Trial Review: Robson Testimony Begins to Crush 1108 Accusations– MB#295

JANUARY 4 2006 -- MJEOL’s Trial Reviews now brings us to the testimony of Wade Robson and the issue of what’s called “1108 evidence” or alleged “prior bad acts”.

In Jackson’s “case”, calling what Judge Rodney Melville allowed into this trial “prior bad acts” didn’t fit. What this “1108 evidence” amounted to was a bunch of unfounded accusations with zero evidence to back them up, leveled by a gang of people who were literally sued into bankruptcy by Jackson.

The way this played out in the Jackson trial, which is very dangerous to an innocent and famous person, is that prosecutors were allowed to call witnesses to the stand to make accusations concerning Jackson’s behavior with children in the past.

Three prosecution witnesses, Ralph Chacon, Adrian McManus and Kassim Abdool came in under a desperate attempt by prosecutors to get a conviction against Jackson.

The prosecution’s shortsighted, vindictive nature wouldn’t prepare them for what the defense revealed in court about these witnesses’ backgrounds.

Prosecutors called witnesses like Chacon, McManus, Abdool, and even Blanca Francia who had alleged to be witnesses of some sort of nefarious behavior with Wade Robson, Brett Barnes and Mac Culkin.

These witnesses were found to have acted with malice against Jackson by another Santa Maria jury, and owe him over a million dollars in legal fees to this day. We’ll get a blow by blow from the testimonies of Chacon, McManus and Abdool in a later trial review.

What was more surprising is that the judge didn’t make prosecutors produce these children from the past, nor did he order alleged “victims” like Jason Francia to come to court and testify in an evidentiary hearing outside of the presence of the jury beforehand.

Maybe prosecutors would have thought twice about even allowing Francia to testify had they known how devastating his cross-examination would be. Right now, let’s get into the testimony of Wade Robson, one of the prosecution-alleged “victims” who was never a victim.

When approached by sheriffs and prosecutors in connection to the 1993 investigation when he was still a child, Robson maintained Jackson’s innocence. And he apparently held telling the truth in higher regard than worrying about his own career by coming to court and telling the truth during the defense case. It makes one wonder just how in the hell prosecutors thought they were going to get away with alleging 3 kids were victims when those 3 had never so much as alleged Jackson acted inappropriately with them.

Honestly, my opinion is that prosecutors were betting on the defense not being able to get these three now-grown men to come in and testify to Jackson’s innocence.

As some pro-prosecution pundits wrongly predicted after they found out 1108 info would be admitted, neither Culkin, Barnes, nor Robson had any trouble coming to court to clear Jackson of allegations leveled by 1108 “witnesses”.

The only thing Robson, Barnes and Culkin had in common is that they were unlucky enough to be the male children around Jackson at a time when a bunch of opportunistic liars, crooks and shysters sought to use him to make money.

Nothing prosecutors could do blunted the fact that these now-grown men came to court to testify in direct contradiction to false claims which prosecutors put before the jury. They, all three, were walking personifications of 3 slaps in the face to prosecutors and their ridiculous 1108 “witnesses”.

__Robson’s bombshell testimony__
Robson was 22 when he testified to the jury that Jackson never touched him inappropriately. Robson is an independent film producer/director, and has choreographed videos for NSync and Britney Spears. He told jurors that he was 5 years old when he met Jackson for the first time after winning a dance contest held during Jackson’s “Bad” tour.

The winner got to meet Jackson, and Robson got to dance with him during a concert that next night in Brisbane, Australia. He said for the next two years, he really didn’t have any contact with Jackson at all. But a dance company he was traveling with was performing in America so his mother contacted Jackson’s secretary at the time.

Robson testified that he and his family – mother, sister, father, and grandparents – all went to meet with Jackson at the Record One Recording Studios around 1989. Jackson invited Robson and his family, grandparents too, up to Neverland and they stayed for about a week.

Afterwards, he said he went back to Australia but he and his mother would visit Neverland occasionally. In Sept 1991, Robson, his mother (Joy Robson) and sister (Chantal Robson) moved to the US permanently. He considers Jackson to be a close friend and became aware that someone was alleging Jackson had behaved inappropriately with him. From the testimony:

MESEREAU: Mr. Robson, did Michael Jackson ever molest you at any time?

 

ROBSON: Absolutely not.

 

MESEREAU: Mr. Robson, did Michael Jackson ever touch you in a sexual way?

 

ROBSON: Never, no.

 

MESEREAU: Mr. Robson, has Mr. Jackson ever inappropriately touched any part of your body at any time?

 

ROBSON: No. (p 9097 lines 18-27)

Prosecutors alleged he was a “victim”. And their alleged “victim” was testifying under oath that nothing had ever happened with Jackson at any time, nor had he ever alleged it.

The jury must have been floored and skeptical of just about every other allegation out of the mouths of the prosecution as a result. Robson’s denial no doubt raised the ire of prosecutors like Ron Zonen, who would ask Robson a series of questions in vain, endeavoring to put a damper on his testimony.

Being just as condescending and scornful to Robson as we would be to other defense witnesses who contradicted prosecution claims, Ron Zonen asked Robson “Now, the first time you slept with Mr. Jackson…”

Right there, Robson had a problem with the terminology Zonen chose, causing him to clarify by saying “I slept in the same bed with him” (p 9105 line 24).

Robson was asked if anyone else was in the bed with he and Jackson, to which he said his older sister Chantal Robson was. During a week the family stayed at Neverland when Robson was 7, he said he and his sister both slept in Jackson’s bed; probably much to Zonen’s chagrin.

From the testimony:

ZONEN: Was your sister there the entire time during that week as well?

 

ROBSON: Yes.

 

ZONEN: Was she in that bed with you as well?

 

ROBSON: Yes. (p 9106 lines 17-21)

Chantal Robson herself has publicly said she too slept in the same bed with Jackson during an interview around the time of the 1993 investigation. The media, of course, appears not to remember such….such….such….trivialities, I suppose.

Knowing that girls too have slept in Jackson’s bed sort of kills disgusting headlines like “Jacko obsessed with sleeping with young boys”.

Do you see how Chantal Robson’s admission would be accidentally overlooked….on purpose….in an article bearing that sensationalistic headline? More about the issue of girls at Neverland later in this MJEOL Bullet.

Zonen tried to establish that Robson’s father was out of the picture after they moved to the U.S., but that didn’t work out so well either. Robson said his father wasn’t at Neverland during subsequent visits after their first stay. But he also said he did have contact with his father, his father would come to America to visit, and Robson would go to Australia to spend time with him.

It was Zonen’s questioning -- probably inadvertently so -- which established that Robson is the one who asked to stay in Jackson’s personal living quarters (“bedroom”), but that Jackson would not allow it without his mother’s permission.

From the testimony:

ZONEN: Did you talk with your mother, prior to that first week that you slept with Mr. Jackson with your sister, about the sleeping arrangements at all?

 

ROBSON: Well, yeah, the first day that we got there, to Neverland Ranch -- you know, I think we got there in about the afternoon. We hung out a bit. When it was time to go bed, I asked Michael if I could stay with him in his room. And then Michael and I went to -- mom was staying in a guest room. We went to her room and I asked her. Michael asked her if that was okay. And she said yes. (p 9108 lines 14-24)

Robson testified that he asked Jackson if he could stay in his “bedroom” because “when you have a best friend or a new friend that you found, you always want to stay in the same room with them” (p 9109 lines 2-5).

I have to say that when I was a kid, I was definitely guilty of that. Sleeping in bed with an adult wasn’t a foreign thing to Robson though. He testified that he had done so with his father as well.

During prosecution questioning, the jury found out that Jackson showed the Robson family around the ranch, including a tour of his very large, two storey personal living quarters (“bedroom”).

If you don’t know by now, dear reader, Jackson’s “bedroom” is gigantic. It’s not “a room” per se. It has at least 3 bathrooms and two beds: one on the first floor and another on the 2nd floor. It’s also large enough for a mini arcade, a huge screen TV and other things according to those who have seen it.

Robson said his mother didn’t express any concern over him and his sister sleeping in Jackson’s “bedroom” that first week they all stayed at Neverland. He also said one time Jackson stayed with the family in their condo.

On re-cross, Zonen tried to make what he could from Jackson staying in Joy Robson’s condo with the Robson family during a visit. But he hit the wall. More from Robson’s testimony:

ZONEN: When Mr. Jackson stayed with you at your Hollywood apartment, how old were you?

 

ROBSON: I would say 11 or 12.

 

ZONEN: Did he share your bed with you at that time?

 

ROBSON: Yes.

 

ROBSON: All right. There was one bed that you had in your room; is that correct?

 

ZONEN: No, it was actually -- it was a -- like a futon that was our couch down in the living room. (p 9144 lines 12-20)

A futon in the middle of the living room. Oh yeah, that’s disturbing. You would think Zonen would have got a feeling to stop there, but he didn’t.

He continued to dig that hole prosecutors were already in. He pulled one of the most lame-assed arguments I and many observers had ever heard. The prosecutor tried to imply to Robson and the jury that Jackson may have molested him in his sleep. In his sleep! Assuming any kid could sleep through being molested in the first place!

 Robson, however, shut him down cold. From the transcript:

ZONEN: You’re telling us nothing happened; is that right?

 

ROBSON: Yes.

 

ZONEN: All right. What you’re really telling us is nothing happened while you were awake; isn’t that true?

 

ROBSON: I’m telling you that nothing ever happened.

 

ZONEN: Mr. Robson, when you were asleep, you wouldn’t have known what had happened, particularly at age seven, would you have?

 

ROBSON: I would think something like that would wake me up. (p 9116 lines 16-27)

What kind of state of desperation must one be in before using that argument? It was such a ridiculous notion that even those who have been sympathetic to prosecutors weren’t buying the strategy.

It would be tantamount to someone alleging Zonen himself molested a kid while the kid was asleep, and the kid didn’t report it at the time because they didn’t realize it. See how ridiculous the theory sounds when Jackson’s name is replaced with anyone else’s? Other prosecution theories would also be challenged through Robson’s testimony.

__Crotch Grab & Shower Nonsense__
Zonen asked Robson about an allegation undoubtedly one of the prosecution’s 1108 “witnesses” made:

ZONEN: Was there ever an occasion where you were on the dance floor with Mr. Jackson and he was showing you a routine and he grabbed your crotch in a manner similar to how he would grab his own crotch while doing those performances?

 

ROBSON: No, that’s not true.

 

ZONEN: You have no recollection of that?

 

ROBSON: No.

 

ZONEN: That didn’t happen?

 

ROBSON: No. (p 9112 lines 20-28; p 9113 line 1)

It made many observers wonder at the time if prosecutors bothered to contact witnesses like Robson, Barnes and Culkin to ask them to either confirm or deny these types of allegations. I suppose prosecutors had no interest in Robson so long as Robson was professing Jackson’s innocence.

Instead of saying “No questions your honor” and getting Robson off the stand, Zonen rather pathetically attempted to turn him into a victim.

One of the prosecution’s 1108 “witnesses” claimed that she had seen Jackson taking a shower with Robson; or at least saw the outlines of two people in the shower. Not so, according to Robson. From his testimony:

MESEREAU: Have you ever taken a shower with Mr. Jackson?

 

ROBSON: No. …

 

MESEREAU: Has anything inappropriate ever happened in any shower with you and Mr. Jackson?

 

ROBSON: No. Never been in a shower with him. (p 9100 lines 17-19; p 9101 lines 10-12)

__Questions about art books __
The discussion of Jackson’s arts books and adult material came into question under the prosecution’s cross-examination of Robson. If the plan was to get Robson to say something negative about Jackson based on this material, in the end that plan blew up in the prosecution’s faces.

Zonen asked Wade Robson whether or not it would concern him that a man sleeping in the same bed with a kid would also have a “great quantity” of adult material.

To that, Robson said, “yes”. Ah, a glimmer of hope for the prosecution! Or so it seemed. This is where the general media for the most part stopped reporting about this issue.

Remember, during the trial, this news was trumpeted as if it was a bombshell for prosecutors to solicit such an answer out of a defense witness. Pro-prosecution pundits reported it as if Robson said nothing more on the subject.

Here is where having access to the courtroom transcripts gives the public a better understanding of what really happened in court. As soon as Zonen got that answer, he sat down.

Then it was Mesereau who got a chance to further question Robson on redirect, snuffing out that little glimmer of hope.