Wade Robson, a successful choreographer and former child dancer, was a star of Michael Jackson’s molestation trial because of his testimony that when he often hung with MJ when he was a kid Jackson never behaved at all improperly. Now he has filed a claim against Michael Jackson’s estate, evidently realizing “Oh, you meant that Michael Jackson- yeah, he molested me for seven years”. He says that he never repressed the memories but that during the trial he- well, I guess lied would be as good a term as any.
I obviously have no idea whether the alleged molestation did or didn’t occur, but if it did then he needs a major league ass kicking for perjuring himself when he had reason to believe Jackson was still preying on kids. I think I would be less :rolleyes: if he were now just coming forward to say “I lied and wish to set the record straight” rather than filing a claim for money damages against a dead man’s estate, especially considering that he already makes a good living.
Here’s a legal question that might be more suitable for another forum, but since it’s MJ related I’ll park it here and leave it in the hands of Mod:
Does this open Wade Robson up to a perjury charge? And for it to be a perjury charge, would it have to be established that he is now telling the truth, or is just changing his testimony and stating that he was lying then sufficient?
Seriously, unless he’s got a really convincing reason for why he said what he said in court, I can’t see him getting very far with this case as his previous testimony casts some pretty serious doubt on his current claims. Doesn’t mean he won’t try though - perhaps he’s hoping to be enough of a nuisance to get paid off to go away.
I’m beginning to have flashbacks myself. It was the Bicentennial, and there was a rap at the window, and floating there was a teenaged black guy in a sequined glove prototype saying “come play with me”, and I remember thinking “Oh not again, and why is he floating when this is a one story house?”
If you saw Robson on THE TODAY SHOW this morning (I’m sure the footage is available somewhere), you’ll understand once again the keen journalistic insights that justify paying Matt Lauer more than the annual operating budget of a small college. Pretty much the first thing that Robson said was that Michael Jackson molested him beginning when he was 7 and through the time he was 14.
Lauer nodded, then asked the insightful question “How old were you when he first molested you?” and when Robson answered “7” he asked “and how long did this go on?”.
The answer was 7 years. (14-7=7, at least in NYC.)
Last week he interviewed Amanda Berry’s grandmother the day after Amanda’s escape. When she could barely make it through the interview for crying so hard, Matt observed “The family is probably still emotional over the events of this week”.
I love how hard hitting journalist like Lauer can find the facts in a story by their keen listening ability.
Or they could sue Robson on the basis that the only reason they put themselves into a vulnerable position with Jackson was due to believing Robson’s lies that he hadn’t been molested.
What I find odd about this is I doubt he needs the money. I mean, I knew who you were talking about before I saw his picture, and I’m sure there are not that many choreographers who could say that.
Why did he “perjure” himself? My guesses are 1) he didn’t want people to get the idea he was gay/he didn’t want to get a reputation as one of MJ’s victims and B) MJ’s people paid him to lie.
Why is he clearing that up now? Again, I think it’s either for the reputation or money. Or both.
I’m biased though. I tend to think any legal squabble concerning MJ is about money.
Seriously, where else can he go? As the rest of the posts point out, lying under oath is not a good basis for getting a favorable judgment later, even if the trial makes it to a final phase. His only out is going to be that he somehow forgot or repressed or suppressed the memories and thus is (1) not guilty of perjury and (2) genuinely entitled to a big ol’ slice of MJ cash.
(Is there any MJ cash? I thought he was broker than broke.)
Even at his worst off he was worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The trouble was that he had debts in the hundreds of millions as well. I think his assets always outweighed his debts, but the debts kept the estate broke in terms of cash and liquid assets and his managers had to borrow on assets to make payments.
Dying flooded his coffers as people bought roughly a gazillion CDs and downloads, plus there was no longer his extravagant spending to finance (including $150,000 per month for his personal physician), so as with Elvis dying probably helped the estate’s solvency. Money keeps rolling in, and he had all kinds of investments, so there’s a sizable estate there.