MJInnocent.com Under the Microscope: Separating Fact from Fandom

Mar 10, 2019

The slogan of MJInnocent boldly declares: “Facts don’t lie. People do.” This website, which claims to be dedicated to protecting the legacy of Michael Jackson, presents a staunch defence against the allegations made by Wade Robson and James Safechuck in Leaving Neverland.

While the “MJInnocent Team” professes unwavering support for all abuse victims, including survivors of child sexual abuse, it’s worth noting that their campaign began prior to the documentary’s release. They even secured funding for advertisements promoting their contentious stance on a limited number of London transport buses.

This raises an important question: does the MJInnocent Team genuinely prioritise the well-being of victims and the pursuit of truth, or are they part of the cult of celebrity—believing their favourite star should be glorified at all costs?

Furthermore, the majority of information initially published on MJInnocent was neither original nor based on independent research. Instead, it was largely copied from the Jackson Estate’s “Petition to Compel Arbitration” against HBO’s parent company, WarnerMedia, for allegedly breaching a “Non-Disparagement Clause” by airing Leaving Neverland.

Here’s a saved snapshot of how MJInnocent appeared on 8 March 2019: archive.fo

Below, I’ll examine what they’ve stated and assess whether any of it holds up to scrutiny. Text highlighted in grey with a blue line is quoted directly from MJInnocent, followed by my response to each claim.

"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 that Wade and James defended Jackson during their childhood. It’s also widely known that Wade, as an adult, continued to support Jackson during his criminal trial and in subsequent television interviews.

In contrast, James did not publicly defend Jackson in 2005, nor did he participate in any media interviews at the time.

Both Wade and James have since explained their reasons for defending Jackson before and during the Leaving Neverland documentary. They described how Jackson groomed and manipulated them into believing they were his closest and most cherished friends. They also spoke of feeling complicit in the sexual activities and fearing imprisonment if any details were revealed.

Here’s a compelling interview with Victoria Derbyshire: bbc.co.uk

It’s important to remember that Wade and James were children at the time of the abuse, while Jackson was an adult. They idolised him during their formative years and emphasised that—aside from the abuse—he was affectionate and kind towards them. This kindness was observed by their parents, who placed complete trust in Jackson and even left their children in his care during all-expenses-paid shopping sprees and holidays.

While some may question why Wade continued to defend Jackson into adulthood, it’s not uncommon for victims to deny abuse. Child Molesters: A Behavioural Analysis explores this phenomenon in detail.

“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 MJInnocent appears to set a standard for how victims should behave, yet it overlooks the complex dynamics of abuse cases. For instance, Michael Jackson made serious allegations against his father, citing physical and mental abuse. Despite this, as a wealthy adult, he chose to live at home with his parents until his late twenties. This raises the question: was Jackson lying, or did he still love his father despite the abuse?

Similarly, in the case of R. Kelly—a suspected sexual predator for over two decades—it’s notable that many victims only recently spoke out in the Surviving R. Kelly documentary. It would be unreasonable to label them liars for not disclosing the abuse immediately.

The author of MJInnocent, likely aware of Jimmy Savile and Operation Yewtree, must recognise that many victims of historic sexual abuse come forward only when they feel ready.

A German study found that the average age at which child sexual abuse victims disclose their experiences is 52, suggesting that further allegations against Jackson could still emerge.

Anyone who watches the documentary—particularly the final 30 minutes—can see how both men remained emotionally attached to Jackson before and even after his death. James explained that he couldn’t defend Jackson in 2005 because he saw him as a bad man, yet he couldn’t bring himself to testify against him either. Wade, too, was initially reluctant to defend Jackson, but his mother urged him to do so, saying that if Michael had done nothing wrong, it was his moral duty to speak up.

It’s clear that both men wrestled with conflicting emotions for years 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 lead choreographer—a role he initially accepted. He later withdrew due to the demands of another project (Step Up 4) and an emotional breakdown. When Wade later expressed interest in returning, Cirque du Soleil chose to appoint someone else.

For more details, see 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 circulated repeatedly since Wade first disclosed the abuse. However, no credible sources support the idea of repressed memories—a point Wade emphatically clarified in the following Today Show interview:

"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 considered writing a book, he ultimately chose not to pursue it. He believed that seeking justice through legal channels was a more ethically responsible way to hold Michael Jackson accountable for the abuse he suffered. It is important to emphasise that Wade did not attempt to sue the Jackson Estate as a consequence of an unsuccessful book proposal. In contrast to any assumptions of financial motivation, one could argue that if Wade’s intention had been to profit from the situation, it would have been far more beneficial for him to defend Jackson rather than accuse him of child sexual abuse.

See post 6, which debunks the notion that Wade and James are simply chasing a quick payout.

"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."

Whether Jackson is alive or deceased is immaterial. In 1994, he reached a substantial multi-million dollar settlement and later invoked the Fifth Amendment in relation to the case. Likewise, during his 2005 criminal trial, he was given the opportunity to offer a full explanation for his "sleepovers" with young boys, yet chose not to. This invites scrutiny of his attitude towards being perceived as a paedophile, as well as his behaviour following the events of 1993.

This issue also extends to the companies owned by Jackson, which played a role in facilitating access to the boys through arrangements involving security, flights, taxis, hotel bookings, and similar provisions.

Both Wade and James have sought justice through the legal system, only to be thwarted initially by the statute of limitations and subsequently by the courts’ refusal to hold Jackson’s companies legally accountable.

It is worth questioning whether the estate truly wishes to demonstrate that Wade and James are dishonest through a fair legal process, or whether it is more concerned about the potential fallout for its highly profitable enterprise.

In the end, the consequences of one’s actions tend to surface over time. If an adult repeatedly invites young boys into their bed and refuses to cease such behaviour, those consequences will inevitably catch up with them—even posthumously.

"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 MJInnocent genuinely believe that James should have waited a full decade after Wade disclosed his abuse, or is it more plausible that James felt safer and more likely to be believed when speaking out alongside another survivor?

It’s worth emphasising that Wade and James were not allowed to discuss their cases with one another, and the Leaving Neverland documentary was filmed with each man independently. Any suggestion of a coordinated effort to fabricate allegations is entirely baseless.

As for the claim regarding James’s mother dancing upon hearing of Jackson’s death, it’s clear that MJInnocent is making baseless assertions without having properly watched the documentary—if at all. In 2005, James told his mother he would no longer defend Jackson, as he believed him to be a bad man. While he did not explicitly disclose the abuse at that time, Stephanie drew her own conclusions without pressuring her son to speak. Upon learning of Jackson’s death, she expressed relief, believing he would no longer be able to harm another child. Although she did not know with certainty that her son had been sexually abused, she strongly suspected it by that point.

"Safechuck hired the same attorneys as Robson and filed copycat claims against the Michael Jackson Estate."

Michael Jackson employed similar tactics of grooming and seducing young boys with gifts and attention, eventually inviting them into his private quarters and bed. These boys were frequently discarded and replaced with newer companions once they reached puberty. Surely, by the logic of MJInnocent, Jackson’s behaviour was, at the very least, deeply suspicious.

Regarding Wade and James using the same law firm—yes, that is entirely accurate. However, there is no conspiracy at play. This is perfectly legal, and it’s reasonable to assume they sought the most competent legal representation available within their means. After all, it’s highly improbable that Jackson chose Johnnie Cochran and Thomas Mesereau at random 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."

Several fansites claim that Wade and James are each seeking around one billion dollars, reflecting the reported value of the Jackson Estate. However, this assertion is incorrect. Wade and James have not specified any monetary amount they intend to pursue in their civil complaint. Should the case proceed to trial and result in a favourable outcome, any compensation would be determined by a judge and jury—not by the claimants themselves.

Again, refer to post 6 for more information.

It is also worth highlighting that the author of MJInnocent fails to acknowledge that, not long ago, the Jackson family attempted to sue AEG for roughly one billion dollars in connection with Michael Jackson’s death. Yet, curiously, no suggestion of conspiracy seems to arise in that instance.

"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."

This is, without question, a complete falsehood. There are no documents, nor any official statements from a judge, that contain such wording.

It is a fabrication by the Michael Jackson Estate, which—through its own documentation released during arbitration proceedings with HBO—put forward these entirely misleading claims. These assertions have no connection whatsoever to any judicial ruling or official statement.

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 comes across as rather vague. Could MJInnocent clarify precisely what 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."

Wade and James have consistently pursued legal avenues to have their cases heard, making multiple attempts that have yielded similar outcomes. This is an indisputable fact. As previously mentioned, their cases were not dismissed due to a lack of credibility, but rather on the grounds of the statute of limitations and the legal inability to hold Jackson’s companies accountable.

Read post 7 and post 8 for a more in-depth explanation.

It is worth noting that Manchester City Football Club recently established a compensation fund and issued a formal apology to all victims of Barry Bennell—a predatory paedophile youth coach whose behaviour bore striking similarities to that of Michael Jackson.

Clearly, there is a growing global recognition of the importance of compensating victims of child sexual abuse—a principle that MJInnocent appears reluctant to embrace.

"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 made it clear well before the release of Leaving Neverland that his intention was to give Wade and James the opportunity to share their story, as they were the ones with direct, lived experience.

Both spent extensive one-on-one time with Jackson, reportedly hundreds of nights. In contrast, individuals such as the Jackson Estate or family did not share these experiences and would have offered only a limited and inherently biased perspective, portraying Jackson as entirely innocent and admirable.

Viewers of Leaving Neverland can attest to the documentary’s respectful tone. The filmmakers deliberately chose not to dwell on Michael Jackson’s well-documented struggles with drug dependency, body image issues, or controversial moments—such as the balcony incident involving his son, "Blanket." Instead, they focused on providing a platform for the two men who claimed to be victims, allowing their voices to be heard without distraction.

"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."

Wade Robson never implied in the documentary that Brett Barnes was sexually abused.

Both Brett and Macaulay are included in the documentary for several reasons. Firstly, to illustrate the recurring pattern of boys in Jackson’s life and the transitions between them. Secondly, to highlight Jackson’s self-serving behaviour. When James began puberty, he was abruptly replaced by the younger Brett. Brett was also chosen to go on tour instead of Wade, despite Wade’s desire to go. Jackson told Wade that children weren’t permitted on tour. Thirdly, Jackson had promised Wade a prominent role in the “Black or White” video, but that part ultimately went to Macaulay Culkin. These are the key reasons why both Brett and Macaulay appear in the documentary.

Importantly, the documentary includes a disclaimer at the end of its first part, clearly stating that both Brett Barnes and Macaulay Culkin have denied any criminal conduct 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 never carried out an independent investigation into Jackson—not even briefly. Their role was strictly limited to providing technical support to the Santa Barbara and Los Angeles police departments when requested.

This is confirmed by the opening paragraph on the FBI’s own 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.

Conclusion

In essence, virtually everything posted on MJInnocent is a direct lift from the Jackson Estate’s legal letter to HBO’s parent company, WarnerMedia. It’s a lazy effort, devoid of genuine research, relying instead on copied quotes without any attempt to verify their accuracy.

The quotes simply recycle familiar conspiracies and misinformation, suggesting that Wade and James are solely motivated by money and have fabricated their accounts purely for financial gain.

However, as demonstrated above, every claim either has a reasonable explanation or can be shown to be a complete fabrication, crafted to vilify Wade and James while glorifying Jackson.

It also reveals the extent to which the Jackson Estate will stoop to protect its lucrative cash cow — resorting to underhanded tactics and spreading misinformation to discredit and demonise others.

It’s deeply sad — and frankly pathetic — that grown adults continue to behave this way. Rather than acknowledging that Jackson was a deeply troubled individual who repeatedly engaged in behaviour that would be deemed unacceptable for anyone else, the MJ Estate refuses to admit it for fear of damaging their profits. Meanwhile, fans remain so blinded by celebrity worship that even if the truth were staring them in the face, they would still deny Jackson was a paedophile.

Update:

The two middle-aged individuals behind MJInnocent are long-standing Michael Jackson fanatics: Anika Kotecha and Seany O’Kane. Anika featured in the 2005 Channel 4 documentary Wacko About Jacko, which followed several Jackson fans across Europe and the United States. Seany, a Northern Irish man and brief Big Brother contestant in 2007, was a prominent presence throughout Jackson’s 2005 trial—frequently seen holding placards and vocally supporting the singer.

Both were responsible for placing controversial banners on several London buses shortly before the release of Leaving Neverland, funded via a GoFundMe campaign. The banners were swiftly removed following widespread backlash. Notably, The Survivors Trust—an organisation supporting victims of rape and child sexual abuse—publicly condemned the advertisements as highly inappropriate.

After his spell on Big Brother, O’Kane gave an interview to the UK tabloid The Daily Star, where he made a string of highly questionable remarks. He boasts narcissistically about his sex life, claiming to have slept with around 30 women, while insisting that he currently prefers intimacy with men. The most controversial confession, however, concerns the loss of his virginity: he says he was 14 when it happened with someone “quite a bit older than me and certainly wasn't a girl.” Such an admission raises serious questions about his grasp of consent and the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.