When MJ's innocence shines through even Robson and Safechuck's own stories. According to Robson when MJ called him in 2005 to try to talk him into testifying, MJ said: “They are making up all these lies about you and me, saying that we did all this disgusting sexual stuff”. 
Emphasis: MJ calls these allegations "lies" that people are just making up, and "disgusting sexual stuff". This doesn't make any sense for an abuse to tell their victim. It only makes sense for an innocent person to say.
I wonder if Amanda stood next to Wade when these conversations happened and he needed to find an explanation for them, because he knows it goes against his story? So his explanation is that this was some kind of "coaching".
But again, it doesn't make much sense. First of all, when an abuser talks directly to his victim they would both know the abuse happened, so it makes no sense for an abuser to deny it and call it “lies” while talking about it directly to his victim.
For example, when Evan Henzi recorded a phone call between him and his abuser, Marty Weiss, the kind of things the abuser told his victim were: "I never would have done anything with you, if you hadn't expressed interest"...
... and "It's a natural function. The only difference between us and the rest of the animals in the animal kingdom is that we socialize it." doctoroz.com/episode/true-c…
Secondly, Robson’s claim is that MJ had told him that the alleged sexual relationship between them was an expression of love and that Robson believed it up until 2012. However, here Robson quotes Jackson saying that what he was accused of was “disgusting sexual stuff”.
This goes against the claim that Jackson considered such alleged acts as “an expression of love”. On the contrary, based on this, he considered them as “disgusting sexual stuff”, like any person would who has no such inclinations.
Moreover, it also defies Wade’s claim of him believing it was love until 2012, because he was allegedly brainwashed into that by Jackson. Here he quotes Jackson himself telling him that such acts were “disgusting sexual stuff".
And how does it work as "coaching"? Supposedly MJ kept telling him all his life that what they allegedly did was an expression of love, yet all of a sudden this guy calls you to testify and tells you that it is "disgusting sexual stuff"?
And this doesn't ring a bell to adult Wade? Like "Wait a minute! But I thought it was normal and an expression of love, why do you call it disgusting sexual stuff now?" If anything it would trigger and piss off a real victim and prompt them to testify AGAINST the abuser.
In his 2016 deposition Wade commented that this was his perspective NOW that this was some sort of role play: “essentially, I mean, my perspective on it NOW is like a rehearsal for the stand, you know, where he would say they’re saying we did all these disgusting things together”
That sounds like a hindsight re-evaluation of what would really point to Jackson’s innocence, and turning it into a “coaching” and “role-play” story now, in the hindsight of his allegations.
Again, I wonder if Amanda or Joy overheard these conversations and Wade now needed to create a story around them to explain them away. Because what MJ is quoted saying here sound like the words of an innocent man.
Wade did not discuss his testimony with Jackson in person before he went on the stand in 2005. The only things he can claim as "coaching sessions" are these supposed phone calls and they don't make any sense as coaching at all.
He mentions having one very short, about 5-10 minutes conversation with Jackson’s attorney for the trial, Thomas Mesereau (not clear whether on the phone or in person)...
... and from the defense team it was private investigator, Scott Ross who interviewed the Robson family in person and in length before their testimonies. Wade does not accuse either Mesereau or Ross of trying to make him give a false testimony or trying to coach him.
There is no claim of MJ personally meeting up with Wade before Wade’s 2005 testimony and telling him in a direct manner what to say or how to behave on the stand.
All Wade can do is alleging that it was some sort of “role play” when Jackson told him on the phone things like “[t]hey are making up all these lies about you and me, saying that we did all this disgusting sexual stuff” .
This lame coaching made Wade a masterful liar for more than two decades, so convincing that “he should have had an Oscar”, according to his mother.
According to Wade's own story he was subpoenaed to testify against his will. Think about it: if Jackson had really molested Wade, it would have been incredible risk-taking on his part, both in 1993 and 2005, to put this guy on the stand (in 2005 as his first witness)...
...and to rely on such lame supposed “role plays”,and hope not only that Wade would understand what MJ wanted with those cryptic comments on the phone, but that he'd surely go along with it and would know exactly what to say, how to behave on the stand and how to be convincing.
All that expectation from a man who was reluctant to testify.
Safechuck as well tells in court documents but both about the Chandler and Arvizo case MJ told him they were lies.
In his declaration he talks about how Jackson asked him to testify at the 2005 trial: “He asked me if I would be willing to testify at the trial, and said that the charges against him, were a “scam” and that his accusers were lying and just wanted money."
"He then went into a speech saying things like “you believe me” and asking if I “would be there to help testify” on his behalf.”
Again, Jackson here does not say he was just expressing his “love” to Gavin Arvizo. He calls the allegations lies and a “scam” and pleads Safechuck to believe him. Likewise Safechuck also quotes Jackson telling him in 1993 that Jordan Chandler’s allegations were lies.
If Jackson had really molested Safechuck, they would both know that it happened, so it makes little sense for Jackson to swear up and down about his innocence to a man he had previously abused and expect him to believe him.
I think Safechuck and Robson know this too, so they both preface this story by saying that these phone calls might have been recorded or/and MJ might have feared of them being recorded. That would be their explanation to why MJ spoke like an innocent man.
I think they probably are wary that such recordings might exist or/and there were other people around them overhearing these discussions or people on MJ's end being witnesses to these conversations, and they needed an explanation for these conversations...
... but their explanations don't make any sense as discussed above. As "coaching" it simply is lame, and actually runs the risk of having the opposite effect on a victim. To then put Wade on the stand as his first witness would have been extreme risk taking.
Likewise with James. On top of that, according to James, MJ even threatened him that he would get him for perjury if he didn't testify for him.
So yeah, how extremely clever that would be! Threaten a victim, piss him off and then force him on the stand against his will, that despite of the fact you don't even need him on the stand. Makes a lot of sense - NOT! LOL.
But for argument's sake, let's say MJ talked on these phone calls like an innocent man would talk because he feared of them being recorded.
It still wouldn't make any sense for him to allow Wade on that stand after these lame phone calls and without making sure in a face-to-face conversation that he understood what was expected of him. This story of the magical phone coaching just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
BTW, it is a police strategy to trap pedophiles by letting a victim confront them and secretly tape it. That is because pedophiles WON'T tell their victims face to face things like: "they are making up all these lies about us, that we did this disgusting sexual stuff".
Since both knew it happened, pedophiles will typically say self-incriminating things while talking to a victim. Like you heard on that Marty Weiss tape. In the Arvizo case Gavin declined such a pretext phone call. He knew what the outcome would be. From Mez's closing statement:
