Myth: Michael Jackson Wanted A Criminal Trial After The Settlement In 1994

In our perspective, you have to remember that there was a companion criminal investigation case going on by both the District Attorney's offices in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. There had been an occasion where Michael Jackson was examined, and his genitalia was recorded as part of an investigation. That was part of the 300‑pound gorilla in the mediation room. We wanted to do all that we could to avoid the possibility of a criminal filing against Michael Jackson, and the reality was we were hopeful that if we were able to "silence" the accuser, that would obviate the need for any concern about the criminal side. So, from our perspective, there was a great deal of trust not only with Johnnie and Larry, because they had a twenty‑year prior friendship, but also a tremendous trust with Johnnie and the three judges being recommended. We were facing the purple gorilla in the room: if we didn't get this case settled before March, there was a criminal investigation looming, and no one wanted to consider the implications of that as it affected Michael Jackson.

Fields: I was very much against a settlement. I felt there was no way to keep it a secret, and if you pay a substantial sum of money—and he wanted a lot of money—no one is ever going to believe you're innocent, and… 

Interviewer: And didn’t you say Elizabeth Taylor kind of…? 

Fields: Yeah, that happened, and I can’t blame her. She was his best friend and was really, by this time, running things. And while I was feeling insane—you can’t pay those people off [the Chandlers]. There’s no way you’re going to keep that payment a secret. I don’t care what you say in the agreement, it’s going to get out, and nobody’s going to believe you ever again. No one is going to believe your innocence, because if you’re innocent, why would you pay—whatever it was—twenty or thirty-five million dollars? You just don’t do that. Maybe settle a case for fifty thousand dollars, or even half a million, but twenty million? Or thirty million? 

But Elizabeth Taylor’s view was: *Michael, you’ve got all the money in the world. This is a pittance to you. Why do you need to go through a trial and any risk that they’re going to find you guilty? And I mean, I believe you’re innocent—she did believe it, I think. But her attitude was, “If you’ve got the money, just pay them and get rid of this. Get it out of your life.”

So you had these two divergent views, and she was clearly prevailing. She was very close to him; I wasn’t—I was just his lawyer. And he was definitely leaning that way, and I resigned.

Matt Lauer: Does he feel any guilt about the decision, or does the family feel any guilt about the decision in 1993—that perhaps if they had testified in a criminal investigation or trial, then the current case could have been avoided?

Ray: The decision was not his at the time because he was a child; it was his parents' decision. But actually, that was one of the myths that persisted for 12 years—that they refused to testify at the criminal trial. They actually agreed to testify at the criminal trial as long as they were given witness protection. The death threats were so serious that, you know: animals with their heads cut off left on the door, telephone threats, people trying to break into the house, into the place of business, bomb threats... Last year, a spokesperson for the LA DA's office confirmed that, in fact, that request was made and denied. If it had been approved and they had gotten protection, the criminal trial would have gone forward.

Children who testify in court, whether for abuse cases or custody matters, have experienced trauma that can often be severe and persistent. (...) Children and adolescents in court focused sexual abuse cases also require addressing several challenging issues, including the stigma of CSA itself, the fear of not being believed, and the need to confront the abuser in court, especially when the abuser is a family member or close friend. Children generally do not think beyond telling someone about the abuse in the hope that it will stop; they are unaware of the aftermath of disclosure, including forensic physical examinations, interviews with advocates and police, and ultimately testifying in court. Children are very concrete thinkers and may blame themselves for the outcome. For example, they may have thoughts such as, “I told him, he got arrested, it was my fault he was in jail and I left him there.

However, testifying remains a major obstacle for child witnesses. In their study of criminal trials, Goodman and colleagues found that children's greatest fear was seeing the defendant in court. In a laboratory study, Goodman and colleagues conducted a mock trial in which children ages four to eight were asked to testify. Despite their efforts to make the experiment as comfortable as possible for the children, 25% of the children “refused to testify, either by outright refusal or by appearing distressed so that the AR judged that the child should not continue.” (...) The dynamics of child abuse reveal how abusers exploit the vulnerabilities of their victims, making it unlikely that victims will ever take the stand. Abusers silence children and then complain when the children cannot speak in court.

Bringing a case to court requires the child to testify. Prosecutors described their considerations for subjecting a child to the trial process. One prosecutor noted that a child's parents “did not want her to testify. The defendant knew this because I talk to the family. They shared a family.” In another case, the “daughter feared going to court,” so “3 years in prison [was] a reasonable resolution to avoid trial.

It is extremely complicated to determine which cases could/should be prosecuted and, therefore, it is difficult to determine the” success ”and prosecution rates. We would also like to point out that cases often did not move forward because they were not considered to be in the best interest of the child victims and/or their families. No prosecutor involved in our study (or to our knowledge) would ever “compel” a child to testify if it was not therapeutically appropriate and/or the child's wish.

Martin Bashir: The reason you didn't go to jail was because you came to a financial settlement with the family.

Michael Jackson: Yeah, yeah. I didn't want to do a long, drawn-out thing on TV like OJ's and all that stupid stuff, and it wouldn't look right. I just said, look, get it over with. I want to get on with my life. This is ridiculous. I've had enough.

It is unfortunate that, yet again, I must respond to untruths and sensationalism.

Years ago, I settled with certain individuals because I was concerned about my family and the media scrutiny that would have ensued if I had fought the matter in court.

These people wanted to exploit my concern for children by threatening to destroy what I believe in and what I do. I have been a vulnerable target for those who want money.

I have spent my entire life helping millions of children across the world. I would never harm a child. It is unfortunate that some individuals have seen fit to come forward and make a complaint that is completely false.

Quite frankly, I question the timing and motive of this report.

I look forward to the day when I will be vindicated by a jury of my peers. Maybe then these reports will come to an end.

"Michael wants to get on with his life," said his lawyer, Johnnie Cochran, "and let the healing process begin."

From a lawyer's standpoint, Michael was-and is-an ideal client. He is intelligent, articulate, and decisive. Best of all, he solicits counsel when he feels he needs it, listens care-fully, and follows reasonable advice to the letter.

Larry Feldman and I sat down to negotiate under the auspices of a retired judge we had retained, as California law permits. I've never faced a tougher, smarter, or more able adversary. Both Larry and I agreed that it would be in our clients' best interests to put this matter behind them and allow them to get on with their lives. It was Martin Luther King's birthday.

We held an outdoor press conference in Santa Monica to announce the settlement. Howard, Larry, Carl, and I all were there. So were more than 250 reporters. As Carl and I were walking to my car, I recall looking up and seeing news heli-copters overhead filming us.

I turned and whispered to Carl, who seemed slightly dazed by the whole scene, "Take a look at this, my boy, you'll never see anything like it again in your life."

As we both were about to discover, I've never been so utterly wrong.

Feldman, who waged an aggressive legal effort on behalf of the boy, would not say Tuesday whether his client would testify if prosecutors sought to file criminal charges against Jackson. He emphasized that the civil settlement in no way committed his client to remaining silent, but at the same time Feldman repeatedly suggested that the boy might be better off by getting on with his life.

“He cannot heal, he cannot get better until he puts this matter behind him,” said Feldman, whose client has met with psychologists in recent months. “He wants to put this behind him.”

Confidential settlements in sex offense cases are a major reason why predators — whether Catholic priests, Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby — were able to hide sexual harassment or assault for so many years. 

Public knowledge is a powerful key to setting off an avalanche of reports to authorities and, ultimately, action against serial abusers.

The Roman Catholic Church turned silencing victims and settling secretly into a dark art form in its decades-long quest to hide abuse by priests of thousands of youngsters. Not until The Boston Globe in 2002 revealed the church’s ugly bargains in more than 70 cases did the horror story of abuse begin to unfold publicly in dioceses across the country and finally led to desperately needed change.