MJ INNOCENT DELUDED OPEN LETTER TO TFL
March 24, 2019
MJ Innocent, a website aimed at casting doubt on the allegations against Michael Jackson by Wade Robson and James Safechuck, recently featured on several London buses. The ads, bearing the slogan “Facts Don’t Lie, People Do” sparked public outcry and drew criticism from Survivors Trust, a charity supporting victims of sex abuse. The GoFundMe funded campaign was created by Anika Kotecha and Seany O’Kane, the latter a former Big Brother contestant from Northern Ireland.
MJ Innocent subsequently penned an open letter on 18 March 2019 to TfL and London mayor Sadiq Khan, asserting that their campaign was unjustly removed from London buses. However, the veracity of this claim remains in question.
All text highlighted in grey is directly from MJ Innocent, with my response below each one.
Dear TfL and Mr Khan
We write in reference to the Michael Jackson innocent advertisements (the "Adverts") that are currently being displayed on certain buses in London.
We are hugely disappointed that Transport for London ("TfL"), supported by the Mayor of London (the "Mayor"), has taken the decision to prematurely terminate the campaign for a number of reasons.
1. The Adverts comply with TfL's advertising policy
As TfL has confirmed, the Adverts fully comply with TfL's advertising policy. The Adverts have also been reviewed and approved by the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) to ensure they comply with the UK Code of Non-Broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing. Whilst the Adverts might be described by some as controversial, such a characterisation is unreasonable because the statement "Facts Don't Lie. People Do" is itself a true statement. Michael Jackson was, during his lifetime, accused of child sexual abuse. The first case did not reach trial because the accuser refused to cooperate with the prosecution after settlement of their civil claim and two grand juries felt there was no evidence to warrant criminal charges against Michael Jackson. The second case resulted in a full acquittal on every charge.
Since his passing, Michael Jackson has again been the subject of allegations of child abuse. It is a fact that the two accusers, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, have both lied (including under oath) on more than one occasion in relation to the accusations they are making. The Adverts very clearly relate specifically and solely to Michael Jackson and the allegations made against him and are not a statement on abuse allegations more widely. They do not in any way suggest that any other victims of abuse are not to be believed or that anyone alleging abuse should not be believed. The campaign seeks to highlight the fact that two perjurers are making unsubstantiated claims which are not supported by the available evidence, some of which is detailed on the website the Adverts direct people to (www.miinnocent.com). It would be highly unjust to deem such Adverts so controversial as to necessitate its removal, particularly given that the Adverts have been reviewed in detail by TfL and CAP and have been approved by both organisations.
Furthermore, it is unfortunately the case that false allegations do get made and that this happens all too often, for example the allegations made against Cliff Richard or as evidenced by Operation Midland. A victim of a false allegation is just as much a victim as a genuine victim of sexual abuse and should, therefore, be afforded the same level of support and access to justice. Research conducted by leading academics at the University of Oxford Centre of Criminology examines the impact of false allegations and demonstrates that false allegations can and do devastate the lives of the wrongly accused and their families.
MJ Innocent asserts that the statement “Facts Don’t Lie. People Do.” holds true. However, their implication that Jackson’s accusers are lying while Jackson himself could not have falsely denied abusing them is misleading. This presents a one-sided argument that portrays Jackson as impeccable while discrediting his accusers.
For instance, MJ Innocent claims that the first accuser, Jordan Chandler, refused to cooperate, but in reality, he did with law enforcement, and a child molestation expert who believed he was truthful. Additionally, Chandler provided a detailed description of Jackson’s genitalia, including distinctive discoloration visible only if Jackson was unclothed.
It is accurate that Jordan Chandler and his parents received a settlement from Jackson, reportedly as high as $22 million, to withdraw from criminal proceedings. Jackson personally arranged the settlement, rather than through an anonymous insurance company, and could have contested the Chandlers’ allegations if they were indeed extortionists.
For more information regarding the settlement, visit: mjfacts.com
One could argue that both Jordan and Jackson simply aimed to move on with their lives and thus avoided a trial at all costs. However, despite the substantial settlement, Jackson did not alter his behaviour and continued to entice young boys into his bed. Subsequently, he made another substantial settlement, this time to Blanca Francia, the mother of Jason, who worked as a maid at Neverland.
Following these events, the law in California was amended to prevent individuals from reaching out-of-court settlements in a civil trial before a criminal trial.
MJ Innocent asserts that their campaign directly targets Wade Robson and James Safechuck, accusing them of lying under oath. This statement is perplexing, as if they did lie, it implies that they were untruthful about not being abused by Jackson, a situation for which no child sex abuse victim should be censured.
Furthermore, MJ Innocent claims that their campaign does not vilify other sexual abuse victims, but this raises the question of how they can be certain. Their website lacks references to child sex abuse or the methods through which perpetrators groom and manipulate their victims.
For individuals who have experienced child sex abuse, encountering a website that criticizes two men for not immediately disclosing their abuse may lead to questioning the empathy of those who maintain such a perspective.
MJ Innocent highlights the case of Cliff Richard, a renowned British singer who faced accusations of child sex abuse but was never prosecuted. It is true that Richard endured significant distress due to media coverage and was ultimately not pursued for criminal activity in the end.
However, it is important to note that only one allegation was made against Cliff Richard. Unlike Jackson, Richard was not known to befriend young boys and spend numerous nights behind closed doors with them. While only Cliff Richard and his accuser know the truth of the matter, the disparities between his situation and that of Jackson’s accusers are substantial.
It is widely acknowledged that law enforcement does not consistently make accurate determinations, as exemplified by cases like Operation Midland. Conversely, there are instances where the police have failed to adequately safeguard children from criminal sex rings, as seen in incidents such as those in Rotherham.
Furthermore, the Santa Barbara Police Department and Tom Sneddon have never been the subject of suspicion or prosecution for any misconduct during their extensive investigation into Jackson.
MJ Innocent discusses the repercussions of "false allegations" on both men and women, yet conveniently overlooks the fact that Jackson was the one orchestrating the circumstances. He was responsible for constructing a zoo and amusement park in his backyard, and persistently sought one-on-one interaction with young, unrelated boys even after facing allegations of sexual abuse.
In the event that an individual is falsely accused of a crime due to their own imprudence, it is likely that they would amend their behaviour to prevent such a situation from recurring. Jackson's failure to do so strongly indicates that he was a predatory child molester who simply could not restrain himself.
Regarding potential breaches of TfL's advertising policy by MJ Innocent, it can be argued that their website, designed to depict Jackson's latest accusers as money-hungry perjurers, likely infringes upon these regulations. Notably, the website was launched well before the release of Leaving Neverland, a profoundly compelling documentary that effectively brings attention to the intricate nature of child sex abuse for the broader public.
Any content capable of causing distress or offense is prohibited by TfL's terms and conditions.
TfL's decision, which we understand was advocated by the Mayor, has the effect of suppressing our right to free speech. Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides that "everyone has the right to freedom of expression... without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This right may only be restricted "in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary". The Adverts in question do not fall into any of these categories and, therefore, TfL and the Mayor have, without due regard for the law, imposed an unjustified restriction on freedom of expression. Further, we would argue that the Adverts in fact promote the rights of others (the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty) and the removal of the Adverts is thus all the more an affront to the law. It is staggering that TfL — a government body — and the Mayor — a public official — have so little regard for such a crucial human right and are willing to deny this right without appropriate justification.
Where was the freedom for people to watch Leaving Neverland without interference from MJ Innocent and other pro-Jackson supporters? Both HBO and Channel 4 faced demands to pull the documentary before it even aired. Does this respect freedom of speech?
Why does MJ Innocent believe that the Survivors Trust, a charity that specialises in child sexual abuse, was restricted from expressing their viewpoint and criticizing London transport for permitting advertisements directing individuals to a website disparaging two men who bravely disclosed that they were sexually abused by Michael Jackson, in addition to explaining their reasons for supporting him? Does this align with the principles of respecting freedom of speech and expression?
It seems that MJ Innocent operates as a dictatorship, asserting itself as the ultimate authority in matters concerning Michael Jackson.
Our criminal justice system is built on the presumption that an accused is innocent until proven otherwise. This principle is one of the most fundamental tenets of English law, intended to preserve fairness and prevent miscarriages of justice. Michael Jackson, though accused, has not been found guilty of perpetrating any crime against either Wade Robson or James Safechuck. Indeed, he was fully acquitted by a jury of his peers in a court of law of similar accusations in 2005. In 1993, two discrete grand juries determined that the evidence against Michael Jackson was so weak that they refused to indict him. Therefore, as it stands, Michael Jackson is an innocent man and must be treated as such according to the law. It is clear that the right to a presumption of innocence is being eroded in society but one would expect government bodies and public officials to respect and uphold the rule of law. That both TfL and the Mayor of London have deliberately chosen to undermine this doctrine and are effectively complicit in convicting a man in a trial by media sans any evidence whatsoever and sans due process is alarming and the potential repercussions of this are incredibly worrying for society as a whole. Are TfL and the Mayor espousing a society in which the rule of law is so flagrantly disregarded?
In my initial post addressing MJ Innocent, I underscored the stark case of Jimmy Savile, a revered figure in the UK who raised £40 million for charitable causes. Following his passing, revelations surfaced of his reprehensible conduct as one of the most notorious sexual predators in British history. Countless victims stepped forward, detailing horrific abuse within BBC studios and hospital wards. Despite only two allegations during his lifetime, which were swiftly dismissed due to insufficient evidence, Jimmy Savile's extensive abuse of both adults and children is a distressing testament. Yet, astoundingly, he never faced a day in prison for these egregious actions.
Consider the evidence. In the initial case, Jackson opted for an out-of-court settlement rather than defending his reputation. Furthermore, during the subsequent trial, he had the opportunity to be completely transparent about his relationships with young boys but refused to address any questions in court. If Wade Robson falsely denied being abused due to emotional attachment and feeling complicit in the activities, how many others may have done the same?
The trial's fairness and honesty are called into question when victims either refuse to testify or testify falsely. Complete cooperation is vital for a conviction, as emphasized by Ron Zonen.
Furthermore, the 2005 trial shed light on Michael Jackson's intense preoccupation with young boys, revealing that he spent hundreds of nights one-on-one in bed with just those who testified. Further revelations detailed instances of emotional manipulation, including pleading with Jordan Chandler's mother to allow him to sleep in his bed with her son.
Being acquitted of molesting one boy due to reasonable doubt, potentially affected by the mother's credibility, does not definitively absolve Jackson of any wrongdoing.
Celebrating Michael Jackson's success in grooming and exploiting young boys (and their parents) into intimate, one-on-one relationships while evading a lengthy prison sentence could be viewed as endorsing paedophilia.
Wade and James have pursued legal action, only to be thwarted by statute of limitations and the inability to hold Jackson companies responsible, not due to their lack of credibility. It's odd that MJ Innocent oppose Wade and James pursuing legal recourse, especially given that they reference the same legal system that acquitted Jackson.
The Impact of Being Wrongly Accused of Abuse in Occupations of Trust: Victims' Voices, Carolyn Hoyle, Naomi-Ellen Speechley, and Ros Burnett University of Oxford Centre for Criminology Link: www.law.ox.ac.uk
TfL and the Mayor have bowed to pressure from the Survivors Trust, a charity that took umbrage at the Adverts and demanded they be removed (it is worth noting that this charity was specially invited to a pre-screening of Leaving Neverland and given the opportunity to interview the director). Ignoring the fact that this is not sufficient reason to curtail free speech, it has been suggested that the Adverts are being removed so as not to discourage genuine victims of sexual abuse coming forward. The MJInnocent Campaign fully supports the work of charities that support genuine victims of abuse. However, the words featured in the Adverts relate specifically to the claims being made against Michael Jackson and the two men making those claims. They are not a comment on sexual abuse victims in general. Nonetheless, if the concern was that the wording might discourage genuine victims from reporting crime, TfL could have suggested that the wording be amended. Indeed, when MJInnocent offered to do this, the offer was rejected and we were informed that TfL has taken the position that nothing related to Michael Jackson will be permitted. Moreover, the Survivors Trust has explicitly stated that they were "particularly concerned...that TFL London (sic) has chosen to run a campaign...that endorses Jackson's innocence..." and Karen Ingala Smith, Chief Executive of the charity NIA (who also lobbied for the removal of the Adverts), has publicly declared that her objection was to the Adverts "proclaiming Michael Jackson's innocence". Clearly, then, the issue is not concern over any impact on genuine victims (which the MJInnocent campaign disputes for the reasons already stated) but any show of support for Michael Jackson. Instead of remaining impartial on the subject of Michael Jackson's innocence or guilt or even taking the position required by law (that Michael Jackson is an innocent man), TfL and the Mayor have demonstrated that their decision was motivated by prejudice against Michael Jackson.
For the reasons stated above, we believe that the decision to remove the Adverts is entirely unwarranted and raises far more serious concerns about TfL and the Mayor's willingness to censor free speech and show such disdain towards the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. We call on TfL and the Mayor to provide adequate justification for removing the Adverts in light of the above or to reverse the decision with immediate effect.
Yours sincerely The MJInnocent Team
MJ Innocent serves as a striking example of the profound delusion exhibited by its authors.
Their campaign has a detrimental impact on other victims of sexual abuse, particularly those who endured childhood sexual abuse. By censuring two adult men who were groomed into a close friendship with Michael Jackson, ultimately leading to numerous nights spent behind closed doors and in his bed during childhood, the website overlooks the disturbing nature of such relationships.
Countless survivors of childhood sexual abuse have suffered at the hands of individuals who displayed the same traits as Jackson. This is an undeniable reality.
Survivors Trust possesses comprehensive knowledge of the tactics employed by child molesters and the behaviour exhibited by their victims. In stark contrast, MJ Innocent appears to be managed by two individuals whose sole interest revolves around glorifying their favourite celebrity.
It is mentioned that MJ Innocent claimed to have offered to revise some of the wording featured on London buses. However, this gesture seems futile, as it would still lead people to the same website, which condemns two men for speaking out about their experiences with child sexual abuse and their conflicting emotions towards their abuser.
MJ Innocent seems fixated on the fact that Michael Jackson was acquitted of molesting one boy in a United States court of law, and appears to dismiss any differing opinions or the reality that criminals often escape justice.
Michael Jackson exhibited all the traits of a typical child molester, spent several hundred nights in bed with young boys based solely on court documents, possessed so-called "art" books containing nude images of children, had an extensive collection of pornography in his "child-friendly" residence, and ultimately succumbed to a chronic drug addiction.
However, MJ Innocent insists that everyone should perceive Michael Jackson in an exclusively positive light with no ifs or buts.
Read Survivors Trust perspective on Leaving Neverland here: thesurvivorstrust.org
Once again, the individuals behind MJ Innocent have exhibited their profound delusion and moral bankruptcy. On this occasion, they have directed their focus at the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, and Transport for London, using an open letter that unsurprisingly seeks to portray Jackson as an innocent victim untainted by any wrongdoing, while disregarding the possibility of him being a predatory child sex abuser.
The owners claim that there freedom of speech is being violated, but it is clear that MJ Innocent is the one disseminating blatant misinformation instead of encouraging individuals to conduct their own factual research.
Notably absent from their website are any references to the characteristics of child molesters or the methods utilized to groom and manipulate. It is simply a biased, one-sided campaign driven by an unhealthy desire to glorify a dead celebrity.