.png)
"Leaving Neverland 2" Alleges Online Death Threats, But Ignores How Online Discourse Dismantled the Accusers' Claims
- MJStory
- Mar 19
- 9 min read
Updated: Mar 19
The new documentary points fingers at Jackson's defense but steers clear of addressing years of factual challenges.
When news broke that Leaving Neverland 2 was in the works, many were left wondering: what new ground could possibly be covered after the original documentary—stretching over four hours, plus an additional Oprah Winfrey special—already gave Wade Robson, James Safechuck, and their families the platform to speak, unchallenged and uninterrupted? Director Dan Reed, it seems, has nothing substantial or new to show for it. Unlike the Surviving R. Kelly follow-up, which introduced a wave of new accusers and fresh allegations, Leaving Neverland 2 has no new accusers who have agreed to speak to Reed—not even individuals from past high-profile cases like Jordan Chandler or Gavin Arvizo (despite efforts to reach them).
Once again, Reed is relying solely on Robson and Safechuck, without offering viewers any new testimonies or revelations to expand the story. And with their multi-million-dollar lawsuits against Michael Jackson’s companies — omitted entirely from the original Leaving Neverland — still tied up in court, there’s very little justification for releasing yet another documentary at this point. Rather than presenting new facts or perspectives, Leaving Neverland 2 appears to double down on old clichés—this time pushing narratives highlighting alleged death threats from Michael Jackson fans. Hey, you gotta keep the franchise going, right?
Now, with new materials in hand, it’s time to begin another sequel: the dismantling of Leaving Neverland 2—and there’s more yet to unfold.
The Myth of the Dangerous MJ Fandom
Besides Jackson himself, Leaving Neverland 2 suddenly introduced a few new alleged villains into Robson and Safechuck’s narrative—among them, Michael Jackson’s fans.
Robson and Safechuck lean heavily on this familiar trope—not just to frame themselves as underdogs battling Jackson’s towering fame and global fanbase, but also to justify gaps and contradictions in their own story by claiming fear kept them silent.
Yet, this narrative begins to unravel under closer examination. In more than three decades of allegations against Jackson, there is little to suggest that his fans have engaged in any coordinated or sustained campaign of harassment or violence. What Reed describes as a menacing force appears, in most cases, to be isolated online disputes.
The Chandler family, for example—who made the earliest and most high-profile accusations against Jackson—frequently claimed to be victims of fan harassment. Yet the only legal incident that resulted in charges involved Denise Michelle Pfeiffer, a non-American fan who vandalized Evan Chandler’s office and was charged with minor offenses like petty theft and graffiti. Beyond this isolated case, most claims of harassment stemmed from uncorroborated statements to the press, such as Ray Chandler’s infamous claim of “dead animals” left in mailboxes—never substantiated by law enforcement.
Evan Chandler, father of the accuser and architect of the 1993 lawsuit, continued to operate his dental practice without issue, despite the controversy surrounding the case, until his suicide years later. Similarly, Conrad Murray—the doctor convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Jackson’s death—has been able to continue practicing medicine without facing the kind of sustained backlash or intimidation Reed and the accusers suggest is typical of Jackson’s supporters.
If Jackson’s fanbase were truly as threatening as Leaving Neverland 2 suggests—and as Robson and Safechuck allege in their lawsuits—wouldn’t we see a clear pattern of police reports, arrests, or official investigations over the decades? The reality simply doesn’t support that narrative.
(Side note: perhaps it’s fitting to mention that the one person who actually did severely assault Jordan Chandler was none other than his father, Evan.)
Threats against Robson and Safechuck
The notion that anonymous online threats constitute a credible, systemic issue is, frankly, disingenuous. Any public figure—especially those at the center of high-profile controversies—is bound to receive hateful messages or vague threats online. It’s an unfortunate but common byproduct of today’s digital culture, and it proves absolutely nothing. From actors to journalists to athletes, online backlash is hardly unique to this situation.
The inflammatory comments highlighted by Reed appear to come from unknown or fringe individuals claiming to be MJ fans, often hiding behind “sock puppet” accounts—people who are neither prominent nor representative of Jackson’s global fanbase. In fact, the overwhelming majority of Jackson’s supporters openly condemn such behavior.
Yet rather than acknowledging this reality, Dan Reed seems more interested in monitoring fan discussions to cherry-pick isolated, anonymous remarks and frame them as evidence of a coordinated campaign.
The real question is: do these scattered online comments constitute a serious, organized threat worthy of a full-length documentary sequel? Or are they being magnified to pad out the runtime—and to conveniently distract from the facts Reed continues to avoid?
It’s also worth noting that online harassment is far from one-sided. Some of the most vile and graphic comments in this debate have come from individuals supporting Robson and Safechuck—targeting Jackson’s family members, fans, and even unrelated bystanders with disturbing and violent messages. Yet Leaving Neverland 2 shows little interest in addressing this broader toxicity, focusing instead solely on Jackson’s critics’ favorite punching bag: his fanbase.
After all, across popular culture, every major fandom—from K-pop to Swifties to Star Wars—has its share of outliers. The MJ community is no exception. But reducing millions of supporters worldwide to a handful of faceless trolls? That’s misleading at best.
Actions Speak Louder: Safechuck’s New Public Persona
Look no further than James Safechuck, Leaving Neverland’s most prominent “star.” Despite claims of fearing for his safety, he switched his social media profiles to public shortly after Leaving Neverland aired, seemingly enjoying the attention and frequently sharing personal updates—including images of his children.
If one were truly terrified of a hostile online group, would they openly post family photos, much less involve their own children in a public battle against the so-called “dangerous” MJ fanbase?
Even more telling, Safechuck’s children actually appear in Leaving Neverland 2 itself. This directly contradicts the notion that he faces a serious threat from Jackson’s supporters. If the danger were real, wouldn’t keeping his family out of the spotlight be the obvious response?
Who’s the Real Bully Here?
While Leaving Neverland 2 tries to paint Michael Jackson fans as an intimidating force, court records suggest a different story. Legal documents reveal that it was actually Robson and Safechuck’s legal team who engaged in aggressive and inappropriate conduct during the discovery phase of their lawsuits.
Witnesses³ were reportedly chased in public spaces, harassed, and pressured to testify*, with some describing the treatment as bullying and humiliating during depositions. Jonathan Spence, one of Jackson’s longtime younger friends (who has never accused Jackson of abuse), became entangled in this legal battle as well—asking the court to sanction Robson and Safechuck’s attorneys over their “bullying behavior” during their coercive attempts to compel him to testify.
And notably, Jordan Chandler—central to the 1993 case—has actively distanced himself from Robson and Safechuck’s lawsuit, despite their legal team's repeated public attempts to involve him, including efforts to contact his younger sister and ex-fiancé.
We’re talking about alleged victims here—at least as far as Wade and James are supposedly concerned, remember?
Adding to this pattern is Dan Reed’s own conduct. In 2019, he personally sent a letter to Paris Jackson, Michael Jackson’s daughter—someone publicly known to have endured emotional struggles including reported suicide attempts and addiction, since her father’s death—informing her about Leaving Neverland (after it was publicly announced). Was this truly a journalistic necessity, or an ill-considered move designed to provoke yet another vulnerable individual?
Nothing but Red Herring
If Reed had the time to comb through fan forums, monitor social media feeds, and cherry-pick a handful of anonymous hot-headed comments to paint Jackson’s supporters as dangerous, then he certainly had the time—and the responsibility—to engage with the mountain of factual inconsistencies that fans, journalists, and legal experts have placed at his feet.
While Reed zeroes in on mundane online chatter, the internet has, for years, been flooded with public revelations that directly undermine Robson and Safechuck’s credibility. These aren’t obscure blog posts or conspiracy theories—they’re documented findings, court filings, and first-hand accounts that Reed actively avoids or brushes off with flimsy excuses.
Take the now-infamous train station blunder, first exposed by fans and researchers online: James Safechuck specifically claimed he was abused in Neverland’s train station between 1987 and 1990. According to his narrative, the abuse ended in 1992 when Jackson allegedly "replaced him with a younger boy". Yet public building records—and multiple photographs—confirm the station wasn’t even constructed until 1994.
Reed’s responses over time have only highlighted his bias. He has shifted from dismissing the error as "irrelevant," to suggesting Safechuck simply got the dates wrong and that the abuse may have extended past 1992. When that excuse collapsed, Reed floated bizarre theories—including the baseless claim that the station might have been demolished and rebuilt—despite zero evidence supporting it.
A credible journalist would have pressed Safechuck directly to explain this contradiction on record. Instead, Reed shields his interviewee, inventing flimsy excuses on his behalf.
Another glaring inconsistency Reed avoids is Wade Robson’s conflicting account of his first alleged abuse and his family’s 1990 Grand Canyon trip.
In Leaving Neverland, Robson claims that while his family visited the Grand Canyon, he was left alone at Neverland where Jackson continued abusing him. Yet in his unpublished 2012 book manuscripts, Robson claimed the abuse began after his family left him behind—contradicting the documentary’s timeline, which alleges it started beforehand.
It goes further. His mother, Joy Robson, testified under oath in 1994, again in 2005, and later in 2016 that Wade never stayed alone at Neverland prior to 1993. She confirmed that the entire family—including Wade—traveled together to the Grand Canyon after their first weekend at Neverland. His sister, Chantal, also testified that she stayed in Jackson’s room that second night, contradicting Robson’s claims of being isolated.
The least Reed could have done was confront the Robson family about these conflicting accounts. But he didn’t.
Or take Brandi Jackson, Michael Jackson's niece and Wade Robson’s former girlfriend.
Brandi has publicly contradicted Robson’s stories, pointing out that they were dating during the very years Robson claims Jackson was isolating him and “teaching him to hate girls.” Brandi has repeatedly made herself available—but instead of exploring her testimony, Reed dismissed her as irrelevant and declined to question Robson on the matter.
Then there’s Brett Barnes, bizarrely named in Leaving Neverland as a so-called “replacement victim,” alongside Macaulay Culkin—boys who allegedly replaced Safechuck and Robson once they were “too old” for Jackson (Culkin, who Robson claims replaced him, is actually two years older than Robson). Yet both Barnes and Culkin have consistently and forcefully denied any abuse or inappropriate behavior by Jackson.
In fact, Barnes, through his legal team, formally demanded that his name be removed from the documentary—a request the filmmakers ignored and rejected.
Reed, once again, disregards this rejection entirely—choosing to keep Barnes in the narrative while ignoring the fact that both men publicly disavowed the very claims at the heart of his film.
But Reed skipped yet another opportunity for journalistic integrity: after Barnes’ public statement, why didn’t he confront Robson and Safechuck with the fact that their supposed “replacements” not only deny abuse but openly accuse them of exploiting Michael Jackson?
All of this could have been addressed in Leaving Neverland 2.
Yet instead of grappling with this critical information, Reed is building more smokescreens.
Leaving Neverland 2 even features an interview with a Michael Jackson supporter, Andy Signore—not to genuinely explore counterarguments, but to create the illusion of balance.
The result? A documentary that masquerades as more “rounded” than its predecessor, yet leans even harder on straw man arguments and red herrings. It’s a familiar distraction tactic: rather than addressing glaring inconsistencies, Reed focuses on cherry-picked online disputes and fallacious reasoning.
All of it likely aimed at ensuring viewers miss the deeper, unresolved questions—and the mountain of contradictions, sworn testimony, and legal findings that undermine the film’s premise.
Because if Dan Reed is busy hunting ghosts in comment sections while turning a blind eye to hard evidence, the real story is the one he’s so carefully avoiding.
Notes:
¹ The Chandlers contributed to several books and tabloid stories, including working with Victor Gutierrez—an infamous pedophilia fantasist—on a book that featured private, shirtless photos of Jordan Chandler, which the family reportedly provided. These images were used in an objectifying and disturbing manner within the book’s narrative. Ray Chandler (Jordan’s uncle) also authored All That Glitters, a book dedicated to the 1993 allegations and settlement.
² Despite Safechuck’s decision to feature his children in Leaving Neverland 2, this article will not share images of unrelated minors.
³ Other witnesses who accused Robson and Safechuck’s legal teams of bullying and pressuring tactics include: Lily Chandler, Tabitha Marks, and Yoshi Whaley.
**** A “straw man” argument misrepresents or oversimplifies an opposing view to easily knock it down.
***** A “red herring” is a distraction tactic that diverts attention away from the real issue.
Comments