Posted by The following is what the media didnt report on the subject of whether or not Robson would be concerned if someone owned porn and slept in the same bed with a kid:
MESEREAU: If you had known Michael Jackson, as a grown man, was reading Playboy, Hustler, Penthouse, magazines like that showing naked women, would that have concerned you?ROBSON: No. Thats what I was going to say afterward. Depends on what kind of material, what kind of pornographic material you were talking about.MESEREAU: Would that have concerned you?ROBSON: No. (p 9146 lines 6-16)
So it wasnt that fact that Jackson owned adult material which would have concerned him. What would have concerned him is the type of adult material.
Instead of doing what a number of court observers suggested, which was to get this bombshell witness off the stand as quickly as possible, Zonen continued to cross .and recross and recross him in a futile effort to make some headway. He was denied again, and again.
Ironically, Zonens questions allowed Mesereau to requestion Robson in order to highlight important aspects of the adult material found in Jacksons house, categorize the art books prosecutors found, and read the inscriptions from each book.
This clarification probably couldnt have happened without Zonens insistence on showing Robson exhibits of Jacksons adult material, which he wanted to play up as sinister.
One of the exhibits shown to Robson was the book Boys will Be Boys and he had Robson describe some of the photos in the book. Boys Will Be Boys is an art book from the 1960s featuring photos of children. This was one of the books prosecutors tried to turn into child pornography because they found none in Jacksons home.
The book was inscribed by Jackson with words about childhood. However, Zonen made sure not to let Robson read the inscription in that book on the stand to the jury. Robson, though, said he wouldnt be concerned if someone possessed this book.
Zonen tried to solicit a negative response, again, with another book featuring grown men. He asked Robson if he would be concerned with someone in possession of that book allowing children to sleep in bed with them.
Robson responded, Yes, I guess so (p 9150 line 11). After Zonen got the answer he thought he wanted and sat down, Mesereau got up to bring the full context to the jury.
He asked Robson to read the inscription of the book Boys Will Be Boys. From Robsons testimony:
MESEREAU: Okay. Now, Id like you to read the inscription on that book, okay? Read it out loud, if you would.ROBSON: Okay. Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children. MJ. (p 9150 lines 22-28)
Oops! Not exactly an admission of pedophilia, is it? Mesereau then asked Robson the same type of questions as Zonen, except he put the situation into context. More from his testimony:
MESEREAU: Having read that inscription and having looked at this book, would you have any concern being in bed with Michael Jackson if you knew this book was found in his home?ROBSON: No. (p 9151 lines 1-5 )
Snatched that glimmer of hope right out of Zonens hands! Oh, the humanity!
But Mesereau didnt stop there. He used the opportunity to ask Robson about two other exhibits, one of which was brought up by prosecutors. 
Exhibit 842 called The Boy: A Photographic Essay is also an art book from the 1960s taken from Jacksons home way back in 1993, and which has been in the custody of the sheriffs department since that time.
The book features photos taken from the set of the classic movie Lord of the Flies, and it either is currently or was once in the Library of Congress. Its Congress Catalog Number is 65-7 according to an image scan of the book found on Lordoftheflies.org| direct link. Ouch, ouch.
Mesereau asked Robson to read the inscription from that book as well. It turns out the book was a gift to Jackson by a female fan named Rhonda. Ouch, ouch, ouch. From the testimony:
MESEREAU: Let me show you Exhibit No. 842. Please read out loud the inscription on that book.ROBSON: Is that, To Michael? Yeah. To Michael, from your fan. Kiss, kiss, kiss, hug, hug, hug. Rhonda. 1983.MESEREAU: Youve looked through that book – okay? – and it says, The Boy; A photographic Essay, right?ROBSON: I didnt look through that book.MESEREAU: Okay. Why dont you look through this book the prosecutor showed you, and please say whether or not you would have a problem being in the same bedroom with Michael Jackson based upon what you see in that book and the inscription.ROBSON: No. (p 9151 lines 6-19)
Mesereau continued by asking him about the book featuring grown men, which Robson at first said he would be concerned about if a man who was sleeping in bed with a kid possessed.
The title of that book is Man, A Sexual Study of Man Illustrated with Photographs and Art Prints. It was another art book, not a pornographic magazine. Coming again under defense redirect, Robson said he wasnt disturbed by the photos in that book. And since the art book wasnt found in a vacuum Jackson had thousands of books and magazines the defense attorney asked Robson a very pointed question.
This is more of what the media didnt report from the courtroom transcripts:
MESEREAU: Lets assume that you learned that Michael Jackson had ten years worth of Hustler, Playboy, Penthouse – okay? – magazines, heterosexual-type magazines, and lets assume that — have you ever seen Mr. Jacksons library?ROBSON: Yes.MESEREAU: How many books do you think are in there?ROBSON: Thousands.MESEREAU: And lets suppose in the middle of all those books you found, A Sexual Study of Man, Illustrated With Photographs and Art Prints, okay?ROBSON: Yes.MESEREAU: Putting all this together, would being in bed with Mr. Jackson concern you?ROBSON: No. (p 9152 lines 13-27)
Jackson reportedly has thousands and thousands of books and magazines, some of which were gifts from fans and friends. Prosecutors started off in a fairly deep hole with this witness, and Zonen only made it worse.
Instead of stopping the dig, he continued to shovel even after Mesereau revealed stunning information like the rather innocuous inscriptions in those aforementioned art books.
Zonen showed Robson other books, Exhibits 578, 590-B, and 599. And he asked the same questions, again, trying to get Robson to say he wouldnt feel comfortable sleeping in the same bed as someone who possessed such material. In that misplaced desperation, he again unintentionally allowed Robson to highlight Jacksons innocence.
From his testimony:
ZONEN: Mr. Robson, are you concerned about a man possessing these seven books being in bed with a 12-year-old boy?ROBSON: If it was a man I didnt know, maybe. But not Michael.ZONEN: Is that because you view Mr. Jackson as being, for the most part, asexual?ROBSON: No.ZONEN: Because you believe that he doesnt really have a sexual interest?ROBSON: I believe that he has a sexual interest in women. (p 9159 lines 3-14)
And he hits the wall .again!
One Einstein definition of insanity has been described as doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different outcome. Well the prosecution must have temporarily been off its figurative rocker.
Zonen continued to dig that hole, showing Robson magazines of naked women called Hard Rock Affair, Double Dicking Caroline, and Stiff Dick for Lynn. Robson actually had a funny moment while looking through these magazines.
He replied, I never thought Id have a room of people watching me do this (p 9162 lines 20-21).
Again, Zonen asked him if he would have a problem with a grown man in possession of such material sleeping in the same bed with a child. Again, Robson said no.
More from the testimony:
ZONEN: And you would allow a child to crawl into bed with such a person?ROBSON: If I knew the person, yes.ZONEN: If you knew them?ROBSON: Yes.ZONEN: Your own child, youd have no problem sleeping with a 35-, 40-year-old man?ROBSON: If I knew the person well, no. (p 9163 lines 7-14)
Zonen didnt make a clear distinction of that man being a friend, a parent, or a relative. So, to buy into Zonens theory, every man who is in possession of adult material wouldnt even be allowed to let their own kids sleep in the bed with them.
What may be a more interesting question is if this were Janet Jackson instead of Michael Jackson, would Zonen still be trying to float the premise that simply possessing legally obtainable adult material means she shouldnt be allowed to sleep in the same bed with a kid?
Jacksons sister is much more explicit in expressing her sexuality. So should we automatically assume shes doing something sinister with kids if she allows (or used to allow) them to sleep in her bed? Notice how absurd the theory sounds when you replace Michael Jackson with anyone else?
On top of this, the issue before the court was NOT the appropriateness of allowing kids to sleep in bed with adults. It isnt illegal for a child to sleep in the same bed with an adult.
When it was Mesereau’s turn again to ask further questions of Robson, with a few simple questions, he damn near slapped down every point Zonen tried to make by showing Robson Jacksons adult material. From the testimony:
MESEREAU: When you were a young child, did Michael Jackson ever show you any sexually explicit material?ROBSON: No.MESEREAU: Did you ever see Michael Jackson show sexually explicit material to any child?ROBSON: No. (p 9164 lines 1-7)
It made all of the questions by Zonen about these art books and adult material totally irrelevant to the trial. In the end, it really didnt matter how Robson felt about Jacksons porn stash, especially because hed never seen it and never knew it existed before this trial.
To put an exclamation point on Robsons testimony, Mesereau asked him point blank about all of the material shown to him by the prosecution. This is more of what the media didnt emphasize:
MESEREAU: Okay. Have you seen one book that depicts child pornography in that group?ROBSON: No.MESEREAU: Okay. Has he shown you one book involving children having sex?ROBSON: No.MESEREAU: Has he shown you one book where a man is having sex with a child?ROBSON: No. (p 9165 lines 24-26; p 9166 lines 24-28; p 9167 line 1)
__More about Neverland__
Mesereau, during one of his redirects, asked Robson if he recalled his mother often going to Neverland with him. From the transcript:
MESEREAU: Now, how often do you recall your mother going to Neverland with you?ROBSON: Its been every time except for that one time that I spoke of when I was there with Jordie Chandler and Macaulay and I.MESEREAU: What do you recall seeing your mother do at Neverland?ROBSON: A lot of the same things with us.MESEREAU: Would she sometimes be with Mr. Jackson when all the kids were playing?ROBSON: Oh, yes. She was playing along with us. (p 9142 lines 7-17)
This is in direct contradiction to the way prosecutors claimed Jackson behaved. Their sinister interpretation had Jackson isolating these children from their families.
He told jurors that one time he spent the night with Jackson in a big sleepover with himself, Mac Culkin, Jordan Chandler and Culkins brother Kieran.
Attempting to paint that gathering as salacious during one of his many cross-examinations, Zonen asked him if anyone spent the night in bed with Jackson. He was undoubtedly disappointed with Robsons answer.
From the testimony:
ZONEN: Now, did either one of you actually spend the night in Mr. Jacksons bed with Mr. Jackson?ROBSON: No. I think — from I can remember — I can only remember one night in particular, and I remember myself and Kieran Culkin, I think, slept on Michaels bed, and Michael slept on a cot, or something, on the side of us, and I dont know, Macaulay fell asleep on a couch or something. (p 9128 lines 16-23)
Robson said he would visit Jackson about twice a year where he would stay with him; sometimes at other apartments owned by Jackson.
Even at those apartments, Robson testified that the only things they ever did were eat candy, watch TV and play video games. And he said, no, he never saw Jackson do anything inappropriate with any other kid either. More from his testimony:
MESEREAU: Ever seen Mr. Jackson touch any child in a sexual way at any of these locations?ROBSON: Never.MESEREAU: Did Mr. Jackson ever touch you inappropriately in any of these locations? (p 9143 lines 12-17)
Prosecutors claimed that Jackson latched onto young boys between the ages of 11 and 15, and would sleep in the same bed with them. That theory, too, fell by the wayside.
Robson said he stopped sleeping in the same room with Jackson when he was 13 or 14, and not for any particular reason either. Oops. He also testified that after the period when he no longer slept in Jacksons bed with him, he stayed overnight at Neverland 20 or 25 times since the age of 13 without Jackson.
From the testimony:
ZONEN: When did you stop sleeping with Mr. Jackson?ROBSON: I guess when I was about, I dont know, maybe 13, 14, something like that.ZONEN: Why did you stop?ROBSON: I didnt stop sleeping with him. I just havent spent the night with him, I mean, in his room or anything like that since then, I dont think.ZONEN: You havent gone back to Neverland since you were 13?ROBSON: I have. Not with him.ZONEN: Have you gone back to Neverland since you were 13 and actually stayed overnight?ROBSON: Yes.ZONEN: On how many occasions since you were 13?ROBSON: A lot. Same thing. 20, 25. Something like that. (p 9118 lines 23-28; p 9119 lines 1-11)
I bet Zonen wish he never asked that question because it established the fact that Robson spent a lot of time overnight at Neverland without Jackson, which is in direct contrast to previous perceptions.
What some media pundits labeled as creepy during the shallow reporting on the trial, was quite clear to those who had access to the courtroom transcripts.
He testified to one time, after he was 14, running into Jackson by accident in Jacksons own bedroom. He had gone there with a few family members and friends and wasnt aware that Jackson would be there. From the transcript:
ZONEN: And you did not stay with him in his room?ROBSON: The only time I can remember was a time I went up there with a few family members and friends, and we didnt know he was going to be there. And, you know, we sort of ran into him and hung out a bit, and, no, I didnt sleep in his room.ZONEN: Did you ever talk to Michael Jackson about the fact that at some age it was too late for you to be sleeping with him?ROBSON: No.ZONEN: Did you ever have a conversation with him about whether or not you should continue to sleep in his bed?ROBSON: No. (p 9130 lines 13-26)
Zonen would continue to hit a wall with Robsons testimony despite many bouts of re-questioning. He asked Robson about the specifics of actually being in bed with Jackson. Robson testified that he didnt sleep right next to Jackson in the bed, never cuddled with him, and didnt touch Jackson while in bed.
For some reason, Zonen asked Robson if Jackson had ever kissed him on the cheek. He said yes. Under redirect, Mesereau asked him a few questions about it as well:
MESEREAU: The prosecutor for the government asked about Mr. Jackson giving you a kiss on the cheek.ROBSON: Uh-huh.MESEREAU: And you said that happened sometimes?ROBSON: Yes.MESEREAU: Did you think there was anything inappropriate about that?ROBSON: No.MESEREAU: Did you do it in front of your mom?ROBSON: Yes.MESEREAU: Did you do it in front of your sister?ROBSON: Yes.MESEREAU: Did your mother kiss him on the cheek?ROBSON: Yes.MESEREAU: Did your sister kiss him on the cheek?ROBSON: Yes.MESEREAU: Did you kiss Mr. Jackson on the cheek?ROBSON: Yes.MESEREAU: Did you ever think there was anything inappropriate about Mr. Jackson hugging any member of your family?ROBSON: No. (p 9134 lines 18-28; p 9135 lines 1-7, 26-28; p 9136 line 1)
Getting right back into these sleeping arrangements, Mesereau asked him what was the largest number of kids Robson has seen stay in Jacksons bedroom. He said, four or five (p 9136 line 21).
When asked what they would did, he said Wed play video games, watch movies, have pillow fights (p 9136 lines 25-26). Ooooo sinister!! Good grief.
__Girls at Neverland__
Much attention had been given by prosecution-sympathizers in the media concerning their perceived absence of girls at Neverland. Some had echoed the prosecutions lame speculation that Jackson would tuck the girls and mothers away in a guest suite, while the little boys would sleep in his bedroom,
Like the manipulative prosecutors they appeared to be, they left it up to defense evidence to smack down the no-girls theory as well.
As mentioned previously, Robson testified his older sister had repeatedly slept in Jacksons bed as well. The sister, Chantal Robson, also said the same thing way back in 1993 during an interview with family.
However, the media for the most part conveniently ignored her admission. Robson also testified that he has been to Neverland a bunch of times without Michael, just with other friends and family traveling there, (p 9100 lines 10-12).
Though Robson didnt remember the names of all the girls he saw spend the night in Jacksons room when he was there and he can only speak for what he saw he did remember his older sister and Brandy Jackson spending the night in Jacksons bedroom. Brandy Jackson is Jacksons niece.
Other witnesses would later come in and testify almost as a side-note about the presence of girls at Neverland, although the defense didnt make a big deal about it and didnt really need to. Simply by virtue of them being witnesses, both Chantal Robson, and Simone Jackson testified that they too had logged time in Jacksons bed, however the majority of their testimonies were about other points the defense wanted to address.
There are probably a host of girls at Neverland, some now grown women, whom we know nothing about because they are not famous and/or because the media and the prosecution has very little interest in discussing them. The major point was, according to prosecutors, Jackson was supposedly obsessed with young boys. Thus, it didnt make any sense that he would allow girls too to sleep in his bed with him; throwing a wet blanket on yet another prosecution theory.
__The gold-digging June Chandler?__
Robson was at Neverland at a time to know of the Chandlers. He was asked about the mother of Jordan Chandler, the 1993 accuser. The defense found out that Jordan Chandler filed for legal emancipation from his parents, June and Evan Chandler.
In court, June Chandler testified that she had not talked to her son, Jordan, in 11 years. In a post trial discussion at Harvard Law School held Nov 29 2005, Mesereau was asked about the 1993 accuser. He told the audience that, from his understanding, prosecutors tried to get the 1993 accuser to come to court.
If Jordan Chandler had come to court, Mesereau confessed there were witnesses (plural) prepared to testify in court about Jordan Chandler. These witnesses say the 1993 accuser admitted to them Jackson didnt molest him, and was angry about what his parents made him say (see Stunning Revelations about 1993 Accuser via Mesereau MB #289).
Wade Robson was asked if he ever met Jordan Chandler and his mother. According to Robson, the mother had a way of acting as if she owned Neverland.
Robson said he remembered her attitude because his own mother, Joy Robson, would have to make it clear to June Chandler that Neverland was Jacksons home, not hers. Although prosecutor Zonen tried to shut him up with an objection, the point was made to the jury. From the testimony:
ROBSON: And, you know, the thing I sort of noticed was she was always sort of — you know, she would sort of act like the place was hers, you know. Sort of order people around a bit. And, you know, I guess I noticed it because my mother, when we went there, she always made it really clear that this was Michael Jacksons house. (p 9103 lines 26-28; p 9104 lines 1-4)
Robsons mother would later confirm through her testimony that June Chandlers behavior was fairly snotty. An Associated Press (AP) article dated May 6 2005 titled Mothers of two boys testify to deep trust in Michael Jackson details some Robsons mothers testimony. From the AP report:
Joy Robson was asked if she knew the boy who accused Jackson of molestation in 1993 and his mother. Joy Robson said she had been at Neverland with the boy and his mother but spoke to them only a few times. On cross-examination she said, “My impression of (the mother) is she wanted to be mistress of Neverland. She would order the staff around like she owned it. My impression of (her) is she was a gold-digger.”
Yikes! And so the long-suffering misguided mother image of June Chandler melted away. According to the AP report, Joy Robson felt like June Chandler was trying to use Jackson. Her observations were unsuccessfully challenged by the prosecution as detailed in the AP article. From the AP report:
Mesereau asked, “Did you feel she was trying to use Michael Jackson?”“Yes,” she said.Sneddon, taking up questioning again, asked whether Robson was jealous of the woman “because she replaced you.”“Absolutely not,” said the witness. “… I had no wish to be (her).”“I asked if you were jealous of her position,” Sneddon said acerbically. “What position would that be?” asked the mother.“Being close to Michael Jackson,” said Sneddon.“I don’t know that she was close to Michael Jackson,” the witness answered. “My personal knowledge of that weekend was Michael Jackson trying to elude (her) for that weekend.” (see Mothers of two boys testify to deep trust in Michael Jackson )
There is a clear pattern here. When Jackson starts to pull away from those parents who start to either demand things or act in bossy, arrogant ways, some seek to get back at him in some way. Or at the very least, it is mighty damn coincidental that the Chandlers and the Arvizos suddenly came up with molestation allegations after their proximity ceased and after they started meeting with attorneys. Or maybe Im wrong and the heart of these betrayals lay not with blocked access to Jackson, but rather with the character of each parent? Either way, it appeared that June Chandler and Janet Arvizo shared an attitude of feeling more important to Jackson than they really were.
__Know the truth__
The media would have had us all believe that Robsons testimony was rattled on cross-examination. For example, I personally wont forget Savannah Guthrie claiming Robson was destroyed during prosecution questioning in a short and shallow review of the Jackson trial on Court TV.
As you have read, this simply wasnt true and I wonder if she was asleep during Mesereaus questioning. As mentioned earlier, Robson had no idea that Jackson had a collection of adult material before prosecutors began asking him questions about it in court. Mesereau asked him if knowing any of this changed his opinion of Jackson:
MESEREAU: Has anything this prosecutor for the government has said to you changed your opinion of Michael Jackson?ROBSON: Not at all.MESEREAU: Does it change your opinion as to whether or not he ever did anything inappropriate with a child?ROBSON: Not at all. (p 9169 lines 20-26)
This is the type of information and detail which media pundits did not get into. Robsons testimony was just as strong and just as devastating to the prosecution as any other defense witness.
Although listening to some media reports, you may not have known it. Robsons very presence in front of the jury was an embarrassment to prosecutors because they had told the court this kid (now grown man) was a victim of Jacksons. It was left to the defense to actually give Robson an opportunity to tell jurors what the truth is.
In testifying, Robson knocked down a number of prosecution theories. And if that werent enough, not only did Robson get to tell jurors that Jackson has always behaved appropriately with him, but he also got to tell them that in all his time around Jackson he never saw the superstar behave inappropriately with any kid.
Stay tuned.
-MJEOL