Should Michael Jackson, R. Kelly abuse claims be heard on TV, or in a court?

The offences they detail allegedly happened up to 30 years ago, but the TV documentaries Leaving Neverland and Surviving R. Kelly could hardly be more timely.

Both give victims a platform to detail the sexual abuse they claim was perpetrated on them as minors by two of the world’s biggest pop stars, Michael Jackson and Robert (R) Kelly. Both suggest the acquittal of those men on child sexual abuse charges says more about the failings of the legal system than it does about their innocence. And both exist only because the West is now in the midst of a reckoning on such matters.

Equally, though, both point to one of the most pressing questions of our time: is it right to contest the validity of such claims in the court of public opinion or should they be the sole preserve of the legal system?

"Anyone can make allegations, but it’s proving them that matters, and that can only happen in the courtroom," says criminal barrister Colin Mandy, SC, who has appeared in a number of cases involving allegations of child sexual abuse. "The courtroom has rules of evidence, and is supervised by a judicial officer who conducts the proceeding with impartiality and fairness to all witnesses and parties. Documentaries and social media do not."

Fans of Michael Jackson – and a decade after his death, they remain plentiful and vociferous – have been quick to condemn the testimony of the two men whose stories form the spine of Leaving Neverland.

No way: For fans of Michael Jackson, the claims against him sound like opportunism.Credit: Reuters

They have pointed to the fact that Australian-born choreographer Wade Robson, 36, and sometime actor and musician James Safechuck, 42, are both seeking financial damages from Jackson’s estate. That, they argue, proves they are motivated purely by greed.

More damningly, they point to the fact both men have previously testified that Jackson never touched them in a sexual way during sleepovers at Neverland or at any other time.

In 1993, Safechuck, then aged about 16, and Robson, then 11 or 12, gave statements to police to that effect when Jackson faced a civil suit brought by the father of another child, Jordan Chandler (Jackson settled for an estimated $US23 million, but admitted no wrongdoing).

In 2005, Robson – then aged 23 or so – again testified that nothing had happened, as Jackson faced court on criminal charges relating to sexual misconduct with a minor (the singer was found not guilty on all 14 counts).

Similarly, R. Kelly – who never achieved anything like Jackson’s success in Australia, but has sold more than 75 million albums worldwide since the 1990s – was found not guilty on 21 charges of child pornography in 2008.

R. Kelly, right, last month entered a not guilty plea to 10 counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse. Credit: Chicago Sun-Times

Does that mean these men did nothing wrong? Or that their alleged victims were let down by the system – and that the media and social media are their best hope of attaining some justice?

"As a matter of law, unless [charges] are proved beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is innocent," says Mandy. Importantly, he adds, in a courtroom, the accused is represented and has the chance to contest allegations. In these documentaries and on social media, by contrast, "there are no checks and balances. Allegations are necessarily unfiltered, untested, and unproven and may be made with the full spectrum of possible motives, from noble to the most base."

In the case of Robson and Safechuck in particular, if they are telling the truth now that means they perjured themselves in the past.

"Once a witness has lied on oath, and then admits to having done so, there would have to be a big question mark over their credibility," says Mandy. "Especially when they are suing for vast amounts of money."

The victim’s perspective in such matters can be complicated, however. In the case of Kelly’s alleged abusing – which includes keeping a number of women as virtual sex slaves – not all of the women see themselves as victims, or understand their experience as abuse while it is happening. And in the case of Safechuck and Robson, it was not until adulthood that they understood their relationships with Jackson in such terms.

Robson confesses that he first saw the relationship as abusive when he looked at his own son and imagined Jackson doing the same things to him that he had experienced as a seven-year-old.

Wade Robson, director Dan Reed and James Safechuck at Leaving Neverland's premiere at Sundance in January.Credit: Taylor Jewell

"I think the abuse symptoms amplify when you have a child," says Safechuck, now a father of two, in Leaving Neverland. Robson confesses that he first saw the relationship as abusive when he looked at his own son and imagined Jackson doing the same things to him that he had experienced as a seven-year-old.

Safechuck says he and Jackson were like a married couple. Both he and Robson believed they had genuine love relationships with the star. But they were just kids, and a child's mind can easily be distorted.

"In research, offenders have admitted using techniques that prepare a child for some exploitative or abusive interaction," says Robyn Holder, a research fellow at Griffith University’s Criminology Institute. "Some of these techniques, like gift giving or saying they are 'special', can groom a child to trust the person using abuse.

"Other techniques, like isolating the child from family or saying they are worthless, work in a different way; they undermine the child's confidence."

All these techniques were allegedly used by Jackson and by Kelly, whose alleged victims were primarily in their mid-to-late teens.

As for covering for their abuser, Holder adds, "getting the child to keep secrets or to feel complicit are big parts of [the dynamic]".

In the case of R. Kelly, since the six-part series began airing in the US in early January, even more women have come forward with claims of abuse, and the singer has been charged with a raft of new offences. That perhaps points to the power of traditional media to redress past injustices – but series co-creator Tamra Simmons says it might never have happened had it not been for social media.

The #MuteRKelly campaign “had been going on for years prior to our documentary, they had been pushing the music industry to mute him because of the previous allegations”, she says. “So social media did help provide a certain platform for us to ask ‘is there something more there?’.”

“Women weren’t being heard years ago,” Simmons says, but now the pendulum has swung, thanks to #Metoo and #Timesup, to such a degree that “there’s a fear of not believing a woman at this time’’.

Tamra Simmons, executive producer of Surviving R Kelly, photographed at the Australian International Documentary Conference in Melbourne last week.Credit: Justin McManus

Had the legal system done its job properly, she insists, there might never have been any reason to make her series. But she hopes it’s not too late to make lasting change: “I don’t want to be talking about this 30 years from now.”

Leaving Neverland can be seen on tenplay.com.au (with ads) or tenallaccess.com.au (without ads, for subscribers). Surviving R. Kelly is on Foxtel’s Crime and Investigation channel.