Facts Don't Lie. MJInnocent.com People Do

Facts don't lie. People do. That's the slogan of mjinnocent.com, yet another Michael Jackson fan/cult website, specifically designed to pour doubt and confusion over the allegations made by Wade Robson and James Safechuck, and the makers of Leaving Neverland.

Despite the "MJInnocent Team" behind this website claiming they "wholeheartedly support victims of all types of abuse, including child sex abuse", they started their campaign well before the documentary was even aired, and have even secured funding to display ads promoting their controversial campaign across a small amount of London transport buses.

But does the MJInnocent Team really care about victims or the truth, or are they just another bunch of dysfunctional celebrity worshippers on yet another victim shaming campaign.

Below I will take a look at what they have written on their website, and whether it has any real truth. All the screenshots are from mjinnocent.com with my response below each one. If you're viewing this site on a mobile device, you can tap on each image to enlarge it.

Mjinnocent.com wrote:

Most people are fully aware that Wade and James both defended Jackson as children. Most people are also fully aware that Wade, as a fully grown adult defended Jackson in his criminal trial, and through TV interviews afterwards.

James, however, did not defend Jackson in 2005. Nor was he ever (legally) married at Neverland, as claimed by Jackson's then lawyer, Thomas Mesereau. James has revealed that Jackson performed a mock wedding with him as a child.

Both Wade and James have explained before and during the Leaving Neverland documentary why they chose to defend Jackson. Explaining that Jackson groomed and seduced them into believing they were his closest and best friend, that they felt completely complicit in the sexual activities, and if any details were to leak out, they would all go to jail.

Here's a great interview with Victoria Derbyshire: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07299d6

What mjinnocent.com seem to be completely ignoring here is the fact that both Wade and James were children, while Jackson was a fully grown adult. Wade and James as children idolised Jackson, and have made it quite clear that when the abuse wasn't happening, Jackson was very affectionate and kind towards them. This kindness was also something that the parents universally witnessed, so much so they had absolute trust in Jackson and left their children with him, why they went on all-expenses-paid shopping, or vacation trips.

Yes, you may question why Wade as a fully grown man defended Jackson, but it isn't that uncommon for victims to deny abuse. Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis explains that: "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."

I wonder why mjinnocent.com did not quote that?

Since mjinnocent.com appears to be the master template on how victims should behave can they explain why Michael Jackson made serious allegations against his father, allegations of physical and mental abuse, yet as a wealthy adult freely chose to live at home with his mother and father until his late 20s? Was Michael Jackson lying, or someone who loved his father, despite him being an abuser?

How about R. Kelly? This is a man who's been a suspected sex predator for over two decades of both female children and adults, but many of his victims have only just decided to speak out in the “Surviving R. Kelly” documentary.

Should we call them liars for not disclosing the abuse, the moment they were abused?

I'm guessing the author of mjinnocent.com is British, and must be fully aware of Jimmy Savile and Operation Yewtree, which exposed so many historic sexual crimes against children and adults. Children and adults who said nothing until they felt the time was right, just like Wade and James.

Is mjinnocent.com an apologist for Jimmy Savile too?

A German study has concluded that the average age child sex abuse victims disclose their abuse is 52 years old, meaning we could very well see even more allegations against Jackson in 20 years time.

I should also point out that mjinnocent.com made this statement before Leaving Neverland was even released. Anybody who watches the documentary, especially the last 30 minutes can see how both men were still emotionally attached to Jackson before, and even for a period after his death. James explains that he could not defend him in 2005 because he was a bad man, but he couldn't testify against him either. Wade didn't want to defend Jackson either, but was told by his mother if Michael did nothing bad to you, then it's your moral duty to defend him.

Both men suffered from conflicting feelings for a very long time, but in the end could no longer live a lie.

Mjinnocent.com wrote:

This is complete bullshit. It was the Jackson's who wanted Wade to do Cirque du Soleil show. Wade was the one who told them he couldn't do it. This has been regurgitated by Jackson truthers for years, yet it's blatantly false.

Here's a great article about Jackson truthers being debunked: https://www.thedailybeast.com/leaving-neverland-director-dan-reed-compares-michael-jackson-truthers-to-corbynites

As for Wade "suddenly" realising he had been abused, does mjinnocent.com think that victims need to disclose their abuse at a set time and date, unless they are liars? Again, what about Jimmy Savile's victims. 99.9% of them all waited until he died until they said anything whatsoever. Is that suspicious, or is that just victims behaving like victims?

Mjinnocent.com wrote:

This is something that's been regurgitated ever since Wade first revealed the abuse. There are no credible sources whatsoever about him having repressed memories, and Wade has made that quite clear himself in the following interview:

Again, why hasn't mjinnocent.com quoted this video. Are they deliberately obscuring the truth?

Mjinnocent.com wrote:

I can't find a single credible source that confirms that Wade was trying to "shop a book" before going down the legal route. If he did, does that mean he's a liar? Again, isn't this just another pathetic attempt to create doubt and confusion by the Michael Jackson propaganda and misinformation machine? People release books all the time, including pro-Jackson books. Does that mean they are cashing in on something or just getting there story out there?

If were are going to be suspicious about everything, then how do we know that mjinnocent.com isn't a scam? Could the people behind it be cashing in on gullible celebrity worshippers with their gofundme.com campaign? I'm not making any money from this website, but mjinnocent.com certainly is.

Mjinnocent.com wrote:

Why does it matter if Jackson is dead or alive? He didn't do much to defend himself from accusations of child molestation when he was alive. He made a huge multi-million dollar settlement and later pleaded the fifth in 1994, concerning the 93 case. In his 2005 criminal trial he had the opportunity to be completely honest and explain to the whole world why he felt the need to have one-on-one "sleepovers" with little boys. Again, he refused. Jackson wasn't overly bothered people may view him as a paedophile, if he did, he wouldn't have slept with boys after 1993.

This is also about bringing companies that MJ owned to justice. Jackson hired people who organised security, flights, taxis, hotel rooms, shopping sprees, et cetera, all of which were used to gain access to young boys. I find it hard to believe that not a single person had doubts something untoward was going on.

Both Wade and James have gone through the legal process of having their cases heard, but have been rejected by the Jackson estate who have used the statute of limitation to get the cases dismissed, not because they weren't credible.

Don't the Jacksons want to prove to the world that Wade and James are liars through a fair and legal process, or are they worried that their cash cow might be derailed?

At the end of the day, actions have consequences. If you're an adult who spent most of your life enticing young boys into your bed and refused to stop when things went sour, then sooner or later, your actions will catch up with you, even in death.

Mjinnocent.com wrote:

Okay, does Mjinnocent.com think James should have waited at least 10 years after Wade had disclosed the abuse? Or is a possibility that James felt more comfortable that he would be believed, along with another victim?

James hasn't been allowed to discuss his case with Wade, or vice versa, and the Leaving Neverland documentary filmed both men independently from each other. If you're thinking there's some wild conspiracy that both men organised false allegations together, then you are 100% wrong.

As for James's mother dancing after she heard Jackson's death? Well, this is yet more proof that mjinnocent.com is making stupid statements without even watching the documentary in full, if at all. Perhaps mjinnocent.com saw a three second clip where Stephanie Safechuck said that and then filled in the blanks themselves.

Here's the truth. James made it clear to his mother, that he wasn't going to defend Jackson in 2005 because he was a bad man. When Jackson's death was announced, she said she danced with joy as he would never be able to hurt a child again.

I can only assume mjinnocent.com is banking on anybody who reads their website will never watch the Leaving Neverland documentary, and instead believe their take that Stephanie Safechuck did a little dance as a remark of respect and acknowledgement of Jackson's "innocence", or something.

Mjinnocent.com wrote:

Michael Jackson lured dozens of boys into his private quarters and bed using the same tactics, and still did it after being accused of child molestation. If we use mjinnocent.com logic then that means 100% that Jackson was a serial child molester.

It's true that they are using the same law firm, as firstly it's perfectly legal, and secondly they're probably the best people for the job. I doubt if Jackson used a lucky dip system when he chose Johnnie Cochran and Thomas Mesereau in 1993 and 2003. Should we question Jackson's motives for hiring two lawyers with a history of defending dubious individuals?

Mjinnocent.com wrote:

Actually I read it was more like $1 billion on fansites. Unsurprisingly, I can't find a single source where Wade or James discuss the amount they want, if they want anything at all. Yes, it's true that they probably do want something, but would you deny a genuine victim compensation in any other circumstances?

After all, I don't see any fans complaining that the Jackson family attempted to sue AEG for $1 billion, for Michael Jackson's own drug problems.

Mjinnocent.com wrote:

It's odd that mjinnocent.com would use the slogan "Facts don't lie. People do". But where are they getting their facts from? Again, I cannot find a single source, not on their website or anywhere else which cooperates this claim.

I find it hard to believe that a judge, somebody who is highly experienced in all criminal cases, would be so blatantly disrespectful towards Wade Robson, when he or she would be fully aware of the offender–victim bond.

Mjinnocent.com wrote:

What did James lie about? What dates? What court? Why does mjinnocent.com have no links to backup their wild claims?

Mjinnocent.com wrote:

Both Wade and James have been persistent in trying to get their cases heard from a legal point of view, and have tried multiple different avenues with the same result. There's no denying that. Both men are fully aware that if the Jackson estate didn't keep dismissing the case based on the statute of limitation, that they would have to prove a good case they were abused by Jackson, and face all the counterarguments.

Should victims stop at the first hurdle?

Manchester City football club have just set up a compensation fund and apologise to all victims of Barry Bennell, a predatory paedophile football youth coach, who displayed shockingly similar characteristics to Michael Jackson.

I guess the world does think that victims of child sex abuse do deserve compensation, but not mjinnocent.com.

Mjinnocent.com wrote:

Dan Reed explained long before the airing of Leaving Neverland that he wanted to give Wade and James the opportunity to give their story, because they were there, rather than people who were not. Do fansites complain when they see a pro-Michael Jackson interview or documentary that don't interview other people who could paint a very different and disturbing picture of Jackson?

Both Wade and James spent an enormous time alone with Jackson. We are talking hundreds of nights. Did you want the Jackson brothers, who were never there, to give a very limited and scripted response that their brother was a wonderful and innocent man? The same brothers who had no idea that Michael Jackson was playing Russian roulette with propofol until his luck finally ran out.

Anybody who's seen Leaving Neverland can see it's a very respectable documentary. They makers could have easily highlighted Michael Jackson's massive drug problems, his body image disorder, or the time he dangled "Blanket" over a German hotel balcony. But they didn't. They gave two victims a chance to tell their story.

If Wade and James are perjurer's, does that mean they falsely denied being abused first time around for all the reasons mentioned at the beginning of this article?

Mjinnocent.com wrote:

This is a perfect example of how the Michael Jackson misinformation troll factory twist things. Wade Robson did not suggest that Brett Barnes was sexually molested, he states that he was replaced by him. If you want proof, watch the last five minutes of part one of Leaving Neverland. The makers also make it quite clear that Brett Barnes and Macauley Culkin deny any abuse happened.

Brett Barnes has been awfully quiet for many, many years and hasn't said much, if anything about his former "friend". Perhaps people would also be interested to know that Brett spent 400+ nights alone with Jackson from a young child right up until the age of 19. Brett specifically said in the 2005 trial that he was here because he didn't want people to think that he was "gay", which in itself raises eyebrows as this can be one of the reasons why male sexual abuse victims falsely deny being abused by another male, as explained in Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis.

Was Brett Barnes, one of Jackson's victims? I guess he can only answer that. And if he doesn't want to, that's his choice, nobody else's. As for the lawsuit against HBO? I don't think there was a lawsuit, if there was, it certainly never went anywhere. Was Brett poked by the Jackson clan, or did he make the decision himself? If he did, perhaps he wants to distance himself  from being one of Michael Jackson's former "special" friends.

He didn't, after all, appear in the rebuttal: Neverland Firsthand. I wonder why?

And no, I don't believe the @IAmBrettBarnes Twitter account is the real Brett Barnes. This account has remained unverified for years, and contains no pictures or information that can validate this person's identity. It wouldn't be the first time a Jackson looney has impersonated one of Jackson's former special friends.

Mjinnocent.com wrote:

From the link that mjinnocent.com posted, this is a direct quote from the FBI: "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."

So, despite many fan claims that the FBI "secretly" investigated Jackson for over 10 years, this is in fact completely untrue, as you can see from the web page itself.

The FBI provided technical and investigative assistance to other law enforcement agencies such as the Santa Barbara Police Department, who, by the way, firmly believed that Jackson was a predatory child molester. The investigation was between 93 and 94, and later between 2004 and 2005.  That's a 2 year period max, not 10+ years.

The FBI has stated that they never independently investigated Jackson: https://www.fbi.gov/audio-repository/news-podcasts-thisweek-michael-jackson-files.mp3/view


In a nutshell, mjinnocent.com, is yet another propaganda and misinformation website designed to create doubt and confusion over the latest allegations against Michael Jackson, and a whole lot of hate towards Wade, James and the makers of Leaving Neverland

Very little if anything, they have posted is true, and only attempts to mislead people into believing that Jackson's accusers are motivated by money, and nothing else.

Exactly why people would choose to do this is beyond me, and it's something I've sadly witnessed for many, many years. It's just another example of how deeply disturbed Michael Jackson fanatics are, and how they must maintain this false idyllic image for their own selfish needs.

They are no different from 911 conspiracy theorists, Holocaust deniers, or those who constantly abuse Gerry and Kate McCann over the disappearance of Madeleine.

It's sad. It's pathetic. It's downright disturbing.

Update: It's believed the person behind mjinnocent.com is a former Big Brother contestant named Seany O'Kane. His Twitter account (@SeanyOkane) is linked to the gofundme.com page. His misinformation campaign has now been removed from London transport buses after multiple complaints, including Survivors Trust, which supports victims of rape and child sexual abuse, said the adverts were "really inappropriate".

Here's a snapshot of mjinnocent.com on 8 March 2019, just in case the site disappears into the sunset. http://archive.fo/eXQ30

For the record, I contacted mjinnocent.com and made them fully aware of this website, and asked them to validate their claims. I only got one reply back, which answered none of my questions, or attempted to discredit this blog post.

You can see the screenshot of my full conversation below:

No comments:

Post a comment

This blog is about investigating Michael Jackson's questionable behaviour, and recognising the complexity of child sex abuse. You'll gain nothing from this blog if you're a Michael Jackson stan, who sees nothing wrong with a grown man having one-on-one sleepovers with unrelated children.

Therefore, ensure that all comments are civilised and on-topic. Misinformation or abuse directed at Michael Jackson's survivors will not be tolerated.