When filmmaker Dan Reed set about making a follow-up to his Emmy-winning documentary Leaving Neverland, he thought it would show Wade Robson and James Safechuck telling their truth about Michael Jackson in front of a jury. But six years after the first film, the two have yet to take the stand to describe the sexual abuse they allege the singer inflicted on them.
Leaving Neverland II instead chronicles Robson and Safechuck on their arduous quest for justice, having filed lawsuits against Jackson’s companies, MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, for failing to protect them as children during their time at Neverland. The long-awaited trial is set for November 2026, and Reed believes both men are determined to share their stories.
“Because the Jackson estate, at all costs, wants to avoid a trial, they have found ways to delay and delay. And as (trial lawyer) John Carpenter says in the film, justice delayed, is justice denied,” Reed stated. “This is not just about establishing the facts of Jackson's sexual abuse of children; it's about recognizing the many people around him who enabled and covered up the abuse.”
The documentary, airing on Channel 4 on March 18, follows Robson and Safechuck through various legal setbacks. Thankfully, hope emerged when, in 2023, three appeal judges ruled they could proceed to trial, calling previous rulings against their testimony “perverse.”
Reed anticipates controversy surrounding the film, as it challenges the beliefs of Jackson's fervent fans. “A lot of people know, but his fans don't care... because he could make great music? Those two things can both be true,” Reed argues, emphasizing the dual narrative of Jackson as both a musical icon and alleged predator.
So far, five boys who shared beds with Jackson have accused him of sexual misconduct, with most cases being settled out of court. Robson claims the abuse began at age seven, shortly after he met Jackson, and continued for the next seven years. Meanwhile, Safechuck alleges the abuse started when he was only ten, during a trip to Paris, and persisted until he was twelve.
While critics often label them as opportunistic, Reed defends their sincerity. “People say, ‘they're just gold-diggers, trying to get a quick buck.’ Well, what you see in my film—that's not any kind of buck. And it's certainly not quick,” Reed said passionately. “If they wanted to make money, they could have just said, ‘Give us $10 million each, we'll go quietly.’ But they didn't, because they have backbone.”
The counterargument suggests the Jackson estate prioritizes profits—still earning millions annually since his death. Reed responds, noting Robson and Safechuck have arrived at this moment as adults who wish to confront their pasts definitively. “When you are sexually abused as a child, it's horrifically damaging,” he emphasized. “It's important for Wade and James to have acknowledgment from the jury of what occurred and to hold those who facilitated the abuse accountable.”
Significantly, Wade had previously testified back in 2005, claiming Jackson had not abused him during the singer's trial for allegedly molesting teenager Gavin Arvizo. Reed understands the pressure Wade faced at the time. “Someone seduces you as a little child... What’s the upside of telling? You piss off the most famous man in the world,” Reed explained. Now, Wade simply states: “I wasn’t able to tell the truth. Absolutely not.”
Feeling hopeful about finally bringing their case to light, Wade called the court's ruling “powerful.” He added, “Standing up for all children is how the ruling felt to me.” Despite being “fricking terrified” to discuss the abuse, Wade sees the opportunity as “a win for me.”
Both men argue for accountability, emphasizing the implication of those who worked closely with Jackson. “All Michael Jackson’s interactions were organized by staff. There were bodyguards outside the door when the abuse was going on. People must have known—there was this constant presence of kids,” Wade stated.
James echoed similar sentiments: “You blame yourself for the abuse, and that's a terrible feeling. Pursuing this was the act of fighting back. I wanted to fight for myself and for little James.” He expressed appreciation for the chance to finally seek justice.
Dan Reed highlights the extraordinary commitment of the two men, asserting the challenges they face are emblematic of the struggle many victims endure against powerful figures. “This filibuster-like delay shows how the other side's lawyers can put you through hell to keep justice at bay,” Reed noted. “But they are standing strong, fighting for their rights.”
Their attorney, Vince Finaldi, expressed satisfaction over the appeal ruling dismissing arguments about safety measures at Neverland, reinforcing the notion of corporate liability. “If the corporation facilitates the abuse of children... then the corporation should be held liable,” he affirmed.
John Manly, another attorney on the team, argues Jackson's tactics serve as warning signals, creating fear among other potential victims to remain silent. With the trial looming just 20 months away, Carpenter asserted confidence, declaring, “I only take cases I can win. I’m looking forward to this trial.”
Months away from their day in court, Robson and Safechuck remain focused on their mission for justice. Reed describes their unequivocal desire to testify: “Above all, they want their day in court.” He adds, “If there is a trial, Wade and James make pretty persuasive witnesses.”
If you have been the victim of sexual assault, access help and resources via www.rapecrisis.org.uk or call the national telephone helpline at 0808 802 9999.