Watch Dan Reed duck the most important question about making Leaving Neverland
Who is Dan Reed?
No Facts, No Witnesses, No Evidence – No Problem
Dan Reed has repeatedly ducked the question of whether he considered speaking to anyone outside of Wade Robson, James Safechuck and their families for his film. As evidenced by the video on this page in which he dances around the question for nearly two minutes at the Sundance Film Festival, it’s not a subject he wants to talk about.
Likewise, when he was asked by the Los Angeles Times if he approached Brett Barnes and Macaulay Culkin, both of whom have denied Michael ever engaged in an inappropriate behavior, he also ducked the question. Initially stating he “considered” them, Reed provided another misleading answer.
For the record. Brett Barnes has been vocal on Twitter (see below) in criticizing Reed’s film, which answer the question of what happened after he “considered” him.
Dan Reed rewrites history
Dan Reed sets himself up as judge and jury to use his film to invalidate the 2005 unanimous jury verdict in Santa Maria acquitting Michael Jackson on all charges.
First, Wade Robson now says he lied under oath when he testified that Michael did nothing untoward to him, and casts himself as a reluctant. That flies in the face of every account, including those of Robson’s himself after the trial. Here is how he explained his decision to testify to Access Hollywood in 2007:
“Because he’s always been a friend to me. That’s what you do for friends – you tell the truth. I can’t speak for him but it would be an absolutely painful thing for anybody to go through.”
Wade Robson discussing his friendship with Michael Jackson on Access Hollywood
As Michael’s attorney, Tom Mesereau, has stated: “I found Wade articulate and likeable. But he staunchly defended Michael. His mother and sister supported him in their statements. On the stand, Wade was then subjected to a withering prosecutor. I’m shocked that he’s taken a position contrary to what he told me, and what he testified to in court.”
Michael Jackson author Joe Vogel wrote that, “Prior to the trial Robson hadn’t seen Jackson for years and was under no obligation to be a witness for the defense. He faced a withering cross-examination, understanding the penalty of perjury for lying under oath. But Robson adamantly, confidently, and credibly asserted that nothing sexual ever happened.”
But through selective editing, he paints jurors as superficial, even using clips of an interview with one female juror complaining about the mother of the accuser snapping her fingers at them, making it appear that that was the only reason she voted to acquit.
In truth, the prosecution case completely unraveled. Here is what Jeffrey Toobin, now CNN’s chief legal analyst, said:
“A lot of people are going to be surprised, and you don’t need a law degree to understand this verdict. It is an absolute and complete victory for Michael Jackson, utter humiliation and defeat for Thomas Sneddon, the district attorney who has been pursuing Michael Jackson for more than a decade, who brought a case that was not one that this jury bought at all. This one’s over.”
In 2017, four of the jurors in the case were reunited for a television special and asked how would vote if given another chance. As Global News wrote, “Most importantly, the jurors say, if the trial took place in 2017, they would still find Jackson not guilty of all the charges.”
Dan Reed’s lie to the press
Dan Reed misled the press at Sundance with a “heartwarming” story that suggested Wade Robson and James Safechuck had been kept apart “for legal reasons” and that the Sundance film festival was their poignant reunion as adults. Here is what he told Rolling Stone: “Sundance was the first time as adults that they had met. It’s the first time they’ve had any significant time together.’
But look at Wade Robson’s deposition taken on December 12, 2016, in which he was asked point blank, “When was the last time you spoke to James Safechuck?”
Robson’s answer: “I believe the last time was in early 2014,”