Dan Reed is just as much of a liar as Wade and James are. He claims in his latest interview with the Guardian: "As soon as the movie was announced, people were denouncing the victims without even knowing who they were. It was just a knee-jerk reaction: these guys are liars."
That's a lie. We knew from the very beginning who they were. After all, unlike Reed, we have been following their court case for many years. We called it before they even announced their names that it was Robson and Safechuck.
One of the very first rebuttal videos of the subject was released in January 2019. It since has over 2.4 million views. Now tell me, Dan, if this was done by someone who didn't know who the accusers were?
In actuality we started doing that video with @itsmarymi before we knew of LN. That's why we could come out with it so quickly. It was already in the works. We didn't need LN to know these fraudsters.
Of course, we also knew the other one was Safechuck. Fans have been discussing their cases on forums for many years. We knew more about their case before watching LN than Reed knows about it even now, after making a film of them.
Reed is the guy who in his interview with the @guardian said that Robson sued the MJ Estate in 2015. He still doesn't know even basic stuff. No, Dan, he sued in 2013!
This director who most probably still hasn't read one page of court document in the case is trying to lecture us on what we knew or didn't know. Unreal!
More Reed lies: "Director Dan Reed has now revealed that they've quit various social media platforms because of the criticism they've subsequently received from fans and members of the Jackson family".
The truth is actually the contrary! Not only they did not quit social media, but Safechuck only really got active after LN. Before that he wasn't active on social media and his Instagram was private. After LN was released he seems to think of himself as a celebrity.
He deleted all previous content of his Instagram and he made it public. Ever since he either posts half nude photos of himself or photos of his kids, together with tagging CSA support groups.
Trying to use his kids for sympathy and as a shield from criticism . "Look, I'm this wholesome white family man! You won't believe the eccentric black man over me, will you?" kind of pics.
And Robson was already active on social media before LN, but he too only got active after he made his allegations in 2013. Before that his social media accounts weren't active.
Once he made his allegations, he too started plastering his kid's photos everywhere, using his photo in his avatar etc. And of course posturing as a "victim". The manipulative nature of it is transparent.
Robson even has a blog about what a big "victim" he is, where, BTW, he wrote stuff that's in contradiction with his lawsuit.
If MJ fans were so dangerous as Reed suggests neither of these frauds would plaster their kids' pictures all over social media - which, BTW, they are only doing since they made their allegations (Robson) or LN (Safechuck).
So this is nothing but another manipulative pity party by Reed. He is just as much of a liar as Robson and Safechuck are.
The media is at fault, though, because they just publish anything these liars claim without ever fact-checking it. How easy it would be to check out this claim about social media, for example? Huh, @guardian?
And then the whole claim that MJ's family didn't factually challenge LN, all they have is "MJ was a great guy". No, that's not all they have.
Unlike most other documentary makers, Reed never offered a platform to the other side to make their argument.
His astonishingly dishonest way of claiming "balance" was to put a couple of minutes of archive footage in his film from MJ where he maintains his innocence regarding the Chandler case. That's Reed's idea of "balanced". Oh and his manipulated footage of a Geragos speech.
Why didn't he give an opportunity in his film to MJ's Estate and family to answer? What was he afraid of if they have supposedly no factual defense? Isn't it up to the audience to decide whether their defense is good enough and not Reed?
But the audience will never even be able to see that defense. Even the surrounding media campaign made sure never to represent it. How many interviews and pro-LN articles have the @Guardian written and how many interviews have they made with MJ's Estate or family?
But they keep interviewing Reed even almost a year after LN.
And if Reed has not seen any factual defense of MJ, then why was he so desperate to defend Safechuck when his train station story was exposed to be a lie? To the extent that he even tried to rewrite Safechuck's own timeline in his defense. 
BTW, Reed is so ready for factual challenges of his poor excuse of a "documentary" that he blocks people who post him factual challenges.
