Michael Jackson Took James Safechuck Jewellery Buying, 1989 Surveillance Video Confirms

Again in 1989, Michael Jackson made headlines for buying at Zales jewelers in a disguise. Safety thought he appeared suspicious, as if he was going to rob the shop. Jackson was questioned as a doable burglar earlier than his identification was revealed. Reviews on the time didn’t concentrate on his buying companion.

Now TMZ has shared the surveillance footage, which reveals Jackson — sporting a pretend mustache, phony tooth, and a wig — with a younger James Safechuck. Safechuck is likely one of the two males within the latest HBO documentary Leaving Neverland who allege that Jackson sexually assaulted them all through their childhoods. One disturbing phase of the movie entails Safechuck recalling how Jackson purchased him a number of fancy rings, one in all which was an “engagement ring.” The surveillance footage corroborates Safechuck’s account of how Jackson took him jewellery buying.

Right here’s what New York Instances’ Wesley Moris wrote about that second from Leaving Neverland:

There’s one thing about the way in which the filmmakers reserve this scene for the again finish of Half 1 that ices your bones, one thing about the way in which an grownup Safechuck doesn’t appear to wish to return there. However right here he’s, speaking in a TV documentary in regards to the vows he says that he and Jackson exchanged. Right here he’s, forlorn, holding the ring that he’s stored, all this time, in a good-looking field.

The story of the ring and the vows feels as graphic because the reminiscences of masturbation and French kissing and nipple tweaking. For those who occur to be the form of one that’d attempt to steadiness, say, the a number of counts of kid molestation Jackson was charged with in 2003 and acquitted of later with extenuating particulars from Jackson’s biography (Wasn’t he abused and too well-known too quickly and prematurely sexualized? He by no means had a childhood! He’s nonetheless a toddler!), in the event you partook within the regular eating regimen of fluffy information tales about Jackson and a few little boy (usually recognized as “Jackson’s pal”) and thought largely that they had been cute or banal and that Jackson simply associated to youngsters as youngsters — like, platonically — in the event you thought that he couldn’t know there was an actual distinction between grownup ardour and little one’s play, then maybe you’ll discover Safechuck’s reminiscence of the ring notably shattering. I did. It’s so personal and incorrect, not simply to us however clearly to Jackson, who makes up a narrative on the jewellery retailer that the ring is for a lady, despite the fact that Safechuck is there by his facet.

He knew.

Original Source

Comment here