Fact Checking Statements Made By MJInnocent.com
Mar 10, 2019
The slogan of MJ Innocent boldly declares, "Facts don’t lie. People do." This website, supposedly dedicates itself to protecting the legacy of Michael Jackson, by presenting a staunch defence against the allegations put forth by Wade Robson and James Safechuck in Leaving Neverland.
While the "MJInnocent Team" asserts their unwavering support for all abuse victims, including survivors of child sex abuse, it's noteworthy that their campaign commenced prior to the documentary's release. Notably, they secured funding for ads promoting their contentious stance on a limited number of London transport buses.
This prompts an important inquiry: does the MJ Innocent Team genuinely prioritize the well-being of victims and the pursuit of truth, or are they simply a faction of devoted celebrity worshippers engaging in victim shaming?
Its important to note, that the majority of information that MJ Innocent put on their website initially wasn't original, let alone actually based on real research, but rather a copy and paste job from the Jackson estate “Petition to Compel Arbitration” to HBO's parent company, WarnerMedia for violating a “Non-Disparagement Clause” by showing Leaving Neverland.
Here's a saved snapshot of how MJ Innocent looked like on 8 March, 2019: archive.fo
Below I will take a look at what they have stated, and whether it has any truth. Text highlighted in grey with a blue line is directly from MJ Innocent, with my response below each one.
"Robson and Safechuck have sworn under oath that Michael Jackson NEVER did anything inappropriate. Robson was questioned in detail during Michael Jackson's criminal trial in 2005 and repeatedly denied any wrongdoing by Michael Jackson."
Most people are well aware of Wade and James' defence of Jackson during their childhood. It is also common knowledge that Wade, as an adult, continued to defend Jackson during his criminal trial and subsequent TV interviews.
In contrast, James did not defend Jackson in 2005, nor did he do any public interviews.
Both Wade and James have articulated their reasons for defending Jackson before and during the Leaving Neverland documentary. They explained that Jackson groomed and seduced them into believing they were his closest and best friends. They also expressed feeling complicit in the sexual activities and fearing incarceration if any details were to surface.
Here’s a great interview with Victoria Derbyshire: bbc.co.uk
It's important to note that both Wade and James were children when the alleged abuse occurred, while Jackson was an adult. They idolized Jackson during their childhood and emphasized that, apart from the abuse, he was affectionate and kind towards them. This kindness was witnessed by their parents, who had absolute trust in Jackson and even left their children under his care during all-expenses-paid shopping or vacation trips.
While it may be questioned why Wade, as an adult, defended Jackson, it is not uncommon for victims to deny abuse. "Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis" explains this phenomenon.
“Because victims of acquaintance exploitation usually have been carefully seduced and often do not realize or believe they are victims, they repeatedly and voluntarily return to the offender. Society and the criminal-justice system have a difficult time understanding this. If a boy is molested by his neighbor, teacher, or clergy member, why does he “allow” it to continue? Most likely he may not initially realize or believe he is a victim. Some victims are simply willing to trade sex for attention, affection, and gifts and do not believe they are victims. The sex itself might even be enjoyable. The offender may be treating them better than anyone has ever treated them. They may come to realize they are victims when the offender pushes them out. Then they recognize all the attention, affection, and gifts were just part of the master plan to use and exploit them.“
The portrayal on MJ Innocent seems to establish a standard for how victims should behave. However, it fails to consider complex dynamics in abuse cases. For example, Michael Jackson made serious allegations against his father, disclosing physical and mental abuse. Despite this, as a wealthy adult, he chose to live at home with his parents until his late 20s. This raises the question of whether Jackson was lying or if he still loved his father despite the abuse.
Similarly, looking at R. Kelly, a suspected sex predator for over two decades, it's notable that many of his victims only recently spoke out in the "Surviving R. Kelly" documentary. It would be unreasonable to label them as liars for not disclosing the abuse immediately after it occurred.
The author of MJ Innocent, likely aware of Jimmy Savile and Operation Yewtree, must acknowledge that many victims of historic sexual crimes disclose only when they are ready to do so.
A German study highlighted that the average age at which child sex abuse victims disclose their abuse is 52 years old, indicating that more allegations against Jackson could emerge in the future.
Anyone who watches the documentary, especially the last 30 minutes, can witness how both men were emotionally attached to Jackson before and even for a period after his death. James explained that he could not defend Jackson in 2005 because he considered him a bad man, yet he couldn't testify against him either. Wade, too, initially didn't want to defend Jackson, but his mother urged him, stating that if Michael did nothing bad to him, then it was his moral duty to defend him.
It's clear that both men grappled with conflicting emotions for a long time and ultimately could no longer live a lie.
"In 2011, Robson quit his role as director of the film Step Up 4 and was rejected for the lead choreography job in the Michael Jackson themed Cirque du Soleil show. It was following this rejection that he suddenly realised he had been abused."
This claim is entirely false. In reality, it was the Jackson estate that approached Wade to be the lead choreographer, a role he initially accepted. However, Wade later withdrew from the project due to the pressures of being involved in another project (Step Up 4) and coping with an emotional breakdown. Subsequently, when Wade expressed his interest in resuming his role, the estate opted to select someone else.
For further details, refer to post 17.
"Previous versions of Robson's story state that he did not come forward with his claims any sooner because he was ashamed. This was then changed to not coming forward because he had repressed the memories of abuse and the memories only resurfaced following a breakdown. Robson's current version is that he always knew what had happened but didn't realise it was wrong, despite also claiming that Michael Jackson told him he had to lie about what they were doing otherwise they would both go to prison and also being questioned in detail about sexual abuse in the 2005 trial."
This claim has been repeatedly circulated since Wade first disclosed the abuse. However, there are no credible sources supporting the notion of repressed memories, a point that Wade himself has emphatically clarified in the following interview on the Today show:
"Robson's first course of action was to try and shop a book but when this failed, he launched a creditor's claim against the Estate of Michael Jackson for millions of dollars."
Although Wade contemplated writing a book, he ultimately decided against it. He believed that holding Michael Jackson accountable for the abuse he endured through legal means was the more morally sound option. It's crucial to highlight that Wade did not endeavour to sue the Jackson estate following a unsuccessful book proposition. Contrary to any potential profit-seeking motives, one could argue that if Wade aimed to profit from such endeavours, it would be more advantageous for him to defend Jackson rather than accusing him of being a child molester.
Read post 6 which dispels the myth that James and Wade are after an easy payday.
"These accusations have been made after Michael Jackson passed away. The law does not currently protect the deceased from defamation and, therefore, Robson and Safechuck are free to attack Michael Jackson and make whatever claims they want against him without fear of legal repercussions for defaming him."
The significance of whether Jackson is dead or alive is irrelevant. In 1994 he made a significant multi-million dollar settlement, and later invoked the fifth amendment regarding the case. Similarly, in his 2005 criminal trial, he had the opportunity to provide a comprehensive explanation for his "sleepovers" with young boys but chose not to. This raises questions about his attitude towards the perception of being viewed as a paedophile and his conduct post-1993.
Furthermore, this extends to holding the companies owned by Jackson accountable, as they facilitated access to them through arrangements such as security, flights, taxis, hotel accommodations, and so on.
Both Wade and James have pursued the legal process to have their cases heard, only to be rejected by the statute of limitations and later, the inability to hold Jackson's companies legally accountable.
One may question whether the estate genuinely desire to prove Wade and James as liars through a fair and legal process, or if they are apprehensive about potential repercussions for their lucrative cash cow.
Ultimately, the consequences of one's actions unfold over time. If an adult spends a significant portion of their life enticing young boys into their bed and refuses to discontinue such behaviour, the repercussions will eventually catch up, even in death.
"In his lawsuit, Safechuck claims he only realised he was abused after seeing Robson had filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the Michael Jackson Estate. However, in the documentary, Safechuck indicates that he made his mother aware of these allegations as early as 2005 and his mother states that she danced when she heard that Michael Jackson passed away in 2009."
Does MJ Innocent believe that James should have waited at least 10 years after Wade disclosed the abuse, or is it possible that James felt more comfortable being believed alongside another victim?
It's important to note that James and Wade were not permitted to discuss their cases with each other, and the Leaving Neverland documentary filmed both men independently. Any notion of a conspiracy involving coordinated false allegations by both men is entirely unfounded.
Regarding the incident of James's mother dancing upon hearing Jackson's death, it's evident that MJ Innocent is making baseless statements without fully watching the documentary, if at all. Rather than taking a three-second clip out of context, the truth is that James explicitly informed his mother that he would not defend Jackson in 2005 because he considered him a bad man. However, he did not explicitly state that he had been sexually abused. Stephanie connected the dots without pressurising her son into disclosing. Upon hearing of Jackson's passing, she expressed joy, as she believed he would never be able to harm a child again.
It appears that MJ Innocent is banking on the assumption that those who visit their website will not watch the Leaving Neverland documentary and will instead accept their distorted portrayal, such as misinterpreting Stephanie Safechuck's reaction as a sign of respect for Jackson.
"Safechuck hired the same attorneys as Robson and filed copycat claims against the Michael Jackson Estate."
Michael Jackson employed the same tactics to lure numerous boys into his private quarters and bed, even after facing accusations of child molestation. By applying the logic presented on MJ Innocent, it becomes overwhelmingly apparent that Jackson was indeed a serial child molester.
It is a fact that both Wade and James are represented by the same law firm. This is entirely legal, and it's reasonable to assume they chose the best legal representation available to them. After all, it's highly unlikely that Jackson selected Johnnie Cochran and Thomas Mesereau through a random selection process in 1993 and 2005.
"Robson and Safechuck are claiming hundreds of millions of dollars in their lawsuits and, as the Michael Jackson Estate pointed out, therefore have hundreds of millions of reasons to lie."
Numerous fansites assert that James and Wade are seeking around 1 billion dollars each, mirroring the reported worth of the Jackson estate. However, this claim is inaccurate. James and Wade have not specified any monetary figure they would seek as compensation in the civil complaint. Such determinations would be made by a judge and jury, not by the accusers themselves, in the event of the case proceeding to trial with a favourable outcome.
Again, refer to post 6 for more information.
It's worth noting that the author of MJ Innocent overlooks the fact that not long ago, the Jackson family attempted to sue AEG for approximately 1 billion dollars related to Michael Jackson's death. However, there seems to be no insinuation of conspiracy in that scenario.
"Robson has been caught lying repeatedly during these lawsuits and has concealed evidence not only from the court, but even from his own lawyers. The judge has even found that "no rational fact finder could possibly believe Robson's sworn statement."
I want to make it unequivocally clear. Robson has not been caught lying repeatedly, nor has the judge uttered those words. This is a complete fabrication by the Jackson estate, who have distorted a similar statement into something entirely false.
For more details, refer to post 10.
"Safechuck has also lied during his lawsuit. He provided dates when the abuse allegedly occurred but these were factually proven false in court. For example, Michael Jackson was not with Safechuck on some of the dates given."
This statement appears quite vague. Could MJ Innocent elaborate on what exactly James is alleged to have lied about?
"So far four different lawsuits have failed but they continue to pursue their claims and are appealing the dismissal of their lawsuits."
Both Wade and James have persistently sought to have their cases heard from a legal standpoint, making multiple attempts with consistent outcomes. This fact is undeniable. As previously noted, their cases have not been dismissed based on a lack of credibility, but rather due to the statute of limitations and the inability to legally hold Jackson's companies accountable.
Read post 7 and post 8 for a more in-depth explanation.
It's noteworthy that Manchester City football club recently established a compensation fund and issued an apology to all victims of Barry Bennell, a predatory paedophile football youth coach who exhibited strikingly similar characteristics to Michael Jackson.
It seems evident that the world recognizes the merit of compensating victims of child sex abuse, a sentiment seemingly not shared by MJ Innocent.
"Dan Reed, director of 'Leaving Neverland', has admitted several times that he chose not to interview anyone who could have provided a different take on these stories. He did not want anyone to be able to discredit the story he wanted to tell. He also did not do any investigation to determine the veracity of the claims made by Robson and Safechuck nor does he provide any evidence whatsoever other than the word of two admitted perjurers. It is clear that the intention of this film is to present Michael Jackson as a paedophile without reference to any of the mountains of exculpatory evidence, all of which the Michael Jackson Estate has said it would have been happy to share."
Dan Reed had made it clear well in advance of Leaving Neverland's release that his intent was to provide Wade and James with the opportunity to share their story, as they were the ones with firsthand experience.
Both spent extensive one-on-one time with Jackson, spanning hundreds of nights. Those, such as the Jackson estate or family did not share these experiences, and would have provided a merely limited and biased perspective portraying MJ as wonderful and innocent.
Viewers of Leaving Neverland can attest to the documentary's respectful portrayal. The filmmakers consciously chose not to focus on Michael Jackson's significant drug issues, struggles with body image, or controversial incidents, such as the balcony incident involving "Blanket." Instead, they prioritized giving a platform to the two individuals who claimed to be victims.
"In the "documentary", Robson suggests that Michael Jackson abused another of his friends, Brett Barnes. Barnes was never provided with an opportunity to participate in this documentary or to comment on the claims made about him. He vehemently denies that he was ever abused by Michael Jackson and to this day maintains that Michael Jackson was one of the best friends he ever had. Brett Barnes's attorneys have threatened to sue HBO unless they remove all references to Brett Barnes from this documentary."
Nowhere in the documentary did Wade Robson imply this notion. It was Brett Barnes who took over James Safechuck's role and accompanied Jackson on tour instead of Wade. The documentary briefly referenced Brett Barnes and Macaulay Culkin to illustrate a pattern of boys in Jackson's life and the transitions between them.
Notably, the documentary features a disclaimer at the conclusion of its first part, explicitly stating that both Brett Barnes and Macaulay Culkin have denied any criminal behaviour by Jackson towards them.
"Michael Jackson was investigated not only by the police and child protection agencies but was also secretly investigated by the FBI over a period of 10 years. The publicly available FBI report concluded that there was absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing on Michael Jackson's part. Read the FBI report here."
The FBI did not conduct an independent investigation of Jackson, not for a single moment. Their involvement was limited to offering technical assistance to the Santa Barbara and LA police departments upon request.
This fact is corroborated by the introductory paragraph on the FBI's website:
“Michael Jackson (1958-2009) was a famous singer and entertainer. Between 1993 and 1994 and separately between 2004 and 2005, Jackson was investigated by California law enforcement agencies for possible child molestation. He was acquitted of all such charges. The FBI provided technical and investigative assistance to these agencies during the cases. The Bureau also investigated threats made against Mr. Jackson and others by an individual who was later imprisoned for these crimes. These investigations occurred between 1992 and 2005.“
The FBI even released a podcast categorically denying any involvement in investigating Jackson independently: fbi.gov/audio-repository
For more info read post 1 and post 3.
In essence, MJ Innocent is another misinformation website crafted to sow doubt and confusion regarding the recent allegations against Michael Jackson, while also fuelling animosity toward Wade, James, and the creators of Leaving Neverland. The veracity of their posted content is dubious at best, primarily serving to propagate the narrative that Jackson's accusers are solely driven by financial motives and nothing more.
The motivations behind such actions are perplexing and disheartening, as such behaviour has been regrettably witnessed over many years. It serves as yet another illustration of the deeply entrenched fanaticism among some Michael Jackson supporters, who staunchly uphold a fictitious idealized image for their own self-serving purposes.
These individuals bear resemblance to groups perpetuating 9/11 conspiracy theories, denying the Holocaust, and relentlessly targeting Gerry and Kate McCann over the disappearance of Madeleine. Their conduct is not just sorrowful and pathetic; it is profoundly unsettling.
Update:
The individual behind MJ Innocent is a former Big Brother contestant named Seany O'Kane. His Twitter account (@SeanyOkane) is linked to a gofundme.com page. His campaign was eventually removed from London transport buses following numerous complaints, notably from the Survivors Trust, an organization supporting victims of rape and child sexual abuse, which deemed the advertisements as highly inappropriate.
O’Kane is an interesting character to put it lightly. He’s a long term Michael Jackson fanatic, who attended the 2005 trial in California. Below are images and screenshots from the Daily Star Sunday where he openly boasts about losing his virginity at the age of 14 to a “mature” woman.
Here is a short video of him trying to justify the bus banners to ITV News London.
