Kelly was hired to investigate (his father is a PI) and to shoot the video relatedly. Mike paid for everything; Kelly didn't have a nickel to his name. I understood at the time, as others did, that Kelly was producing this for Mike. But he was a good two years late with the project. I'm not privy to what happened next but will guess that Mike chewed him over the lack of results, so Kelly walked off with the film. That's a guess, but an educated guess. I do know that he broke contact with all concerned, including me.
The lawyer did not figure in these matters at the time. At least her name never came up in my hearing (and I was pretty close to things).
Let me see what I can learn about it. Meanwhile, I can't say whether the video "should" be shown until one can be satisfied that it's accurate. (One colleague who reviewed a lot of the footage earlier said it was disorganized and not very good.) I'd rather nothing be shown than get the wrong story out.
=== I'd rather nothing be shown than get the wrong story out.
I'm glad to hear you say this. There is that part of me so desperate to have any attention at all given this story that I'm tempted to cave and just wish it were out there.
But, in addition to Galster's very real claims, I too would rather we not risk getting some Oliver Stone version of the story which only compounds the coverage afforded by passage of time to the actors in this story.