Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
There you go. So it could be a matter of who arranged him to go to Paris. Assuming MJJ Productions was involved, it could be a reason why he is suing that companies.
If that's the case there is not a thing he could name as reason to know about any unlawful sexual contact. It was long before 1993 and noone at the time accused MJ of anything.
Not to mention it was him and his mother who wanted to go with MJ on the tour. Noone forced them to be there.
One of the most tragic aspect of these BS allegations is that MJ's accusers were his FANS!
Chandler totally idolized him as a kid, so did Robson and Safechuck. Arvizo also wanted to be with him even after their final "escape" from Neverland. He actually threw a tantrum
after their "final escape" in March that he wanted to go back to Neverland. After all that molestation, intoxication, head and stomach aches, false imprisonment he wanted to be with MJ.
This was not like with Sandusky who targetted vurnerable boys who were in a way dependent on him. Remember when he told one of them I'm gonna send you home!
With MJ it was the other way around. The kids and their parents wanted to be around him, if we believe Joy robson's testimony they even "fought over him"
one becoming jealous of the other if they saw MJ paid more attention to the other.
I guess because they liked to be molested.
Chandler could have simply chosen to visit his father during those weekends. But he wanted to be with MJ instead. Why if he was so abused by him?
It's ridiculous.
So based on this what they need to allege is that MJ's companies knew about MJ engaging unlawful sexual conduct in the past.
Which means if the judge allows this nonsense to go on trial he would de facto argue that everyone had to know that MJ was guilty of the Chandler allegations
despite the fact that he wasn't even charged let alone convicted despite so many kids defending him including under oath, despite his strong and consistent denial and despite the many red flags in the Chandler story
and thus Robson and his mother also had to know about unlawful sexual conduct but they are somehow not responsible for going back to MJ over and over again and consistently defending him.
This is so absurd it should be made into a Monty Python movie.
Can someone explain what the judge's ultimate problem with the complaint was during the Oct 1 hearing?
Just that they didn't name any cause of action?
Reading the transcript it's not clear to me.
It's obvious that Robson didn't name any reasonable step the companies should have taken.
What on earth should they have done?
Tell the Robsons to cut of contact with MJ? And they sure would have listened and changed their mind about MJ? Because the Chandler thing was not enough to achieve that but Norma Staikos's opinion would have changed everything?
Tell the police that they believed the Chandlers? How would that have stopped any unlawful sexual conduct when Sneddon said the reason why MJ was not indicted was that Chandler refused to cooperate with the grand juries.
I don't understand why the Estate didn't argue that Robson and his mother were with MJ because they wanted to not because the companies forced them.
It was not something that the companies controlled in any way.
It was their own decision and they were with MJ because they liked to be with him - like a bunch of other people.
this was not a situation where the Robsons were dependent on MJ in any way or where not visiting MJ would have had any negative consequence to their lives.
They also failed to argue why the 1993 allegations were absolutely NOT a reason to know that MJ engaged in any unlawful sexual conduct and the Robsons agreed with that.