Ron Zonen And Thomas Mesereau Offer Their Opinion On Wade Robson

March 23, 2020

In a 2019 Vanity Fair article, the divergent perspectives of key figures in the 2005 trial of Michael Jackson shed light on the credibility of Wade Robson's testimony. Tom Mesereau, who served as Jackson's lawyer at the time, and Ron Zonen, the District Attorney and Gavin Arvizo's lawyer, provided markedly different accounts when asked about their impressions of Robson's 2005 testimony.

Zonen unequivocally voiced his scepticism regarding Robson's testimony, asserting his firm belief in Robson's deceit. With unyielding conviction, he expressed his certainty that Robson was fabricating his claims of his innocent relationship with Jackson.

"Oh, we thought he was lying (...) There was no doubt in our minds about that. We were convinced that he was a victim of long-term sexual abuse by Jackson. And everything about his demeanour on the stand suggested that we were correct. And, of course, we were right. He was noticeably uncomfortable. He was the kind of uncomfortable when you're under oath in front of a large group of people answering questions falsely."

In his statement, Mesereau explained his choice to call Wade Robson as his primary witness, emphasizing Robson's strong support for Michael Jackson. Mesereau described Robson as a pleasant, intelligent, articulate individual, and noted his unwavering affirmation that Michael Jackson had never subjected him to molestation, abuse, or any form of inappropriate behaviour.

"I decided to make Wade Robson my first witness because he was very supportive of Michael Jackson (...) I found him to be pleasant, intelligent, articulate and a good person to talk to. And he was adamant that Michael Jackson had never molested, abused or touched him inappropriately."

Whose opinion should you trust? Probably neither.

The key point to consider here is that a lawyer's primary duty is to vigorously defend their client, often presenting a subjective interpretation of facts that aligns with their client's best interest. While this doesn't imply that lawyers are dishonest, their role inherently involves omitting certain details and framing facts in a manner that favors their client. It is arguably only when a lawyer presents information detrimental to their client's case that their honesty can be unequivocally trusted.

In the context of defence "documentaries," such as Square One or the much-anticipated Taj Jackson documentary, it is somewhat ironic that figures like Mesereau and Scott Ross are portrayed as arbiters of truth and objectivity. It's unrealistic to expect them not to staunchly support the most successful case of their careers. It's notable that these documentaries have not sought input from police investigators or other independent agencies, likely due to the anticipated divergence in narrative.

Returning to the interview, there is a shared acknowledgement that had Wade spoken out at the time, it could have significantly altered the trajectory of the trial.

Mesereau believed his team's efforts in cross-examining witnesses were sufficient, but he foresaw a potential deadlocked jury. Consequently, he opted to summon his own witnesses, aiming for "acquittals on every count." Zonen expressed the view that Jackson's life would have followed a different path, asserting, "He would have been convicted (...) He would be alive today."

In my opinion, I wouldn't assert that solely for that reason alone the trial would have taken a 180-degree turn, but I do believe it could have assisted the prosecution.

Um, at the very least, fans should perhaps show a bit of gratitude to Wade, right?

As a final observation, I have always found it intriguing how they characterize Wade's testimony with terms like adamant, as if they want to convey that there is no chance he was lying; when such denials precisely align with many victims of sexual abuse who have taken the stand and denied their abuse to authorities.

Essentially, all he had to do was deny every suggestive question. It wasn't that challenging.