Dimuthu W

“The only thing better than common sense is research.” 'Leaving Neverland' encourages believing one party's accusations at face value, feeds conjecture and basically recreates the Salem witch-hunt. Supporting allegations without investigation does not support abuse victims; it just creates a breeding ground for corruption. I rated this film negative because: - LN is one-sided and driven by shock value, not validity - Too many contradictions in the story have surfaced - The director omitted damning context about the accusers - Graphic detail of abuse can be researched and is not evidence - I do not support condemning a freed man without due process If reality worked like this film, we'd all be in trouble! The concept of a fair trial would be non-existent – there is allegation but no counter allegation, a prosecution but no defence, strong emotion but no fact checks. (1) LN is one-sided: The director cannot afford to live in a fantasy world where there is no such thing as a false allegation, so he needs to do his homework as a matter of principle, and share those findings with the viewer. He left this part out. Fortunately, investigative journalists, biographers, fans and critical thinkers in the public have done it for him, and the results strongly undermine the credibility of the accusers. (Good reads are the Forbes article by Joe Vogel "What You Should Know About the New Michael Jackson Documentary", or what acclaimed investigative journalist Colin Thomson has to say.) Also, LN omits the testimony of other children and their families who spent equal time with Jackson as the accusers did, but emphatically claim they were never molested by him. They have since shared open letters to the general public on social media. (E.g. Brett Barnes, Roslyn Witzcohen, and Franziska/Anton/Marlies/Wolfgang Schleiter in their letter "Enough is Enough".) (2) 'Leaving Neverland' omits context about the accusers. It is a significant blow to credibility when the accusers are also perjurers who swore under oath multiple times in front of a grand jury that Jackson never did anything improper to them. Also it is a conflict of interest that they unsuccessfully attempted to sue Jackson's estate for 1.5 billion dollars. They since revised their new narrative multiple times so this story we hear is version 4 or more. They even tried to sell their story to publishers but failed. The film is a new attempt - and coinciding with the height of the 'MeToo' movement giving it maximum impact as they appeal for the payout this year. (3) I do not support condemning a freed man without due process: For context, Jackson died a free man judged by a grand jury in 2005 in what was called the 'Trial of the Century'. This trial also included data from prior accusations which is rare and made the trial harder to win. Despite intense media frenzy, a relentless prosecution, multiple raids of his house, physical inspections of his body, an extensive trial with years of data, as well as an FBI investigation on top, there was nothing incriminating Jackson. (The FBI data and full trial transcripts are all public record.) The media made their money off him and the Huffington Post rightfully called it "one of the most shameful journalistic episodes". Now to throw all that out of the window, and to assert Jackson somehow was still a criminal mastermind, we need a solid argument. But these new accusations have too many contradictions. The director said in an interview that this film is not a work of investigative journalism; the men are given a platform to tell their story (with haunting music). So without solid rationale, he elevated accusers to victim status, and that became the premise for public outcry. Unfortunately a lawsuit cannot be filed for defaming the dead, but this is a tabloid formula in the guise of serious film.