Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs in Arabic Unlock the Editor’s Digest for freeRoula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.In 2019, Wade Robson and James Safechuck accused Michael Jackson of having groomed and sexually abused them as children in the divisive documentary Leaving Neverland. The disturbing allegations, graphically detailed in the film, were dismissed at the time as “uncorroborated” testimonies by the late pop star’s estate, which also pointed out that both accusers had previously “testified under oath that these events never occurred”. Jackson himself strenuously denied all such allegations throughout his life and was cleared of all charges in a child sex abuse trial in 2005 (during which Robson appeared as a witness for the defence — a decision he now attributes to his trauma). Since the documentary’s release, director Dan Reed has followed Robson and Safechuck’s fight to have their case against Jackson’s companies MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures tried in front of a jury. The result is Leaving Neverland 2, a new standalone film that traces both the protracted legal proceedings and reflects on how the original documentary was litigated in the court of public opinion.Running at just under an hour, this follow-up is perhaps too cursory to be viewed as a fully fledged sequel. But with a trial date proposed for next year, it provides a timely and concise update on how the case has progressed — and been stalled — to this point. Interviews with the plaintiffs’ lawyers and footage from pivotal court hearings offer insight into the complexity of mounting a case against Jackson’s corporations for crimes allegedly committed by the singer in private.Where the previous film focused on Jackson, here attention shifts to those who worked for him. The plaintiffs’ claims that employees and colleagues helped facilitate the alleged abuse appeared to be undermined in 2021 when a Los Angeles judge ruled that Jackson’s companies had “no legal ability” to control him since he was the sole owner of both corporations. That ruling was overturned on appeal in 2023 on the grounds that “it would be perverse to find no duty based on the corporate defendant having only one shareholder”. The Jackson estate reiterated at that time that the allegations “are contrary to all credible evidence and independent corroboration”.Jackson’s representatives, we’re told, “declined every opportunity to participate” in the documentary. But Reed perhaps does too little here to address the criticisms of one-sidedness that were raised against the first film. Besides a brief interview with a YouTuber who disputes Leaving Neverland’s claims, there is notably no new testimony from anyone who knew or worked with the singer. And while the director clearly seeks to support Safechuck and Robson — who talk movingly of the toll on them of their lengthy legal battles, the public backlash to their claims and the regret of not having spoken out sooner — he arguably does them few favours by not taking a more balanced approach. Perhaps there is a feeling that Jackson’s supporters have a sufficiently influential presence outside the documentary. We see clips of heated public protests that followed the 2019 film, media personalities making disparaging comments about the accusers, and a telling shot of fans queueing to watch MJ the Musical in the West End last year. With a big-budget Hollywood biopic, Michael, due for release in October, it seems only right that Leaving Neverland 2 reminds us of the serious accusations skirted by these Jackson estate-approved productions.★★★☆☆Channel 4 in the UK, March 18 at 9pm. On YouTube in the US from March 18
