Michael Jackson Facing New Child Sex Abuse Charges

Two new cases against late pop icon separately emerge.

Ultimate Guitar

Five years after his death, Michel Jackson has been charged with new child sex abuse counts, as two fresh cases have separately emerged.

As Independent reports, 36-year-old James Safechuck filed charges earlier this week, alleging that he endured abuse when he appeared in a Pepsi commercial with Jackson back in the '80s. He was 10 at the time.

Official court documents read that Jackson had "engaged in a calculated course of conduct to lure both [Safechuck] and his parents into a false sense of security and normalcy that was far from reality," adding that he "was successful in his efforts to the point that [Safechuck] endured repeated acts of sexual abuse of a heinous nature and was brainwashed by the decedent into believing they were acts of love and instigated by James himself rather than the decedent."

The documents describe how Safechuck "regularly began sleeping in [Jackson's] bed in his hotel room during the rest of the 'Bad' tour in 1988," claim that Safechuck "was molested nearly 100 times over the course of four years until he hit puberty."

The singer's estate was quick to issue a response, saying, "Mr. Safechuck's request to file a late claim against the Jackson Estate so he can recover money from Michael's beneficiary will hopefully be rejected. This is a person that made his claim five years after Michael died, more than 20 years after the incidents supposedly happened and has given sworn testimony that Michael never did anything inappropriate to him."

As for the second case, Australian choreographer Wade Robson filed a $1.62 billion lawsuit against the Jackson Estate, also during this week, claiming that Michael abused him when he was a child.

Robson detailed his abuse in great detail in a 111-page document, sharing a series of disturbing bits regarding the late singer. The choreographer claims that the abuse took place at the Neverland Ranch between 1990 and 1997, when he was between the ages of 7 and 14. Once again, the estate asked the Los Angeles court to reject the molestation and rape claims because the victim waited too long to report them.

Oddly enough, both Robson and Safechuck have testified in Jackson's defense during the 2005 sexual abuse trial, telling the court that Michael never abused them, which even helped the vocalist earn an acquittal.

54 comments sorted by best / new / date

    Really? Wow. It's always down to getting money no matter what
    Way to go, especially when the guy you blame can't defend himself because he's f*cking dead. Some people just have no soul.
    I remember when Jackson was acquitted in 2005. I was very happy. Mainly, I was happy because I didn't want reports of children getting hurt to be true. Secondly, I didn't want to believe that Jackson was a molester. I remember when Thriller came out. MTV was hesitant to play songs from Thriller because they thought the music was "Too Black" for the MTV audience! Yes, this was the MTV who brought us YO! MTV Raps, etc. We (my classmates, band mates, and friends) all made fun of Jackson...probably because of our racist leanings as teenagers back then. Having matured considerably, I had to admit that Jackson was a very talented man, and he had no normalcy in his life at all. I remember the Jackson 5 cartoon on Saturday mornings. This guy was never able to even walk out in public like a normal person. Then, when I found out about his drug problems I really felt bad for him. I know how horrible addiction is. I still am holding onto hope that he was not a child molester. I hope it is not true. I am holding onto hope that Jackson was so stunted in his social development that he was actually naive' enough to think having sleepovers with kids at his home he called Neverland was OK. Is it possible that he was so asexual that he thought this was innocent fun...or was Jackson the worst type of sex offender there is, totally lacking remorse? For the kids' sake, I hope the accusations are false, and the accusers are just greedy bastards trying to cash in on a sad situation. If that's the case they should get their asses kicked and let Jackson rest in peace!
    Jackson died 5 YEARS AGO? F-ck me in the ass with a golden spanner.
    Are you saying Jackson f*cked you in the *ss with a golden spanner? Are you going to sue his estate for it?
    It's a three-point plan - First the estate, then all of Jacksons family, and then finally all companies who manufacture golden spanners.
    This may be an unpopular opinion but I really wouldnt be surprised if there were hundreds of his victims out there, much in the same way as there was with Jimmy Savile, all too scared to say anything because of how untouchable this man is even after his death. Just reading the comments here reminds me of the sort of comments people were making when those first allegations against Savile surfaced.
    It's one thing to go to the newspapers or blog about it to get some kind of closure. It's another thing to sue a guy who's been dead for 5 years for $1.62 billion.
    Only difference is this happened twice before with Jackson. With Saville it was completely out of left field for the public. With Jackson it just seems like a money grab. You can say paying off the other two people showed guilt but Jackson has always acted like a child (mainly for never having a normal childhood)So throwing money at problems to make it go away probably made sense to him
    I really dont know how laws in USA work. But in my country you can't sue a dead person. Why? cause the death marks the end of the existence and therefore the faculty of having rigts and obligations.
    That makes sense, but suing someone's estate also makes sense. Otherwise we would all max out our credit cards when on our deathbeds. Well, we could leave a bunch of debt behind, but the banks want their money, and they know where to get it from...the will/estate of the deceased
    At least here in Germany you don't have to accept the heir if it's a pile of debt, so the banks can look somewhere else for their money.
    Why? What's the point? He's dead, even if he did it, what can you get out of it? Money? Oh, of course, why'd I even ask?
    The point is the victim is still alive and Jacko needs to be exposed as a gay pedophile, dead or alive.
    Yeah, I get that, but here's the thing; without concrete evidence, they can't prove anything at all. Sure, you could get hundreds claiming the same thing, but where's the evidence? I've never said he didn't do it, I'm on the fence completely. Until there's real evidence, it's just a cash-grabbing bandwagon to me.
    "needs to be exposed as a "gay" pedophile". Not sure what him being gay would have to do with anything. Does anyone really care if he is exposed as gay? Whether he was a pedophile or not is the big issue here, his sexuality is irrelevant. Not being PC police at all, I'm anti PC. But from that statement I could infer that you equate gays with pedophiles, almost as if the two go hand in hand, and if that's the case, you're very ignorant. If not, then, as you were....
    He doesn't need to be exposed as anything, for f*ck's sake. If he was a child molester, then yes, his victim(s) need justice. Innocent until proven guilty. Also, whether he was gay or not is totally irrelevant. The main thing here is that these morons defended him in court before! Surely, if he is guilty, they would have testified against him when he was already facing serious legal action?
    Liking little boys has nothing to do with being gay.
    How bout all those pedophile priests who prey only on little boys. You never hear about priests molesting little girls. The priesthood is a safehaven for closet-fag pedophiles. Jacko would have made an excellent priest.
    If he really did molest all of these people and managed to get away with it, then he is one smooth criminal. I'll get my coat...
    the same could be said about serial killers..."he was so normal, so nice, wouldn't hurt a fly, would always lend a helping hand, yadda yadda yadda"...but it's been proven time and time again, famous and not, that you never know, how truly fvcked up someone is in their private life. if he did molest kids, i hope for his legacy to be destroyed by it and history remembers him as sick freak...on the other hand, if it's false, i also hope history remembers his innocence and those accusing him as the sick ones. regardless of if he did or not, history will remember that... he might have. $...
    I want to remember Michael Jackson for his music, not for his private life.
    i can respect a part of that statement. but the rest sounds like, "what he does in his bedroom is none of your concern" even if it's of him molesting children? could you openly admit you're a fan then, if the allegations of sexual abuse of children were 100% true? luckily for his fans, i guess they might never find out and can continue to remember him just for his music...and that he's accused of molesting kids...
    Why now? did they forget about it for 20 something years! This is completely ****ed!
    There is a huge chance that this is just a money grab, but they should still be taken seriously until they're able to prove what happened. Child rape is sadly a real thing, and it's very common for men not to say what happened until much after, so it would still make sense if they would wait until now to confess, assuming this DID happened obviously.
    Look at the shit that was found in Jackson's house after he died. 100% boy-loving pedo.
    Wasn't Michael is massive debt when he died? What do these people plan to get from making false accusations?
    He had debts yet to pay off, but wasn't necessarily "upside down" in debt (i.e.: being completely broke).
    111 page report written about child molestation??? What the hell is this the script to Precious 2? Although this could actually make a great horror movie. In fact imagine Michael Jackson molesting from beyond the grave. That's some scary shit!!!