‘A public lynching’: Michael Jackson’s family slams ‘Leaving Neverland’ documentary

by Charlotte Krol

 

Michael Jackson Credit: Phil Walter/Getty Images

 

Michael Jackson’s family members have denounced a new documentary as “public lynching”.

 

In a statement, the family argued that the late singer is unable to defend himself against the sexual abuse allegations made by two men in Leaving Neverland, which premiered at the Sundance Film festival on Friday (January 25).

 

“Michael always turned the other cheek, and we have always turned the other cheek when people have gone after members of our family – that is the Jackson way,” part of the statement read.

 

“But we can’t just stand by while this public lynching goes on…Michael is not here to defend himself, otherwise these allegations would not have been made.”

 

Full Story: https://www.nme.com/news/music/public-lynching-michael-jacksons-family-slam-leaving-neverland-documentary-2439502

Seems the lackluster talent definition of "lynching" is a bit different then the 1800 definition they are trying to invoke.

Turning the cheeks was the problem

16 hours ago, HLover said:

Seems the lackluster talent definition of "lynching" is a bit different then the 1800 definition they are trying to invoke.

While that kind of lynching went on in 1800, it also went on in the 1900s too!

Who is the family's advisor in this campaign, Gary Glitter?

No smoke without ........ 

A documentary holding this barrage of accusations should have taken its time to lay and relay *facts*. I am not a fan, but I am a fan of justice. Four hours of filth shocks anyone, but the way the media runs away with this, and is willing to acuse someone based on two narratives is bad journalism. Dan Reed (the director) made another documentary that in retrospect wasnt complete objective. "Where there is smoke there is fire" so is the argument. But that the accussers are suspect - Wade from committing perjury and was grilled intensively both by the prosecuter as Jackson lawyer (which spoke out recently) , and that the other acusser came with his claim when his money well dried - isnt this also smoke? Hé was acquited in 2005. The FBI after a research of almost a decade found no evidence. The 1993 case never went to a criminal court - it could without the settlement? This is a lot of smoke. I understand that watching four hours of filth does something to your mind, but as a journalist you should never loose objectivity.  Make a time Line. Talk to others. Find alternated narratives. Look info the background of the director before we nail someone on the cross - how "convicing the narratives can be: do not loose objectivity."