In a surprise development, just 2 weeks before the demurrer hearing Jane Doe dismissed her sexual abuse case against Michael Jackson. Right now, our information is very limited – Jane Doe’s lawyers filed the request for dismissal and the case was dismissed without prejudice – meaning technically it can get refiled. We will try to get more information and especially check the status of the other cases of Robson and Safechuck.
In the meantime, I can’t help but wonder why this dismissal, why at this time right before a demurrer. If you read our previous blog posts, you will know how skeptical we have been about Jane Doe. To us it has been clear she had been recruited by the lawyers in an attempt to force a settlement. Personally I don’t think the lawyers ever intended to take this to a trial.
Lately Estate had also mentioned they may challenge Jane Doe using a pseudonym. If she hoped she could make a quick buck while staying anonymous, now she knows that won’t happen. So not wanting her identity become public could be another reason to dismiss the case.
And finally the demurrer. In our last blog post we wondered if these latest demurrers would be the end of Safechuck and Jane Doe cases. As we repeatedly wrote, they are trying to claim non-existent relationship between them & the MJ Companies, that the MJ companies are some sort of children related companies and so on. They are desperate. It seemed like Judge knew this too, giving Safechuck only 15 days to amend his complaint the last time round. So in short, it looked like the judge was getting ready to dismiss Safechuck and Jane Doe cases for good. So is this a preemptive move? To pull the case before the judge dismisses it for good?
Hard to know what the reasons are. Of course technically speaking they can refile the case. So this could also be a "back to the drawing board" situation to come up with more logical legal arguments. Who knows? As I mentioned in the beginning, we will try to get more information but keep in mind we might not be able to learn much. Dismissal request form doesn’t require to list a reason why.
PS: I also want to address a possible speculation. Some might speculate this dismissal by Jane Doe might mean a settlement with MJ Estate. Given this was dismissed as “without prejudice” and Jane Doe may refile if she wants, it shows that there was no settlement. When parties settle, the cases get dismissed “with prejudice” – in other words in a way that they cannot be brought again.