Wade Robson’s case – Looking For a Black Cat In a Dark Room When It Is Not There

“Don’t look for a black cat in a dark room, especially if it is not there…”

Confucius

This short post was first made as a reply to a reader’s comment, but since the subject is top important I decided to place it here as a point for a separate discussion.

The comment came from Judy and concerned Wade Robson (and Jimmy Safechuck) who decided to get some $1,62 billion from Michael Jackson’s Estate on the charges they suddenly thought of several years after Michael’s death:

 “I believe them when they went to court and testified that Michael did nothing to them. No matter what their reasoning is, Wade and Safechuck are, committing a crime, lies, fraud, defamation of character. They aren’t even credible.” 

Of course they are not.

Just  to clarify one point – as far as I remember Safechuck wasn’t summoned by the prosecution or the defense in 2005. In 1993 he was interviewed by the police same as all other children who were around Michael at the time and said that nothing inappropriate had ever taken place. As to Robson he was supposed to be summoned by the prosecution in 2005 but turned out to be a witness for the defense as he vehemently defended Michael and said that he had never been as much as touched by him.

So no matter what they claim now these people are not credible for a simple reason that they are contradicting their own prior testimony. And Wade Robson actually spoke in the defense of Michael twice and the second time he was a grown-up man and it was a testimony under oath.

If we assume now that both times he lied, it means that lying is an inherent feature of his character. And those who tell a lie at least once and so confidently too – like Robson did –  are able to lie again and again, and many times over.

For cases like that we have a very good English proverb: “If someone deceives you once, shame on him. If someone deceives you twice, shame on you”. So if we assume that we were deceived by Robson at least once, we should take extra care not to allow him to deceive us again.

Now Robson will probably tell us a heart-wrenching story about the way he was “molested”, and in horrible detail too. And he may even sound genuine when describing it – because, in the first place,  he has heard enough detail from the real victims he is associating with now on a site he specially created for the purpose and secondly, because Wade Robson could indeed be molested at some moment of his life.

This I don’t rule out. What if he was indeed molested, only by someone different? For example, by his father who later committed suicide? Or by his agent who took care of his career when he was already in the US? We remember the ways of some Hollywood producers who deal in young talents, don’t we?

But the problem is that a suit against the agent will bring no money, while a suit against Michael’s Estate will. And this is what makes  all the difference in the world for Robson. Especially since a suit against the Estate will also help him to take his revenge on its lawyers for their refusal to hire him for their MJ-related projects.

Can anyone guarantee to you that when telling his story Robson will not talk about the abuse suffered by him from another person? No one can guarantee you that. And if he lied once, he can lie again. And he will look quite genuine in his testimony too – because he will actually be describing his real experience. Only it won’t be about Jackson but will be about another person.

This is a method that helps people cheat on a lie detector. If they want to produce a negative emotion when asked about an innocent guy, all they need to do is focus on their real offender and answer about him and this will build up their emotions and create a corresponding physical reaction registered by the machine.

This is how they cheat on the machine. And this is how they cheat on human beings too (even to a greater degree).

But what allows us to think that Robson is now telling another of his lies and not the truth?

It is our own assumption that on two previous occasions he lied. The logic is very simple – if he lied once he will easily lie again, and the person who lied twice, and under so serious circumstances too, cannot be credible in principle.

Imagine a witness who falsely testified on two occasions and now wishes to give another testimony. Will this third testimony hold if the jury knows for sure that he previously lied twice? No, it won’t. Actually a witness like that will probably not be even summoned by the court for fear that he will discredit the whole case.

That is why I can’t even understand what the judge is thinking about and why he seems to be hesitating. If he believes Robson now it means that Robson lied then, and if Robson is a proven liar his suit should have been thrown out the moment it was filed.

However in contrast to Robson’s supporters I am sure that he did NOT lie then and that he is not so big a liar as they think him to be (what a paradox!). For all thirty years until recently he was telling the truth.

He was NOT molested. At least not by Michael Jackson.

Robson’s present supporters will naturally try to fool you by saying that they are ready to close their eyes on his previous testimonies and thirty years of support for Jackson because it is “typical” of child abuse victims not to tell on their offenders until they reach the age of 30 or more.

Not quite so, guys. It is typical of child abuse victims to keep silence about their offenders, never speak about their abuse with anyone, never touch on the subject and – naturally – never talk in the defense of their abusers.

Keeping silence when no one suspects the abuse  and you have to break through a wall and Defending a person when everyone suspects it and points at you as his ‘victim’, are totally different things.

In fact they are the exact opposites of each other.

Those who were abused in their childhood dream of a possibility to rid themselves of the haunting images of the abuse. The abuse is their dark secret lying on them like a gravestone. And the secrecy of it and the feeling of being so terribly different from others and having to forever keep it to themselves  is what makes it so much worse for them.

They want to take it off their chest and see their abuser answer for what he did. They want to see him weak, helpless and humiliated  – the way they felt during the time of his overwhelming power over them and their silent suffering many years after that.

And the criminal proceedings already taking place against their abuser  give them a fantastic chance to speak up and throw this burden off their shoulders. They jump at the chance as it gives them enormous relief after which they can start their life anew. And if the criminal trial is followed by a civil one, they can also get millions to somewhat compensate them for their sufferings.

However Robson wants us to believe that he not only refused to get the secret off his shoulders (when his alleged offender was already on trial), but he also took upon himself the extra burden of lying in favor of his abuser and going against the crowd which expected exactly the opposite of him? And that instead of justice for himself he decided to valiantly defend his alleged abuser in the face of the public, media and prosecution that was examining him really hard?

Besides all of it being extremely illogical and totally contrary to human character and nature of this type of abuse, could anyone also explain to me what for Robson would do it?

For the money that MJ could theoretically pay to him for speaking in his defense? But we have already made our calculations and agreed that he could have got much more money if he had spoken against Michael. This abstract pay-out could have been only minimal considering Michael’s then circumstances, while a civil trial that would have invariably taken place in case of a guilty verdict would have brought him millions as the whole MJ property would have gone on sale.

So whichever way you look at this story (including its craziest details) it still produces the impression of a highly artificial mental construct which has nothing to do with reality. Nothing fits in and the main character cannot even explain why his current version presents his own past actions in so a ridiculous way –  lacking any logic, reason and motive.

But if all of us agree that this story is just a theater of the absurd how much longer will people pretend that the story of Robson (and his assistant) has any subject for discussion at all? How long will they be looking for a black cat in a dark room, especially if the cat is not there?

Isn’t it much more worthy to look into why Robson suddenly made his U-turn and why it so conveniently coincided with Katherine Jackson’s  civil suit against AEG  and a wave of new media disinformation about MJ? This is a much more interesting subject to investigate. At least over here the perspective is promising us all the necessary elements Robson’s story is lacking  – the logic, reason and motive for slandering Jackson.