The documentary was doing one thing - putting forward the story of two people (and their families) who claim they were abused by Jackson. That's it. So I don't see a problem with the 'narrative', it wasn't trying to provide two sides to the story, just the account of those families. Either Wade and James are lying, or they're not. I'm sure they're not.You can take what you want from it, I was merely putting a different slant on it. Look, Michael Jackson could well have been the biggest predatory paedophile of our lifetime, or not. My point was that the agenda of said documentary was to put across a particular narrative.
The tweet you've quoted is from someone claiming that Wade has lied. Someone who wouldn't be in a position to know whether Wade was lying or not.