u/Secretive_Crusher

I literally don't know what they're trying to gain. I'll stop talking about this

look at that ratio, Netflix is dumb af and the comments are giving me hope in society.

The document, which carries heavy redactions over the names of individuals involved, states the following:

First, that according to a source, "Jackson has paid off child victim's parents dating back to the summer of 1992."

Second, it describes a specific settlement: Jackson allegedly settled with "the mother of child actor/dancer wantobe", misspelled "wannabe", whose name is redacted. This settlement was reportedly brokered by Jackson's attorney Howard Weitzman.

Third, the fax reproduces what appears to be a summary of a settlement agreement dated July 7, 1992, more than a year before the Chandler allegations, between "the Michael Jackson organization" and a redacted claimant.

The terms of this agreement:

— The organization would have no contact of any sort with the claimant and the claimant's minor child.

— The sum of $600,000 would be paid to the claimant upon execution of the agreement.

— The claimant would refrain from "any and all contact with media and communications, newspapers, television, radio, film, books."

— The claimant would make no attempt to extort, intimidate, harass, impede, or hold the organization liable in any way.

— The agreement was to be governed by California law, County of Los Angeles.

The fax then states: "In the end, Jackson allegedly paid off the following victims:", followed by a list of entirely redacted names**.**

This document raises serious questions and must be addressed honestly.

On its face, a $600,000 payment to the parent of a minor child, with a media silence clause, dated 1992, is alarming. The prosecution in the 2005 trial and various journalists have pointed to this and similar documents as evidence of a pattern.

But there are several things that this fax is not, and that must be stated equally clearly.

First: This is a fax from an unidentified source to a private investigator. It is not a court filing. It is not a law enforcement document. It has not been authenticated in any public legal proceeding. The sender is redacted. The claims within it are attributed to unnamed sources. It is, in the language of evidence law, hearsay — and potentially compounded hearsay.

Second: The settlement it describes could have an innocent explanation. High-profile celebrities, particularly Black celebrities in 1990s America who knew they were targets of exploitation, routinely settled nuisance claims and tabloid threats for amounts far smaller than the cost of litigation and reputational damage. This is not unique to Jackson. It was, and remains, standard practice in entertainment law.

Third: The phrase "child victim's parents" in the fax is the sender's characterization, not a legal finding. Calling someone a victim in a private fax does not make them a victim. The same logic applies to the redacted list of alleged payoff recipients — we do not know who these people are, what they claimed, or whether their claims had any merit.

Fourth: The settlements, if real, were civil matters with NDAs, not criminal admissions. Howard Weitzman, the attorney named, was one of the most respected lawyers in Hollywood. The use of NDA settlements to avoid litigation and media scandal is not evidence of guilt; it is evidence of wealth and strategic legal management.

Fifth: Anthony Pellicano received this fax. He was Jackson's fixer, his job was to find and counter such claims, not to validate them. This fax was likely intelligence about what enemies were saying, gathered so it could be investigated and potentially discredited.

It tells us that by July 1993, someone with knowledge of Jackson's legal affairs, or claiming such knowledge, was compiling a list of alleged prior settlements and feeding it to Pellicano.

Whether those settlements reflected genuine abuse, exploitation of a wealthy and eccentric celebrity, or some combination of both — cannot be determined from the document itself.

What is verifiable is this: despite the existence of this fax, the 1993 Jordan Chandler criminal investigation, the 1993–1994 civil proceedings, and the subsequent decade-long FBI investigation — no prosecutor anywhere in the United States found sufficient evidence to bring Jackson to trial on charges arising from these alleged prior settlements.

If the redacted names on that list had come forward, been interviewed, and corroborated by evidence, they would have been used against Jackson. They weren't — at least not successfully.

One final note on Pellicano. He was convicted in 2008 on 78 counts of racketeering, wiretapping, and other charges. His methods on behalf of clients — including Jackson — were often legally questionable.

His possession of this fax does not validate it. His methods of "handling" situations for Jackson were aggressive and sometimes crossed legal lines.

This is a legitimate area of concern about Jackson's inner circle — and it is fair to note it. It does not, however, transform unverified allegations in a heavily redacted private fax into proven abuse.