Trial Review: Joy Robson Adds Detail to Neverland Visits – MB#296

Posted by

Trial Review: Joy Robson Adds Detail to Neverland Visits – MB#296

JANUARY 9 2006 – In MJEOL Bullet #295, the testimony of Wade Robson was discussed. Robson, — one of the prosecution-alleged “”victims””– testified that Michael Jackson never touched him inappropriately, which was in direct contradiction to allegations made by the prosecution’s disastrous 1108 “witnesses”.

After Robson’s testimony, Brett Barnes testified and also knocked down prosecution allegations of “abuse.” More on his testimony in an upcoming Trial Review.

Joy Robson testified on May 6 2005 that she has known Jackson for 18 years. She said the family was invited to stay at Neverland, including herself and her husband, Wade Robson’s grandparents, Wade and his sister Chantal, about 2 years after first meeting him in Australia during the “Bad” tour.

Her son Wade was dragged into this “case” by the prosecution who falsely claimed that he was a “victim”. Robson came into court to correct the record, denying that anything inappropriate had ever happened between him and Jackson.

Joy Robson’s family did an interview way back in the day around the1993 investigation where the then-blonde-haired Wade denied that Jackson had ever touched him inappropriately.

During her testimony, she said that her daughter and son asked her and her husband if they could stay in Jackson’s personal living quarters (“bedroom”) sometime during the family’s first stay at Neverland. She also testified that in all her years of knowing Jackson, she has never seen anything inappropriate happen at Neverland.

Ms. Robson’s name may be familiar. She is the one who offered some insight on the 1993 accuser’s mother (June Chandler) in that Associated Press article titled, “Mothers of two boys testify to deep trust in Michael Jackson” dated May 6 2005.

Knowing that none of these kids had ever accused Jackson of anything inappropriate, it was baffling even to those who supported the prosecution, why they ever told The Court or the public that these kids were “victims”.

What happened as a result is that the credibility of the prosecution was irreparably damaged. It also had an unintended consequence.

Some who had believed that Jackson was guilty in 1993 also assumed that Robson, too, was a “victim”. They shared their numbskull opinions with MJEOL during the trial. To them, what kind of pedophile molests one kid? Thus, when Robson came in to testify for the defense and to deny the allegations, that wall of suspicion began to crumble.

The testimonies of Brett Barnes and Mac Culkin will act like a wrecking ball. The defense tore down that wall as much as they could without having a chance to cross-examine the 1993 accuser, Jordan Chandler, himself. Joy Robson’s direct testimony wasn’’t that long.

Ironically, it was Tom Sneddon’’s cross-examination which allowed Mesereau to make a number of points with her testimony under re-direct. Under initial questioning by Mesereau, the mother testified that Jackson and her children would play at Neverland and never had a problem there.

She said she was involved in a lot of the playing which went on with her children at Neverland, too. She told jurors Jackson never did anything that would make her suspicious of his actions towards her kids, nor did anything to make her lose trust in him. She described Neverland as a serene place. From the testimony:

JOY ROBSON: He’d play — I’ve seen him play games, hide-and-seek. I’ve seen them climb trees. I’ve seen them play in the water fort at the ranch. They play constantly.

MESEREAU: Did you ever have any problem with any of that?

JOY ROBSON: No. We all did it together often. We were — all played together.

MESEREAU: How would you describe Neverland?

JOY ROBSON: I would have once said the happiest place on earth. I — I always felt that when we arrived at Neverland, you forgot all your problems, you forgot everything. It seemed like a world on its own. You would drive in there, and it was very serene, very peaceful, very beautiful. Inspirational. And everything was perfect when you drive out and reality would hit again. (p 9216 lines 8-24)

Before her testimony, prosecutors disgustingly spent time trashing the name of Neverland. They damn near called it everything but a whore house for young boys.

They talked about Neverland like it was a den of iniquity, and so Mesereau asked people like Joy Robson, who really know what Neverland is about, to describe it for the jury. Robson testified that her family and Jackson’s family are close. So much so that two weeks before her testimony, she visited Jackson’s children at Neverland. From the transcript:

MESEREAU: Okay. And do you consider yourselves friends of the family of Mr. Jackson?

JOY ROBSON: We consider us very good friends, if not family.

MESEREAU: Okay. Did Mr. Jackson ever use the word “family” to describe you and your children?


MESEREAU: Okay. Did you ever have any problem with that?

JOY ROBSON: Never. (p 9215 lines 10-19)

On cross-examination (cross), Sneddon tried his best to put a dent into Ms. Robson’s recollection of who was sleeping where the first time the family stayed at Neverland. Had he not cross-examined her, her testimony may have been completely innocuous and not too terribly important.

But similar to Zonen’’s cross of Wade Robson, it was the prosecution’s cross-examination which opened a lot of doors for the defense to hammer home a number of issues. Ms. Robson said that on the first night at Neverland, her kids told her they stayed on the upper floor inside Jackson’s personal living quarters and the second night both her son and daughter slept in Jackson’s bed.

During a rather vitriolic cross-examination by Sneddon, the implication was that she wanted to have a good relationship with Jackson in order to further her son’s career. At one point, Joy Robson accused Sneddon of putting words in her mouth.

Check out this early exchange:

SNEDDON: And you felt that your having a good relationship or connection with the defendant in this case could promote that career; isn’’t that correct?

JOY ROBSON: That’s — you’re putting words in my mouth. I’ve never said that.

SNEDDON: I didn’t ask you whether you said it or not. I asked you if that’s what you were thinking.


SNEDDON: You weren’’t thinking that at all?

JOY ROBSON: Not at all. (p 9226 lines 18-28)

Was he implying that she dumped her kid into Jackson’s bed in hopes of furthering his career? Joy Robson called Sneddon out on his accusation, to which he tried to talk his way out of the direct implication. More from the testimony:

SNEDDON: You weren’t thinking that Mr. Jackson could help propel your son in an entertainment career?

JOY ROBSON: That was not my motive.

SNEDDON: I — I’m not trying to —

JOY ROBSON: Yes, you are.

SNEDDON: — demean your motives. No, I’m not, ma’am. I’m asking a simple question. Did you, in your mind, think that by having a friendship and a connection with Mr. Jackson that could help promote your son’s career?

JOY ROBSON: I can’t answer that, because I don’t think that that — you’re make — you’re trying to make me say that that was my basis for our friendship, and that’s not true. (p 9227 lines 1-14)

Robson also said that she didn’’t always sleep in the guest suites when at Neverland. She testified that for a period of time when she was at Neverland, she slept in the main house in a room called “the rose room”.

__At Neverland without Jackson__

Expanding on what her son testified to, she said that they only visited Neverland four times in 14 years where Jackson was there with them. Oops.

It seemed as if Sneddon wanted to get conflicting testimony between she and her son, but what this line of questioning established is that Jackson wasn’t at the ranch every time these families would visit. From the testimony:

JOY ROBSON: My memory is in the entire time we’ve lived here since 1991, we’ve only been at the ranch with Michael on four occasions in 14 years.

SNEDDON: Four occasions?

JOY ROBSON: Every other time we’ve been here without him.

SNEDDON: Would that be the same for your son?


SNEDDON: You testified that you’ve been out at the ranch on an average of about four times?

JOY ROBSON: Four times a year, but Michael was never there.

SNEDDON: Was that all the way through today?


SNEDDON: He’s never there when you go there?

JOY ROBSON: Very rarely. I can only remember four times in 14 years that we’ve been there with him since we have lived here.
(p 9238 lines 23-28, p 9239 lines 1-2, lines 5-14)

Under defense questioning, Mesereau asked her to go into further detail about the family’s time at Neverland when Jackson wasn’t there.

Like many other people, the Robsons were in and out of Neverland without Jackson. And Jackson opened up Neverland to his friends to use anytime, regardless of whether he was there or not. From the testimony:

MESEREAU: Now, you said that many times you went to Neverland and Mr. Jackson wasn’t there, right?


MESEREAU: And when you did that, how would you arrange to visit Neverland?

JOY ROBSON: Through his office. Through Evvy.

MESEREAU: Had Mr. Jackson given you permission to visit Neverland when he wasn’t there?


MESEREAU: And approximately when did he say you could do that?

JOY ROBSON: He’s always said that, that we’re welcome any time. (p 9288 lines 3-15)

Mesereau asked her additional questions about her time at Neverland. More from her testimony:

MESEREAU: And I believe you testified that you were there more times when he wasn’t there than when he was there; is that right?

JOY ROBSON: Absolutely, yes.

MESEREAU: How many times do you think you visited Neverland when Mr. Jackson wasn’t even there?

JOY ROBSON: Maybe 40, 50 times.

MESEREAU: And where would you stay when Mr. Jackson wasn’t at Neverland? …

JOY ROBSON: Before he had the children, I would stay in the house. But since he’s had the children and they’re now the children’s bedrooms, we stay in the guest units.

MESEREAU: How many times do you think you stayed in Mr. Jackson’’s main house before Mr. Jackson had his own children?

JOY ROBSON: Maybe 15, 20 times. I’m not sure. (p 9288 lines 16-24, p 9289 lines 1-8)

Remember the notion from prosecutors that Jackson would banish the mothers and sisters to the guest suites, while he would stay in the main house with the “young boys”? Again, this witness knocked down that theory. She testified, as mentioned previously, that she stayed in the main house in a room called the “rose room”. She described the room for the jury:

JOY ROBSON: Its a large-sized bedroom with an adjoining bathroom. Hardwood floors. Beautiful wood — carved wooden ceilings. Overlooks the front of the house. It’s on the second floor. (p 9289 lines 13-16)

Mesereau appeared to use Joy Robson’s testimony to make a number of points. One of which had to do with whether or not she was free to come in and out of Jackson’s “bedroom” as he pleased. She even testified that she used Jackson’s Jacuzzi “maybe six or eight times” (p 9217, line 28).

She also testified that no one ever put any restrictions on whether or not she could come to Jackson’s “bedroom”. And that she ““freely walked in and out”” of Jackson’s “bedroom” at all hours of the day and night.

By now, you should know that Jackson’s “bedroom” isn’’t ‘a room’ per se. It is huge, has an upper level, has 3 bathrooms in it, and has 2 beds. It is best described as his personal living quarters than “bedroom”.

You will often see that word in quotations. Anyway, continuing to lay waste to assumptions made about Jackson, Mesereau asked Ms. Robson to tell the jury specifically about the times when she would go into Jackson’s “bedroom”. She testified that she remembered being in Jackson’s personal living quarters at all different times of day. From the testimony:

MESEREAU: Do you recall being in his room during the day?


MESEREAU: Do you recall being in his room during the evening?


MESEREAU: Do you recall being in Mr. Jackson’s room late at night?


MESEREAU: Did you ever get the feeling that somebody was trying to keep you out of Mr. Jackson’s room? </b

JOY ROBSON: No. (p 9291 lines 3-14)

This was not exactly the sinister setting pro-prosecution pundits sold the public daily on various cable news shows when talking about the 1108 portion during the trial.


__Robson’s mother had good reason to protect her kid…from the police__

During the 1993 investigation, children were interviewed by police in Los Angeles county and Santa Barbara county in an effort to get someone to make an allegation against Jackson.

According to some reports, police were lying through their teeth in an effort to get an allegation out of someone. One of those kids whom police talked to was Jason Francia. Francia was the only accuser from the 1993 time period who testified for the prosecution.

However, his story was ripped to pieces by Tom Mesereau, and some of his testimony varied from that of his mother’s (Blanca Francia) testimony. His previous statements to police made for very interesting questioning under cross-examination as well.

The question of police manipulation was always on the table when it came to Francia’’s questioning back in the 1993, 1994 time period. Ms. Robson testified she was concerned police back in 1993 would manipulate her son, Wade, when questioning him about that investigation. Police wanted to question Robson’s son without her being present, but she wouldn’’t allow it. From her testimony:

JOY ROBSON: No, they were trying to interview Wade without me and I told them they were not to do that.

SNEDDON: Was there some concern on your part that trained law enforcement officers shouldn’’t talk to somebody who could possibly be a suspect (sic) of a crime?

JOY ROBSON: I was concerned of manipulation.

SNEDDON: That the consequence, law enforcement would manipulate your son?

JOY ROBSON: Absolutely.

SNEDDON: You felt that your son could be manipulated easily?

JOY ROBSON: No, but I wasn’t going to take that chance. He was ten. (p 9257 lines 18-28; p 9258 lines 1-3)

Her decision not to let police get at her son without her presence may have been one of the best decisions she made. Her fears were well founded as it turned out.

Remember what was mentioned above about Jason Francia? Well, stunning court documents were released to the public concerning the police interviews of Jason Francia.

Francia was reportedly interviewed back during the 1993 investigation, sometimes without his mother present. He at first denied Jackson had ever touched him. It was only after police told him a bunch of repulsive lies about Jackson and other children that he, too, began to making an accusation.

In that released court document, the defense cited excerpts from Francia’’s police interviews. And, to many who have read the document, the police do appear to have coached him into thinking at the very least he was molested, but that he just didn’t remember.

They also lied to him about Mac Culkin and Corey Feldman. The following is an excerpt from one of those police interviews with Jason Francia after Francia told them he didn’’t remember Jackson ever touching him inappropriately:

DET. NEGLIA: Okay, but what I am getting at is that maybe I am not being obvious enough. What I am saying is maybe he put his hands someplace on you where he shouldn’’t have. Maybe he put his hands on you someplace that made you feel uncomfortable. And that’s why you are not remembering. …It’s a little of bit of (sic) a different kind of not remembering, one is because you are choosing not to, and one is that you just can’t call back the uh, event. And I think of what you doing (sic) is tickling and all this stuff, is trying, forcing yourself not to remember… (see Suspicious Police Questioning of Jason Francia)

And sure enough, Jason Francia made the allegation that Jackson molested him while or after tickling him. That is damn near exactly what police were suggesting to Francia while they were questioning him.

Without knowing that specific information at the time, this would have been exactly the type of thing about which Wade Robson’s mother, Joy, may have been afraid. But the manipulative police questioning of Francia didn’’t stop there.

Police lied to him by telling him that Jackson was molesting (“bothering”) Mac Culkin and that he (Francia) could help save him. More from the rather shocking police interview with Francia:

DET. NEGLIA: I realize how hard this is. I realize how painful it is to think of these things you tried so hard not to think about but you are doing fine. And you are also helping the kid that he is bothering now.

JASON FRANCIA: What do you mean he’s bothering?

DET. BIRCHIM: He’s doing the same thing.

JASON FRANCIA: Macaulay Culkin.

DET NEGLIA: Only he’s getting a lot more into it. Like your mother pulled you out of there. Macaulay’s mother is not going to pull him out of there. They are feeding him.

DET BIRCHIM: He’s doing worse stuff.

DET NEGLIA: It’s much worse with him. (see Suspicious Police Questioning of Jason Francia)

None of this bull$hit was true. These two detectives ganged up on this little kid, trying to convince him that he was molested, but just didn’t remember.

Then, these two told Francia bald-faced lies about Mac Culkin being molested, and insinuated that he could help poor little “molested” Culkin get away from the big, bad Jackson. Absolutely disgusting.

The manipulation of Jason Francia didn’’t stop there either. They told him that Corey Feldman, another one of the people who use to be around Jackson, was a “junkie” who gets arrested because he was “exposed” to people like Jackson.

Now, at this time in 1993, Corey Feldman was an adult and was also questioned by police. And, as the public would later learn through the now defunct Celebrity Justice (CJ),

Feldman denied that Jackson ever laid a finger on him way back then. CJ got their hands on the police tapes of Feldman’s interviews, and the police seemed more interested in finding any dirt on Jackson than anything else. But this is not what police were telling Francia. More from those police interviews:

DET. NEGLIA: He’s a junkie now, he gets arrested, he doesn’’t act or anything, he gets high. He packs his nose with cocaine and he’s going to die by the time he is 22 years old.

JASON FRANCIA: How old is he?

DET. NEGLIA: About 21. But that’s the kind of life he is living, and it’s got to do with being exposed to people like this, and having nobody to protect them and to take them out.

DET. BIRCHIM: Like you and your mom.

DET. NEGLIA: Like your mom pulled you out, and you’re, you’re candid, and you’re honesty with us is going to help us. To pull the next kid out, it might even be too late for Macaulay already. But these kids that he’s traveling with are on tour right now. Maybe we can pull them out of it… (see Suspicious Police Questioning of Jason Francia)

This is ridiculous with a capital “R”. Again, Joy Robson’s instincts of not letting police get to Wade Robson without her being present was right on point.

In the book Redemption by Geraldine Hughes, Hughes writes about the police questioning of little kids during the 1993 investigation.

She states that at one point, Jackson’s then-attorney Bert Fields had to write a letter to police chief Willie Williams in Los Angeles complaining that child interviewees were being lied to by the police.

From Hughes’s book:

The police investigation was reportedly attempting to dig up witnesses, even at the cost of lying to the boys they interviewed. Michael Jackson’s then attorney, Bertram Fields, wrote a letter to Police Chief Willie Williams advising him,

“That your officers have told frightened youngsters outrageous lies, such as, ‘we have nude photos of you,’ to push them into making accusations against Michael Jackson. There are, of course, no such photos of these youngsters, and they have no truthful allegations to make. But the officers appeared ready to employ any device to generate potential evidence against Mr. Jackson”

Although, the investigation actively lasted for approximately 13 months and remained open for six years, neither Mr. Sneddon nor Mr. Garcetti were able to make a case against Michael Jackson. (see Police Lied to Young Children During 1993 Investigation?)

It appears that Robson’s choice not to let her kid be subject to this kind of questioning was one of the best decisions she may have made for him. Who knows… [pagebreak]… what kind of garbage they would have told him. Or how messed up he would be now because of it. On redirect, Ms. Robson was asked by Mesereau if she thought Jackson had manipulated her or her son Wade in any way. From Joy Robson’s courtroom testimony:

MESEREAU: Were you ever concerned about Mr. Jackson manipulating you?


MESEREAU: Did you ever tell anyone you were concerned that Mr. Jackson was manipulating Wade?


MESEREAU: Ever tell anyone that you were concerned that Mr. Jackson was manipulating your daughter?

JOY ROBSON: No. (p 9286 lines 20-28)


__ ‘I’m not sayin’ she a gold-digga, but she ain’t messin’ with no broke &@!#’__

June Chandler, the mother of Jordan Chandler (1993 accuser) came up during Joy Robson’s testimony. Defense attorney Mesereau asked Robson about Chandler. She had more than a few choice words to share with the jury. From the testimony:

MESEREAU: You didn’t care for her, right?

JOY ROBSON: I did not.


JOY ROBSON: My impression of June Chandler was that she wanted to be mistress of Neverland; that she was ordering the staff around as if she owned Neverland; that she wanted everything that went with it. My impression of June Chandler was that she was a gold-digger.
(p 9297 lines 11-19)

Ouch! Wade Robson also testified about June Chandler’s sense of ownership of Neverland. If you remember, June Chandler testified at the trial that she hasn’’t so much as talked to her son, the 1993 accuser, in 11 years.

The defense found out that Jordan Chandler filed for legal emancipation from his parents sometime after the 1993 investigation. The question is why?

According to a discussion panel with Tom Mesereau at Harvard Law School on Nov 29 2005, he said there were witnesses prepared to testify for the defense that the 1993 accuser denied to them Jackson ever molested him. And the 1993 accuser was angry at his parents for what they made him say about Jackson.

Apparently he was so angry he filed for legal emancipation. But I digress. Joy Robson also told the jury she felt the 1993 accuser’s mother was trying to use Jackson, but that she never talked to Jackson about it (p 9197 lines 20-26).

On re-cross, Sneddon asked Joy Robson if she was jealous of June Chandler, and insinuated that the 1993 accuser had “replaced” Wade Robson. He would hit a brick wall and open a can of worms. Robson revealed info about Jackson trying to dodge the bossy June Chandler during the weekend the two families met. From the transcript:

SNEDDON: Miss Robson, you’re not jealous of June Chandler, are you, because she displaced you?

JOY ROBSON: Not at all.

SNEDDON: Not at all?

JOY ROBSON: Not at all.

SNEDDON: That wasn’’t the feeling you had at the ranch, because she was in control?

JOY ROBSON: Absolutely not.

SNEDDON: And her son had replaced your son?

JOY ROBSON: My son was there.

SNEDDON: Yes, but he wasn’’t in the bedroom with Michael Jackson anymore, was he?

JOY ROBSON: I don’t know that he wanted to be. He was Michael’s friend. They were there together as friends. I had no wish to be June Chandler. (p 9299 lines 5-19)

So, according to Sneddon, Joy Robson only leveled criticism because she was jealous. It was a rather ridiculous assumption to make considering that it is Robson and her family who are still close to Jackson, and not the crooked Chandlers. He should have gotten the message. But, no.

These prosecutors don’t know how to quit when they’re already in a hole. He became a bit snotty with Robson as he asked additional questions:

SNEDDON: Well, I didn’t ask you whether you wished to be June Chandler. I asked you whether you were jealous of her position.

JOY ROBSON: Certainly not. What position would that be?

SNEDDON: Of being able to be close to Michael Jackson at that point in time.

JOY ROBSON: I don’t think she was close to Michael Jackson at that time.

SNEDDON: You don’’t?

JOY ROBSON: No. As a matter of fact, Michael spent a good deal — …

SNEDDON: So you don’t have any idea how close she was to Mr. Jackson at that point in time, no personal knowledge?

JOY ROBSON: My personal knowledge from that weekend was when I saw Michael Jackson trying to elude June Chandler for the entire weekend.

SNEDDON: Move to strike as nonresponsive, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. (p 9299 lines 20-28; p 9300 lines 1-2, 15-23)

BAM! He hit that figurative wall with a thud. And what her testimony served to do was to give the jury more information that they otherwise wouldn’t have gotten had Sneddon not insisted on pursuing that line of questioning. It wouldn’t be the first time Jackson tried to avoid people who were getting too pushy or too clingy, according to previous testimony.


__No quid pro quo__

During her stint on the witness stand, Mesereau asked Joy Robson point blank to address the prosecution-implication of whether or not she allowed Robson to sleep over at Jackson’s house to further his career.

From the testimony:

MESEREAU: Now, were you allowing Wade to spend nights with Mr. Jackson because you just wanted to further his career?


MESEREAU: Why were you letting Wade spend those evenings with Mr. Jackson?

JOY ROBSON: Those evenings just happened because they were having fun together. They would play till all hours of the night. They would watch music videos. They would watch cartoons. And they’’d basically just go to sleep.

MESEREAU: Did you do that with Mr. Jackson as well?

JOY ROBSON: Yes, I did.

MESEREAU: How often?

JOY ROBSON: A couple of times. (p 9282 lines 6-20)

Threw cold water right on that prosecution assumption. As a matter of fact, during the shooting of Jackson’s “Jam” video, Wade Robson didn’t stay with Jackson during the video shoot in Chicago.

The prosecution’s implications were that there was some kind of nefarious quid pro quo: kids sleeping with Jackson, they get career advancement.

None of this was true. Come to think of it, since when has the truth ever gotten in the way of the prosecution’s attempts to go after Jackson?

Anyway, more from Joy Robson’s testimony:

MESEREAU: And was Mr. Jackson in Chicago with you?

JOY ROBSON: Not with us. He was there.

MESEREAU: Okay. And what do you mean by “not with us”?

JOY ROBSON: Well, we weren’t staying with him. We were flown in as Wade was working. And we stayed at a hotel. He did the job, and we returned to Los Angeles.

MESEREAU: And to your knowledge, where did Mr. Jackson stay on that trip?

JOY ROBSON: I have no idea.

MESEREAU: Did you see Mr. Jackson on that trip?

JOY ROBSON: On the set, yes.

MESEREAU: Did you see him in any other location?

JOY ROBSON: No. (p 9285 lines 25-28; p 9286 lines )

Not exactly a sordid quid pro quo situation, is it?


__Hostage theory not new?__

As stated previously, Joy Robson testified in front of the grand jury back in ‘93 or ’94. What’s interesting is that this hostage/kidnapping allegation may not have originated with the Arvizos.

Mesereau wanted to get into a line of questioning about which prosecutors were eager to shut him up. Check out this exchange where both Sneddon and Zonen objected:

MESEREAU: And do you recall Mr. Sneddon trying to get you to agree that your son had been kidnapped by Michael Jackson?

ZONEN: I’m going to object. Argumentative; hearsay; and irrelevant.

SNEDDON: It’s my objection.


SNEDDON: Let me do it this way. I object. Same basis. (p 9296 lines 6-14))

The objection was sustained, but it was rather odd to know that these two prosecutors were damn near tripping all over themselves to stop Mesereau from getting into that area. It makes you wonder why, doesn’’t it?

On the other hand, the objections didn’’t stop Mesereau from making a point to the jury about it. He began to raise the subject in another way. More from the testimony:

MESEREAU: To your knowledge – all right. To your knowledge, has your son ever been held against his will by Mr. Jackson?


MESEREAU: To your knowledge, has your son ever been kidnapped by Mr. Jackson?


MESEREAU: To your knowledge, has your son ever been abused by Mr. Jackson? JOY ROBSON: No. (p 9296 lines 16-25)

Assuming Mesereau had a clear basis for asking the question, it is mighty damn peculiar that prosecutors may have been trying to get Joy Robson – way back in 93, 94 – to allege that her son was kidnapped by Jackson. That kidnap/hostage garbage was alleged by Janet Arvizo. So was this allegation new? Or was it a hold-over allegation from 1993? It’s a shame the judge didn’t allow the question. Although I can’t say I’m not shocked at that.


__ Special friends: What’s up, cuz?__

During questioning, the issue of Jackson calling a number of unrelated kids “cousin” came up. Some have said it appeared prosecutors implied something sinister in the usage.

Under cross-examination, Sneddon brought up the fact that Ms. Robson used the term “special friends” during her deposition around the 1993 investigation. He, of course, attached a negative connotation to that as well. However, under defense questioning, she was asked explain to the jury what she meant by it. From the testimony:

JOY ROBSON: Well, you know, there would be people who would spend time with him at particular times more so than others. It didn’’t mean that he didn’’t still spend time with all of them. They were all friends of his. But when he spent particularly more time with one than the other, then they were special for the time. …

MESEREAU: And have you seen children from time to time get jealous because Mr. Jackson is being nice to another child?


MESEREAU: Has that ever appeared unusual to you?

JOY ROBSON: Not at all.

MESEREAU: Did you ever see something that you thought was very suspicious when one child would get jealous of Mr. Jackson’s attention to another child?

JOY ROBSON: No, I think that’s normal with children. …

MESEREAU: When you used the term “special friends,” did you mean to suggest anything criminal was going on?

JOY ROBSON: Absolutely not. (p 9268 lines 12-19, 26-28; p 9269 lines 1-7, 17-20)

I suppose it was another example of prosecutors taking someone’s words and applying their own meaning to them. Didn’’t they do something like that with Debbie Rowe, …Rudy Provencio, …Dwayne Swingler, …etc. The media in general, for example, is very good at doing that too. Particularly asked why she used the words “special friends”, she told jurors “”I guess because all children are special and Michael considers them all special”.” And she reiterated, “”There’’s nothing – no – nothing necessarily of a bad connotation in that”,” (p 9270 lines 3-6).

Robson was also asked to explain what she meant by Jackson using the word “cousin” to describe children who were around him. She testified that Jackson may have done that so that the kids “weren’t jealous of each other, because that tended to happen” (p 9284 lines 16-17). Directly from her testimony:

MESEREAU: Did you ever suspect there was something criminal about Mr. Jackson using the word “cousin”?


MESEREAU: Ever think there was something sexual about Mr. Jackson referring to children as his cousin?


MESEREAU: Ever think there was anything inappropriate about Mr. Jackson referring to various children as “my cousin”?

JOY ROBSON: No. (p 9284 lines 18-27)


__Jackson’s a very special person__

During prosecution questioning, Tom Sneddon implied Joy Robson didn’’t know anything about Jackson before they went to Neverland, and that she essentially just let her kids stay with a stranger.

On redirect, Mesereau asked Joy Robson to describe Jackson. She said the megastar was a very special person with a unique personality. From the testimony:

JOY ROBSON: Well, I’ve known Michael for a long time. I know him very well. I’’ve spent many hours talking to him about everything. I feel like he’s a member of my family. I know him very well. I trust him. I trust him with my children.


JOY ROBSON: Because Michael is a very special person. Unless you know him, it’s hard to understand. He’s not the boy next door. He’s Michael Jackson. He’s very — he’s just a very unique personality. He loves children. And he has a very pure love for children. And to know him is to love him and to trust him. (p 9262 lines 15-27)

In contradiction to the prosecution’s implications, she also revealed that the 2 years before she moved to the U.S., she had very long conversations with Jackson every day, and would discuss a number of issues in her life with him. From her testimony:

JOY ROBSON: I felt like I knew him from the very beginning. He just has that wonderful way of making you feel at home; that I felt like I knew him very early on. But particularly in the two years when we were living in Australia before we moved here, and I talked to him every day. We had very long conversations about everything that was going on in his life and my life and my children’s lives. And you get to know someone very well when you talk to someone several hours a day over a two-year period. And then once we moved here, too, we continued that. We’ve always been able to talk about just about anything. (p 9263 lines 2-15)

This is probably not what the prosecution wanted the jury to hear. In interviews he’s done, her son Wade has said that Jackson’s attention was to teach him about the business.

Joy Robson testified during the trial that Jackson and her son spent most of their time at the recording studios. Ms. Robson told the jury “…”Wade was interested in being a recording artist, he was interested in being a producer. He was learning. He loved to be around that and absorb that. He was like a sponge”” (p 9264 lines 16-19).

She said she never asked Jackson to do anything to further Robson’s career and she believes in her son’s ability to further his own career. And further it, he has.

He’’s choreographed videos for NSync, Pink, IMX and others, directed and choreographed entire concerts for Britney Spears, appeared in Spears’s first Pepsi commercial, while co-directing the second.

By the way, he was rumored to be having an affair with Spears at one time. But that’s just gossip…you ain’t heard that from me. Seriously, though, he has a fiancee who came to court with him. Robson also appeared in the movie You Got Served in 2004. He has written and direct independent film projects. He even had his own dance show on MTV called “The Wade Robson project”.

On the show’s finale, the dancers paid tribute to Michael Jackson. In fact, he’s done most of the successful things in career without getting the job from Jackson. Robson’s mother, Joy, said it was Jackson who took an interest in Robson’s career and asked to be kept updated about the latest projects Robson was doing. Joy Robson testified “”He would check on him”,” (p 9281 line 27). And that Jackson would ask Robson to send him demos of music and productions he was working on. He would also give the younger Robson advice.

Although it seemed Joy Robson’s testimony could have been pretty innocuous to the prosecution, for some reason Sneddon tried to go after her.

Doing that opened up a number of avenues for the defense to utilize. Everything from her revelations about June Chandler to her admission that the family spent more time at Neverland when Jackson wasn’’t there came out as a result of prosecutors opening the door.

Stay tuned.


Leave a Reply