A few weeks after its release, the documentary Leaving Neverland is once again controversial. One of the two alleged victims would have lied about a scene that would have occurred at the star's ranch …
Difficult to know who is right. Almost ten years after giving his last breath, June 25, 2009Michael Jackson again sees his reputation contaminated. After Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo, two new victims accuse him of sexually abusing them when they were children. This is Wade Robson, a young dancer whom he helped early in his career, as did James Safechuck, whom he met on the set of an advertisement for Pepsi. In the documentary Leaving Neverland– streaming March 21 last in M6 – both report some particularly frightening scenes that would have occurred on the farm. Pop king. in between "Initiation to masturbation" and sexual acts, his testimonies disturbed public opinion.
The problem is that for many, these claims are just a lot of lies. Angered, Michael Jackson fans are also very much prone to boycott the documentary, some even going to file a complaint against the two alleged victims. Will new revelations prove they're right? According to Dan Reed, the director of Leaving Neverland, a key element of James Safechuck's testimony would have been invented from scratch.
The testimony of James Safechuck very questioned
In the feature film broadcast for the first time at the Sundance Film Festival, the alleged victim evoked a scene that would have occurred on the train Neverland. Isolated from the singer who died at the age of 50, James Safechuck was allegedly sexually assaulted. But it turns out that this famous train did not exist at the time of the facts! As Mike Smallcombe, a former biographer of Michael Jackson, reveals, was built just two years after the man claimed to have been abused. He, who claims to have suffered Michael Jackson's ill-treatment until the age of 14, would have been under his control until 1992, when the project began in September 1993, for possession in 1994. Daily MailDan Reed acknowledged that James Safechuck's statement was potentially incorrect. Enough to stigmatize the rest of the documentary?