Bk - I'm sure you've read somer of what I said on BWW. The case itself is not a hot-button issue for me.
This is my hot button issue, and has been for decades: that people think of "the right to remain silent" and are applying it to situations like this.
There is a clear answer if a producer wants to get out of a "run of the show" contract: Unless you can prove "just cause," you pay a buyout in the area of $30,000 to $40,000. Total. No questions asked.
The allegation is that somebody got cheap and didn't want to pay that payment. And really gave no thought t the consequences. They never expected suicide, but still couldn't be bothered. They just didn't want to pay the $30,000 or $40,000. (That's the allegation.)
If the allegation were not true, no one would need to be talking to lawyers before saying out loud whether the allegation were true.
It feels like a lot of people are thinking that no negative inference can be drawn from the parties remaining silent, but that's simply not true - society and community and the press have no obligation to refrain from assuming that people who have nothing to hide would explain their position.
If you have nothing to hide, you don't hide anything. If they did nothing at all wrong or questionable, there's no logic that they won't say so. The community and the public and the family have no obligation to refrain from openly and loudly asking why they would wait for an investigation to be over before saying anything. Waiting for any investigation to be over before commenting makes it clear: They intend to massage their version to be consistent with the findings, rather than honestly say what they know.
