Wade Robson: The Self-Proclaimed ‘Master of Deception’ and the Truth Behind It

March 22, 2020

There’s a widespread misunderstanding about Wade Robson and the phrase “a master of deception,” which he used in a personal piece of writing. Many people online have taken this quote out of context, presenting it as if Robson openly admitted to being habitually dishonest or even fabricating the sexual abuse allegations he made against Michael Jackson. But when you examine the broader story and understand the circumstances under which the phrase was written, it becomes clear that this isn’t an admission of fraud — it's a reflection of something far more complex and painful.

Robson used that expression in a draft manuscript of a book he started writing in 2012, not long after experiencing what he described as a psychological collapse. At the time, he was coming to terms with memories of childhood abuse. This was a turning point in his life, when he began trying to process a traumatic past that had been buried under years of denial and conditioning.

During a legal deposition in 2016 with lawyers representing Michael Jackson’s estate, Robson was questioned specifically about the phrase. He didn’t deny using it — in fact, he confirmed he had written those words — but he provided important context. According to Robson, the term “master of deception” didn’t mean he had a general habit of lying. Instead, it described how, from the age of seven, he had been coached by Jackson to deny that any abuse had occurred. He says this led him to repeat the version of events Jackson taught him — one in which nothing inappropriate ever happened.

Robson explained that this conditioning lasted for years. He testified under oath in Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial, insisting then that Jackson had never abused him. But in his deposition, Robson claimed that testimony wasn’t true. He argued that, at the time, he had been emotionally and psychologically incapable of admitting what he now says happened — and that the false testimony was a continuation of the story he had been trained to tell since childhood.

Here’s a key exchange from that deposition, which sheds light on what Robson actually meant:

Q. You refer to yourself as "a master of deception"; correct?

A. Here, yes, in the writing.

Q. Do you believe that you're a good liar?

A. I believe Michael Jackson taught me how to lie really well about the abuse that I suffered at his hands.

Q. And you did consistently, you're claiming now, lie about the abuse from when it started when you were 7 years old until May 8th, 2012; correct?

A. Say that one more time.

Q. Sure. You consistently lied, it's your claim now that you consistently lied about the abuse from the time you were 7 until May 8th, 2012; correct?

A. Yeah. I told the story that Michael taught me to tell until May 8th, 2012.

Q. And when people pressed you on that story or asked you questions, you consistently said that Michael had not abused you; correct?

A. Correct.

View the document in full: MJFacts.com

This portion of testimony is pivotal. It shows that Robson’s use of the phrase “master of deception” was connected to the years he spent maintaining what he now describes as a false narrative — not out of deceitful intent, but because of what he claims was deeply ingrained psychological manipulation.

The book manuscript in which the phrase appeared was never published. Robson said he began writing it as a way of processing his experiences. He didn’t write it for public attention or to advance a legal claim, but rather to explore the personal impact of what he was starting to remember and understand about his past. In that context, the phrase was a painful admission about the ways he believed he had been shaped and silenced — not something meant to boast or confess dishonesty in general.

Despite this clarification, many people online — particularly some critics of Robson and staunch defenders of Michael Jackson — have used the phrase in isolation to discredit his entire story. They argue that someone who calls themselves a “master of deception” cannot be trusted, especially when making serious accusations. But that interpretation strips away all the emotional and psychological nuance behind Robson’s statement. It ignores the detailed explanation he gave during the deposition and the personal circumstances that led him to use that phrase in the first place.

In essence, what’s being overlooked is the complexity of abuse dynamics — particularly when a child is involved. Robson says he was taught to lie to protect Jackson, and that he internalised this so deeply that it became second nature. Only years later, triggered by emotional distress and what he calls a psychological collapse, did those memories begin to resurface. Whether one accepts his account or not, the phrase “master of deception” has been mischaracterised by many, reducing a deeply painful experience to a soundbite weaponised for discrediting him.

When taken in its proper context, the phrase reflects Robson’s attempt to describe how much of his life he spent upholding a false narrative. It’s not a proud claim — it’s a painfully ironic one, rooted in trauma, not in malice. And while the manuscript remains unpublished, its impact echoes through the legal and emotional journey Robson has since undergone. Understanding that context makes clear just how misleading the out-of-context quote can be when used to cast doubt on his entire story.