In a separate filing, Louisa Compton, the head of news and current affairs at Channel 4, which screened Leaving Neverland and is involved in the sequel, said: "It is easy to see why they do not want the subject matter of these films to be reported to the public." Reed disputed that, listing six BAFTA and five Emmy nominations over a 30-year career that included coverage of terrorism and war.
Jackson's lawyers argued Reed was not a journalist from an established media organisation that might otherwise be granted courtroom access. "Witnesses and counsel should not be forced to become characters in Reed's next for-profit commercial film." "Witnesses and counsel will almost certainly be less willing to participate in this case knowing that Reed is filming them … and may later edit together clips of testimony or argument to fit his pre-determined narrative that they assisted Jackson in the worst crimes imaginable," they wrote.
#Michael jackson leaving neverland documentary trial
Jackson's side also argued Reed's bias could affect how the trial itself played out. He said he tried to interview representatives for Jackson's companies and the estate but was rebuffed. ( Reuters: Phil Klein)īut Reed hit back in a separate filing, saying he intended the sequel to be a courtroom drama with "multiple points of view". Wade Robson's case against two of Jackson's companies is continuing. "Reed is … a filmmaker who intends to make a film for profit with a predetermined point of view."
"He has stated in no uncertain terms that he believes Michael Jackson was a 'prolific child rapist'. The Jackson team said of Reed in its filing: In August, Reed sought permission to film inside the courtroom for a planned sequel to Leaving Neverland, which he says will be released worldwide after the case is resolved.īut in a recent 164-page brief filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, obtained by the ABC, Jackson's team argued stridently against that in what appeared to be an attempt to scuttle production of another film.Ĭentral to their argument was a claim that Reed was biased and Leaving Neverland was a one-sided, non-journalistic affair. Now, Robson's case is the venue for a fight over the sequel Safechuck's attempt was thrown out last month, with a US judge saying the companies were not liable for any abuse Safechuck endured as a child.īut Robson's case is continuing and may make it to trial in California in 2021. These are the same accusations at the centre of a new court fight.īoth Robson and Safechuck had separately sued two companies Jackson ran, MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, cases that have been winding their way through the courts for years. Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed (centre) with documentary participants Wade Robson (left) and James Safechuck.
0 kommentar(er)
