Dan Reed Tries To Defend His “Shockingly Unethical” Film “Leaving Neverland”

Described as “shockingly unethical” by journalist Charles Thomson, who has written extensively about Michael Jackson’s treatment in the media, and full of “lying” by documentary maker and media analyst John Ziegler, Dan Reed has attempted to defend Leaving Neverland amidst growing condemnation.

Leaving Neverland - Dan Reed, Wade Robson, James Safechuck

Unsurprisingly, Leaving Neverland has made an explosive splash. Everyone has an opinion on the King of Pop and many of those opinions are not savoury. And after viewing Reed’s film, those on the fence will have the same conclusion as Michael Jackson’s detractors: that he did it.

Despite being completely one-sided, and by the director’s own admission, having none of its facts verified, Reed has attempted to defend his two-part film about sexual abuse allegations against Jackson. For those that don’t know, Leaving Neverland, features the stories of two men, each of whom claim to have been molested by the pop icon throughout their adolescent years.

These are allegations have been repeatedly denied by the Jackson family. Wade Robson, one of the alleged victims, met Jackson after being crowned the winner of a dance contest in his native home of Australia at the age of five. James Safechuck, the other alleged victim, was filming an advertisement for Pepsi with the singer just before his ninth birthday, which is how they encountered each other.

The men said Jackson had warned them continuously to keep the abuse a secret when they were children, while also allegedly pressuring them to defend him in any sexual abuse cases that were present at the time of his life.

Both Robson and Safechuck have been denounced by the family of Michael Jackson and by loyal fans of the artist as “opportunists” and “admitted liars” who aim to get life changing finances from their plot against the singer. Jackson’s estate has sued HBO and called the documentary, “A one-sided marathon of unvetted propaganda to shamelessly exploit an innocent man no longer here to defend himself.”

The documentary sought no comment from either the estate or the Jackson family, which is one of its main criticisms, however, director Reed addressed said criticism by – surprisingly – stating: “This isn’t a film about Michael Jackson.”

Instead, Reed insisted (On CBS This Morning): “It’s a film about Wade Robson and James Safechuck, two little boys to whom this dreadful thing happened long ago. It’s the story of their coming to terms with that over two decades and the story of their families. As far as including other eyewitnesses to that, there was no one else in the room, I don’t believe, when Wade was being molested by Michael or when James was having sex with Michael.”

Both the controversy, and the notoriety of Leaving Neverland, were expected, but perhaps not quite to this extent. Reed has expressed that due to the allegations being directed against Jackson himself, the documentary included some of the things he said whilst he was still alive, along with previous statements from his lawyers.

He also expressed: “What was important for me was to have eyewitnesses or people who could add something to the story. I don’t know that the Jackson family has any direct knowledge of what happened to Wade and James. I don’t believe they do. If they do, then they should come forward.

“We know that the family and the estate and Jackson during his lifetime and his lawyers all deny that any sexual abuse took place, and those views are strongly represented in the film. We give those views a lot of time in the film on screen and we have people casting doubt on Wade’s change of heart.”

Both in previous televised interviews and in court, Robson repeatedly denied any molesting having taken place between him and Michael Jackson. However, in 2013, after suffering from several nervous breakdowns, Robson decided to tell what he claims to be the truth – the real story. This was brought up in a new lawsuit against the Jackson estate.

It was twelve months later when Safechuck decided to take the same steps, though he had also previously denied allegations of abuse between himself and Michael. Both cases were dismissed due to the statue of limitations, but this is something both men are now appealing.

Reed has been questioned as to why the men originally denied accusations and have decided to change their appeal after so many years, to which Reed has declared the population needs to be more understanding, and empathetic, to the bond that was forged between the boys and the singer – a bond that he believed was deeply complex.

“What people find it difficult to understand – and what I’ve always, making this film, found it sort of difficult to understand and very shocking – is the deep attachment formed between the abuser and the abused with this kind of grooming paedophile activity. So, both Wade and James were in love with Michael, even after the sexual activity stopped. They continued loving him and he was a close friend, particularly to Wade for many, many years.”

While this love from both Robson and Safechuck may seem strange, both men adamantly believe that Michael was also in love with them, just as much as they were in love with him.

Not only does the documentary discuss the stories of the accusers, it includes various graphic accounts of the alleged encounters and an abundance of unsettling, disturbing details. In 2005, Jackson was acquitted of molesting a 13-year-old boy, and Reed has expressed that part of vetting those details included a “deep dive” into the other child sex abuse allegations against the singer that occurred in both 1993 and 2003.

Reed also regarded that the graphic details were necessary for people to understand the gravity of the accusations surrounding the now deceased King of Pop.

“I read a lot of the witness statements there and spoke to a lot of the investigators and I didn’t find anything that contradicted or cast any doubt whatsoever on Wade and James’s accounts.

“I think for many years Jackson got away with this image of being a bit of a child himself and being very affectionate with children and I wanted to make sure that people understood this wasn’t over-enthusiastic kissing or cuddling. This was sex. This was the kind of sex adults have, but he was having it with a little child.”

Reed’s work as a documentarian previously had a primary focus on crime and terrorism. He insists that he had no prior views or judgements on Jackson before starting work on this project – and that he came across the concept of it by accident.

“I certainly didn’t want to stake any reputation on a story that didn’t have a strong factual basis or that wasn’t true. So I did look, you know, throughout the two years of making the film, I looked for anything that could cast doubt or undermine Wade and James’ story. I found nothing at all. I found their stories to be very, very consistent. I found their families’ stories to be consistent with what they had told me.

“I was sitting down with a Channel 4 executive in the UK for breakfast one day and we said what are the big stories out there that people kind of think they know but maybe don’t really know and had never sort of been conclusively examined and Michael Jackson was one of those. I had someone do some research for three weeks. In a footnote in a forum was this reference to Wade and James litigating against the Michael Jackson estate. And that’s how I stumbled across this story and here we are now.”

Neither Robson nor Safechuck have been paid for their participation in the film, and according to Reed have “no future, past or present interest” in it.

Now, instead of bringing any clarity to the questions he posed himself, Reed has accomplished nothing more than posing new ones.

About the Author
Leah is a former student of film, media and culture studies and English literature at the University of Huddersfield. When not in uni or writing for magazines she is pulling pints in the local pub, drinking an excessive amount of tea or reading up on the latest philosophical theories.

Related Posts

  1. Avatar
    john Reply

    This pretense of a documentary is a work of fiction based on the book I was Michael Jackson’s Lover, written by an imposter named Victor Gutierrez, allegedly based on a secret journal by Jordan Chandler. Yet, in real life, Chandler had no journal.

    Look up the book, read excerpts and you will find all Dan did was do an adapted screenplay and feed it to two starving artists.

  2. Avatar
    Rasheed Reply

    People need to start fact checking things.. It is easy to dismiss the claims in the documentary:

    * That edited/sliced ‘Happy Birthday’ message was recorded within days that Wade and Michael first ever spent any time together (aside from the time they met in Australia) and was filmed 7 months before his Bday

    * James claimed to have owned the Thriller Jacket, it was actually it was given to Dennis Thompson (his clothing designers) and they had it until 2011 when it was auctioned

    * James claims Harrison Ford gave him the whip from the Indiana Jones movie but it was actually given to the Institute of Archeology in 1990 (only 1 was used in the trilogy)

    * James claims Michael called him asking him to testify in 2005 but he was considered a ‘non entity’ in the case months before the trial began. Neither one of them had a say as to if he could testify.

    * James mother states she danced when Michael Jackson died… because?? According to James, he did not speak to anyone about his molestation until 2013

    * Both mothers were laughing and lovingly talking about the time period they spent with Michael.. This is the time they would have been ‘neglecting’ their children, it is unnatural for a mother to lovingly express of the time and reasons she was neglecting her child.

    * They talk about this elaborate grooming process Michael did but say he molested him the first day they were alone.. That’s only hours from day to evening to make Wade comfortable enough to feel ok about something like that? Mind you, they were not US citizens so after the event, they’d be going home to Australia.. That’s VERY risky!

    IN COURT….

    * When Wade was forced to release his emails, he breached the order claiming it did not exist, than refused to submit, than tried using ‘attorney client privileges’ to prevent the emails to enter the case.. It eventually entered the case!

    * Wade Robsons emails show he sent himself a link from an anti MJ website that paints Jackson as a pedophile to build his case (why would he need to do that if it’s a personal event?)

    * Emails between Wade and his mother, Wade sends her an article making claims about Michael, she responds “wow, that never happened” and he still used the story in court.

    * Emails between him and his mother show them going over stories and having ‘many versions’

    * Wade was caught lying under oath so bad that the judge stated “Their is no rational juror that could believe his testimony”

    Wade Robson wrote 2 drafts of a ‘tell all’ book, the court ordered Wade to produce both drafts and the story of his abuse changed significantly from one draft to the next

    * James claims that he should address his abuse after seeing an interview with Wade on TV, however it was Wades attorneys that reached out to James before James made any move about the abuse.

    * In court James ‘jewelry’ story never included a ‘wedding ring’ story, he stated he had a neckless he was given with a medallion – and that is where the story ends.. The wedding ring would be the most important piece of jewelry to the story… James original interview with Dan Reed in Feb 2017 did not include the ring story, they later got together in July 2017 to film and include the ‘ring’ story.

    * The court ordered Wade to present his personal journals to the court and it stated allegations would make him “relatable and relevant” and “it’s time for me to get mine”. When questioned about the quotes he stated he does not know what he meant by his own words.
    * Wade robson claims two contradictory things.. 1. that he did not see anything wrong with the abuse at the time because he felt that he was in a ‘fulfilling sexual relationship’ at 7 years old and that’s why he did not speak out… 2. that Michael would drill & threaten him about if he spoke out and he did not speak out due to fear.

    * James legal briefing states Michael spent thanksgiving with the Safechucks in 1987, Michael was in Australia on the Bad tour and was actually the day Michael Jackson met Wade Rosbson after the Target event.

    * Wade Robson was trying to have his wedding at Neverland and Michael Jacksons Nanny had to tell both Wade and Joy “NO” because the 2005 trial was going on at the time

    * Wade claims that he was at Neverland and saw Michaels children and did not want Michaels kids to live without their dad and that’s how he knew he ‘had’ to testify on Michaels behalf.. The time he visited Neverland was AFTER he testified

  3. Avatar
    Marlyn Reply

    How could they turn on Michael, who was a friend and mentor to them. ……money sadly 😠

Leave a Reply