the Defamation of Character... libel is defamation through written word, slander is defamation through spoken word. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| I heard the reason MJ died was from food poisoning after eating a 5 year old weiner. |
|
|
| spitty |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
|
Are you a lawyer?
-Lisa |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by spitty
Are you a lawyer?
-Lisa |
no...he's an insurance adjuster...like me. We deal in a lot of contract law. |
|
|
| gummybear |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
I heard the reason MJ died was from food poisoning after eating a 5 year old weiner. |
do you really think that's funny? :rolleyes: |
|
|
| FunkyCrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by gummybear
do you really think that's funny? :rolleyes: |
I laughed :clown: |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by gummybear
do you really think that's funny? :rolleyes: |
if it was a 10 year old weiner then it would have been funny....5 year old weiner is just wrong. |
|
|
| gummybear |
| meh, i guess i have no sense of humour..;) |
|
|
| spitty |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
no...he's an insurance adjuster...like me. We deal in a lot of contract law. |
That's what I thought. So I was wondering why he knew so much about defamation. Cool to know.
-Lisa |
|
|
|
|
