Paying For Silence

[meglet]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2351783/Michael-Jackson-spent-35-million-silence-dozen-boys-abused.html

This article yesterday got me thinking. Hypothetically, if I was the parent of a child who had been abused by a famous person and accepted money for my silence, could I really successfully be sued for subsequently going to the police? What judge would find for the famous person who sued for breach of contract if it the NDA was to cover a crime that has been committed?

[ojread2]

Interesting
One would assume that you, the person who took the money could be sued, but that the child who didn't agree to it cannot

Personally I think any parent doing this should be jailed for a long time
It's despicable that some will accept money at the cost of their own child

[ojread2]

ooops "the person who took the money couldN'T be sued, but that the child who didn't agree to it CAN"

[EDDIE51]

I was always certain that Jackson was predatory serial peadophile , at least the truth is starting to come out.

[meglet]

I dunno, it made me think the opposite actually. That if a parent was unlikely to be sued because of the scandal it would cause, they are more likely to come out of the woodwork now (and get even more money for selling their stories).

BUT then people would know they had taken cash at the expense of their child, so maybe not.

[ummmm]

How do you know it was at the expense of their child?

Are you assuming the child would have willingly gone to court?

Are you assuming the parents kept the money?

[meglet]

In my view anyone taking money to hush up a crime is condoning it, whether they keep it or not. However I accept in these sorts of cases its very difficult as the victim may well not want to got to court.

I should really have said at the expense of any subsequent children.

[ummmm]

How have the FBI got files if the parents didn't make a complaint?

There isn't much of a case if the victim refuses to talk. You have to remember that often the parents don't find out until years after so the child would be older and more aware of how much publicity a case like that would attract.

[meglet]

The article says the FBI seized the files from a private investigator.

[FredPuli43]

Yes, theoretically you could be. You have made an out of court settlement on behalf of your child the terms of which are that you take no action against the offender. That is meant to stop you suing the offender for damages. However, failing to inform the police of the crime is not an offence in such a case and so it's your choice whether you do or not. Therefore, in reporting it to the police you have breached the terms of the settlement which was made to stop anything adverse happening to the celebrity.

But it isn't going to happen because 1) you'd say that the police's knowing of the offence was not your doing. The child himself may have told a classmate or someone may have heard gossip which sets off the investigation

2)the offender would need to be a complete idiot.Evidence that he'd paid thousands to a parent in an effort to stop their child speaking out is about as damning a piece of evidence of guilt that the prosecution could hope for

[meglet]

Those were precisely my thoughts Fred. Having said that, it is well known and admitted that one family was paid off (re Jordy Chandler) but Jackson was still found not guilty of child abuse a few years later.

[EDDIE51]

The ONLY reason Jackson was found not guilty is because he paid the childs mother to refuse to give evidence. This forced the judge to end the trial with a not guilty verdict. Even the judge commented that he did not feel justice had been done.

[meglet]

Gosh, didn't know that Eddie.