What’s amazing, though, is how people’s opinion on MJ have changed in that very short space of time. Some people started off rightly outraged and sickened by the allegations levelled at the singer, while others, upon reflection and a little reading around the stories, feel that not everything quite adds up.
Then there’s the people who blindly support Michael because he’s no longer here to defend himself and in their eyes he can do no wrong.
I’m by no means saying that he is guilty but it’s a frightening thought that – people potentially disbelieving the cold, hard truth about someone just because they’re a fan.
By now you’ll no doubt know that the two-part film focuses on testimonies by Wade Robson, 36, and James Safechuck, 41, who claim Jackson befriended and abused them when they were youngsters.
As I say, some people have been scathing in their commentary of the two accusers, claiming that they’re only in it for the money.
Now, director Dan Reed has responded to those accusations in a recent piece for The Guardian. Reed wrote about the criticism against Robson as he previously defended Jackson under oath during his 2004 trial.
In the piece, Reed said:
“In 2013, Wade (joined later by James in a separate, but similar case) launched a lawsuit against Jackson’s estate, claiming that Jackson’s business associates knew he was molesting little boys but turned a blind eye.
“Their cases were dismissed on technical grounds, but the judge made no ruling on the validity of the abuse claims. The cases have both gone to appeal.”
Speaking about where Robson and Safechuck’s ‘gold’ would come from, he continued: “The answer is that Wade and James would have to win it in a hotly contested court battle.
“A jury would have to weigh up evidence – of which there is plenty – and decide that their claims were valid. And damages would then be awarded against the Jackson estate. Some people would call that justice.
Explaining that “telling the truth was out of the question” for Robson at the time, he added:
“He had never told a soul, not even his mother. So the Jackson camp now call him an admitted liar. This argument falls apart when you apply even the merest dusting of common sense.”
The director then turned his attention to Jackson himself, specifically his alleged behaviour with young boys:
“The most extraordinary thing in all this is that no-one denies that Jackson took little boys to his bed, night after night, for many, many years. What did his family and business associates think he was doing with these little boys behind a locked door?
“Did they believe he was actually a child in the body of a man and therefore somehow needed to sleep with little boys? That makes no sense if you think about it for more than a second.”
This comes after it was recently announced that MJ’s nephew, Taj Jackson, is planning to make his own counter documentary which will pick apart the HBO special and detail Michael’s various trials.
Furthermore, singer and lifelong friend of Michael Jackson, Aaron Carter, released a scathing video in defence of his friend while blasting how he was depicted in the documentary.
The plot thickens.
In fact, I suspect that given the amount of media coverage this story has been given, more and more details will start emerging by the day.
At this point, I genuinely don’t know what to think about it all. While I certainly don’t think MJ is an innocent party in all this – the evidence is just too great – I’m just not convinced by the extent of the allegations.
It’s a minefield and my head hurts.
Images via HBO/Getty/Twitter/YouTube
Charismatic, witty, charming, engaging - four things Joshua Rogers will never be. Thankfully, he’s a semi-competent editor, who, after graduating university with two mostly pointless degrees, joined The Hook two years ago. He subsequently honed his writing skills over several features and investigative pieces, arguably letting The Hook audience in on way too much of his personal life.