What James Safechuck Told Prosecutors in 1994 — and Why It Matters

Mar 12, 2020

In the 1990s, when Michael Jackson faced serious allegations of child abuse from Jordan Chandler, another teenager named James Safechuck was also drawn into the spotlight. At the time, James was around 16 years old and publicly denied that Jackson had ever acted inappropriately towards him. He told his father, James Safechuck Sr., that nothing untoward had happened. This denial was later shared with a grand jury on 12 April 1994, when James’s father gave a statement to prosecutors and sheriff’s officials in Santa Barbara County. However, the transcript of that interview reveals a more complicated picture—one that suggests the relationship between Jackson and James may not have been as innocent as it first appeared.

Although James did not accuse Jackson of sexual abuse during that period, parts of the interview hint at behaviour that crossed normal boundaries. One particularly striking moment comes when police informed James’s father that his son had said Jackson kissed him on the lips. The reaction from James Sr. was unexpected and, to many, deeply troubling.

Here is the exchange from the transcript:

Q. Okay. But now, on this first occasion, were you ever in the room when your son indicated that he had been kissed by Michael Jackson?

A. Yes.

Q. When did that occur if you say that the interview was being done out of your presence?

A. After, I think, the policeman asked me.

Q. Can you describe what happened?

A. And I think I responded, "Yes. I kissed him too. I kiss my children. I kiss everybody. And I see nothing wrong with that."

Q. Well, were you present when your son indicated or stated to the police detectives that Michael Jackson kissed him on the lips?

A. No.

Q. Did the detectives inform you that's what your son had indicated?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did you then say to the police detectives at that time?

A. Just what I told you prior.

Q. That what?

A. That there was nothing wrong with that.

View screenshots of the document at link 1, link 2 and link 3.

This exchange is important. Instead of concern, James’s father dismissed the kiss as normal, comparing it to how he kissed his own children. But Jackson wasn’t family, and kissing a boy on the lips is not appropriate. His response shows poor judgement and a lack of boundaries, especially when it comes to protecting a child.

James’s father allowed his son to stay overnight at Jackson’s home and didn’t seem to question the behaviour. Years later, James changed his account and accused Jackson of abuse. The long gap between his initial denial and later claims raises questions—was he being truthful then, or did he feel unable to speak out? Regardless, admitting Jackson kissed him on the lips shows the relationship crossed normal lines.

The police didn’t pursue the matter further, likely because James didn’t make a direct allegation. Without a clear claim or stronger evidence, prosecutors couldn’t proceed. The legal system requires solid proof, and it wasn’t there.

Jordan Chandler’s case also didn’t go to trial. Jackson reached a financial settlement with the Chandler family, and Jordan stopped cooperating with investigators. That led to the case being dropped. Some saw the settlement as Jackson avoiding court; others believed it was a way to end things quickly.

James Safechuck’s early testimony doesn’t prove abuse, but it shows the relationship was questionable. His father’s casual attitude toward troubling behaviour—especially involving his own son—suggests how difficult it would have been for James to speak out. The transcript highlights how easily concerning behaviour can be dismissed, especially when it involves someone powerful. It also shows the importance of recognising when something isn’t right, even if it doesn’t meet a legal definition of abuse.