The MJGlobal family is the single largest social network on earth. MJJJP is pleased to be able to over a platform for some of them to contribute to the discussion regarding the fictional movie produced by HBO, coming this weekend.
A thorough analysis of Dan Reed’s February 26, 2019 interview on CBS This Morning reveals that he doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. — All information Compiled and explained by @Keb_187
Director of Leaving Neverland Dan Reed gave his first TV interview on CBS This Morning ahead of the documentary airing early next month.
Reed again isn’t challenged on the specifics of the allegations, but once again comes out with many sound bites that don’t make a lot of sense.
The interview begins with Reed being asked about how he addresses the fact that the documentary focuses only on Wade Robson and James Safechuck’s allegations, with no response from either the Jackson family or others speaking on the late star’s behalf. Reed’s answer to this is the documentary features video of Jackson denying prior abuse allegations and lawyers speaking on his behalf.
In no way can a few clips of Jackson denying prior abuse allegations and lawyers speaking for him compare to hours of slandering Jackson. Add to this the fact the allegations made by Wade and James came after Jackson’s passing. Therefore, obviously, there isn’t a response from Jackson to these specific allegations.
When asked further if he didn’t think it necessary to ask for the view of Jackson’s family or his lawyers, Reed responds with something we’ve heard before. ‘This isn’t about Michael Jackson. It’s a film about Wade Robson and James Safechuck.’
Except it is about Michael Jackson. The documentary has garnered a lot of attention because of who the allegations are made against. The media have been rehashing the same, false, stories from years ago in the build up to this documentary. Who are those stories slandering? Michael Jackson.
While the documentary may well focus on two men coming to terms with the alleged abuse they suffered, with input from their families, the documentary still centres on claims made against Michael Jackson.
When asked about why the two men have changed their stories, Reed puts this down to a deep attachment between the abuser and their victim, that Wade and James were in love with Jackson, and even after the abuse ended they continued to love him and remained close friends, particularly with Wade. Reed also mentions that Jackson told the pair he too was in love with them.
The big issue here is this explanation from Reed once again showcases his lack of research in to the pair’s cases.
The claim that Wade and James were in love with Jackson is one we’ve heard a lot building up to the showing of this documentary. In the case of Wade, Jackson’s niece Brandi revealed that she dated Wade for seven years during the time he was supposed being abused. She also revealed it was Michael Jackson that set the pair up.
Brandi would also reveal that Wade had cheated on her with ‘multiple women’.
So, if Jackson told Wade he loved him, and then set him up with his niece, why didn’t Wade doubt Jackson’s supposed love for him?
Also, if Wade was in love with Jackson, why would he want a relationship with Brandi and then cheat with multiple other women?
In the case of James, his declaration contradicts the ‘in love with Jackson’ angle completely.
The above image is from his declaration. He describes Jackson as having intimidated and threatened him and told him his life would be over should he ever tell anybody what happened. He also says he lived his entire life ‘in fear and dread’ of what Jackson would do to him.
Does the above sound like he was in love with Jackson?
Another thing to note is that both men are heterosexual. In a blog post titled ‘Be A Man’ Wade said, ‘I became quite sexually promiscuous in my teenage years, recklessly racking up female conquests as if they were points in a video game.’
Reed is again asked if he has an obligation to ask the Jacksons for their perspective. His response is rather bizarre. He says, ‘Well, what – what does the family know about the sexual abuse that happened? Do you think they know about the sexual abuse?’
Given that the only three parties that were privy to the supposed abuse were Jackson, Wade and James the same questions can be posed to Reed himself.
When pressed again about hearing from the Jacksons Reed says, ‘Well we know – we know the family and the estates and Jackson in his life time and his lawyers all denied 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.’
Like it was said at the start of this article, Jackson denying prior allegations and doubts from people regarding Wade’s change of heart is hardly going to compare to hours of slandering Jackson with graphic descriptions of the alleged sexual acts.
Another reason for not consulting the Jackson family is, ‘I – I – what was important to me was to have eye witnesses or people who could add something to the story. Err – I don’t know if the Jackson family has any direct knowledge of what happened to Wade and James. If they do then they should come –‘ (Reed gets cut off)
Reed never even bothered to reach out to the Jackson family to see if they had anything to add to the story. For example, is it not important that Brandi Jackson dated Wade during the time he was being abused by Jackson and ‘in love’ with him. Add to this, another claim in the documentary is that Jackson tried to make Wade and James hate girls/women. How does Jackson setting Brandi and Wade up make sense going by this claim?
When asked how he vetted the claims, Reed says he did a deep dive into the prior allegations made against Jackson, read witness statements and spoke to investigators and he ‘didn’t find anything that contradicted or cast any doubt whatsoever on Wade or James’s accounts’.
Given the fact that court documents relating to prior allegations against Jackson are freely available to find on the internet, these men could have looked at these allegations and built a story from what they found. However, in the case of Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo it’s alleged that Jackson groomed the boys. James also claims to have been groomed. However, Wade claims he was abused from the second night he stayed at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch. Although it should be noted Wade’s claim of when the abuse began has differed, there was still no grooming process.
Another factor is that Wade and James describe two very different molesters in their court documents. Whilst James basically makes Jackson out to be paranoid at being caught, even roughing up the bed sheets in another bed to make out James had slept there, Wade said Jackson abused him constantly and even did so in a trailer during the shooting of a commercial and a room next to a recording studio with numerous people outside in both circumstances
Reed was asked why he made it so graphic and he stated, ‘I think for many years Jackson got away with this image of being a bit of a child himself’ and ‘I wanted to make sure that people understood that this wasn’t over- enthusiastic kissing or cuddling, this was sex.’
Given Jackson was accused of molesting children in his lifetime claiming Jackson got ‘away’ with an image of ‘being a bit of a child himself’ doesn’t make sense. Jackson was investigated for 12 years and faced a criminal trial.
When asked if he had a preconceived notion about Jackson, Reed says he didn’t. He says he didn’t want to stake his reputation on something that didn’t have a strong factual basis and was untrue. He says during the two years of filming he looked for anything that could cast doubt and undermine Wade and James’s stories and he found nothing at all. He found the men’s stories to be consistent. Likewise their families.
Clearly Reed didn’t look deep enough. Both men have contradicted the entire premise of why they didn’t come forward sooner.
Wade claimed he didn’t realise he’d been sexually abused in his court documents. He says this was why he defended Jackson at his 2005 trial. Yet in a blog post titled ‘F.E.A.R’ he contradicts this by claiming he was ‘petrified’ at what would happen should he tell and truth and that he was ‘drenched in shame.’
James too claimed he didn’t realize he’d been sexually abused. This in spite of claiming throughout his declaration that Jackson intimidated him into never telling the truth and that he’d told his Mother about the abuse in 2005.
Safechuck also claimed that he didn’t realise he’d been abused before seeking therapy in May 2013.
From Opposition to Demurrer.
Reed says the pair weren’t paid and have ‘no financial interest whatsoever, and no future, past or present interest.’ While the pair may not have been paid for the documentary they do have lawsuits pending in the appeals court.
Reed finishes the interview with saying the documentary came about as he sat down with a Channel 4 executive to look at possible future documentaries and were thinking about the ‘big stories out there that people think they know but don’t know’. He says Jackson was one of these type of stories. He had somebody research and it led to discovering Wade and James’s lawsuits.
Reed says there’s a divide between ‘before watching the film and after watching it.’
Unless this documentary explains the numerous lies under oath and different stories, I doubt many well versed fans will have a change in opinion after watching the documentary.
Thanks so much for this information and analysis. It just makes me SO angry that Reed seems to consider he has delved deeply into the legal documents… but which ones? It also makes me angry that he has been allowed to get away with assuming the family probably wouldn’t know, so why ask them… while he makes very definite declarations about Michael’s behaviour, when he never even met him! There is so much that is unfair and abusive to Michael’s memory and his family in this entire LN promotional campaign it makes me feel emotionally and physically ill. Thanks again for keeping us informed.