Accuser Wade Robson Claims Michael Jackson Told Him He Was His "First"

Accuser Wade Robson Claims Michael Jackson Told Him He Was His "First"
Credit: Source: CreationScienceStudy.WordPress.com

Following the release of Surviving R. Kelly - the popular docu-series on Lifetime regarding the exploits and alleged abuse perpetrated by the R & B legend - Michael Jackson began facing his own posthumous controversy once again when Leaving Neverland premiered at Sundance Film Festival.

Since then, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, the two men who testified in defense of Michael Jackson during his court case over ten years ago, came out and revealed their stories once again, however, this time, they had a different perspective. According to Safechuck and Robson, they came to terms with what happened to them later in life.

During their interview on CBS This Morning, Safechuck and Wade Robson discussed what it was like to meet Michael Jackson. James met Michael while filming a commercial for Pepsi when he was just 9-years-old.

Wade, the other hand, met Michael after winning a dancing contest when he was just 5-years-old. In the new documentary airing on HBO this Sunday, Safechuck, and Robson claim that Michael had abused them for many years.

Speaking with Gayle King on CBS This Morning, the two men revealed what it was like to experience abuse at the hands of the King of Pop. Robson said they felt that Michael "loved them;" they felt special because the biggest pop star in the world chose them.

When Gayle probed them on whether they knew it was weird or wrong, Safechuck said, "there were no alarm bells going off." Wade and James were both young boys and never considered it that way.

Jackson's estate has come out and slammed the two men as being mere "opportunists" as well as "liars", seeking nothing but two minutes of fame and possibly monetary compensation from Michael's estate.

Wade and James both sued Michael's estate, but the suit was dropped for the statute of limitations as well as the fact that Michael's estate couldn't be held responsible, considering it was Michael who committed the crimes, and not the people who run the business ventures related to his name.

Read more about

Advertisement

You may also like

LEAVE A REPLY

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *