MJ Innocent’s Open Letter: When TfL Met the Ministry of Misinformation

March 24, 2019

MJ Innocent, a website created to cast doubt on the allegations made against Michael Jackson by Wade Robson and James Safechuck in the documentary Leaving Neverland, recently appeared on several London buses. The advertisements, carrying the slogan “Facts Don’t Lie, People Do”, provoked public outcry and drew criticism from Survivors Trust, a charity that supports victims of sexual abuse. The campaign, funded through GoFundMe, was not organised by impartial adults but by two long‑term Jackson fanatics, Anika Kotecha and Seany O’Kane, both of whom attended Jackson’s criminal trial in 2005.

On 18 March 2019, MJ Innocent published an open letter addressed to Transport for London (TfL) and the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, claiming their campaign had been unfairly removed from the city’s buses.

As I will demonstrate below, many of the claims made by MJ Innocent are delusional, unfounded, or rooted in conspiracy theories and misinformation.

What follows are quotations taken directly from MJ Innocent (highlighted in grey), each accompanied by my response.

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 slogan “Facts Don’t Lie, People Do.” holds true. Yet their implication—that Jackson’s accusers are lying while he could not have falsely denied abusing them—is misleading. It presents a one‑sided argument that portrays Jackson as beyond reproach while discrediting his accusers.

For example, MJ Innocent claims that the first accuser, Jordan Chandler, refused to cooperate after the settlement. They overlook the fact that Chandler had already cooperated fully with law enforcement and with a child‑molestation expert who judged him truthful. He also provided a detailed description of Jackson’s genitalia, including distinctive discolouration visible only when Jackson was unclothed.

It is true that Jordan and his parents received a settlement from Jackson, reportedly over $15 million, to withdraw from criminal proceedings. Jackson personally arranged the settlement rather than using an insurance company, and could have contested the Chandlers’ allegations if they were indeed extortionists.

One might argue that both Jordan and Jackson wished to move on with their lives and therefore avoided a trial. Yet despite the settlement and the negative attention it brought, Jackson did not alter his behaviour. He continued inviting young boys into his bed and was later accused of abusing Jason Francia, whose mother worked as a maid at Neverland. That settlement reportedly exceeded $2 million and was made around 1995.

Following these events, California law was amended to prevent out‑of‑court civil settlements before a criminal trial had taken place.

MJ Innocent also claims their campaign directly targets Wade Robson and James Safechuck, accusing them of lying under oath. This is perplexing: if they did lie, it would mean they were untruthful when they previously denied being abused by Jackson—a situation for which no victim of child sexual abuse should be censured.

They further insist their campaign does not vilify other victims. Yet how can they be certain? Their website makes no reference to child sexual abuse more broadly, nor to the methods by which perpetrators groom and manipulate their victims. For survivors, encountering a site that criticises two men for delayed disclosure may well call into question the empathy of those behind it.

MJ Innocent highlights the case of Cliff Richard, a British singer accused of child sexual abuse but never prosecuted. Richard endured significant distress due to media coverage but was not pursued for criminal activity. However, only one allegation was made against him. Unlike Jackson, Richard was not known to befriend young boys or spend nights with them. While only Richard and his accuser know the truth, the disparities between his case and Jackson’s are substantial.

It is widely acknowledged that law enforcement does not always reach accurate conclusions, as seen in Operation Midland. Conversely, police have also failed to protect children from organised sex rings, as in Rotherham. By contrast, the Santa Barbara Police Department and District Attorney Tom Sneddon were never accused of misconduct during their extensive investigation into Jackson.

MJ Innocent discusses the repercussions of “false allegations”. Yet Jackson was ultimately responsible for the situation in which he placed himself. He built a zoo and amusement park in his back garden and persistently sought one‑to‑one interaction with unrelated boys—even after facing allegations of abuse.

If someone were falsely accused due to their own imprudence, it would be reasonable to expect them to amend their behaviour. Jackson’s failure to do so strongly suggests he was a predatory child molester who could not restrain himself.

Regarding potential breaches of TfL’s advertising policy, MJ Innocent’s website—designed to portray Jackson’s accusers as money‑hungry perjurers—likely infringes regulations. TfL’s terms forbid content liable to cause distress or offence.

2. “FREEDOM OF SPEECH”

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.

The owners of MJ Innocent went out of their way to demonise Leaving Neverland, aiming to poison public opinion and persuade people the documentary was a farce before it aired. At the very least, people should have the right to watch it without interference from pro‑Jackson supporters, and then decide for themselves whether it was genuine.

Furthermore, why should the Survivors Trust—a charity specialising in child sexual abuse—be restricted from expressing its viewpoint? The charity criticised London Transport for allowing adverts that directed people to a site disparaging two men who had disclosed abuse by Jackson, while also explaining their reasons for previously supporting him. Transport for London used its own judgement and removed the banners of its own accord. Why, then, is MJ Innocent complaining? Both parties exercised their right to free expression in deciding what was acceptable and what was not.

MJ Innocent operates like a dictatorship, insisting its message be accepted as absolute truth while censoring any opinion that does not glorify Jackson. 

3. “INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY”

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?

This is profoundly hypocritical of MJ Innocent. They have effectively placed both Wade Robson and James Safechuck on trial, portraying them not only as liars but also as perjurers.

Shouldn’t MJ Innocent, if consistent in principle, be advocating for Wade and James to have their long‑sought civil trial—a trial they have pursued for many years but have repeatedly been denied? Their cases were not dismissed for lack of credibility, but rather because of outdated statutes of limitation and the inability to hold Jackson’s companies accountable—loopholes the Jackson Estate appears particularly eager to exploit.

As for Jackson’s acquittal in 2005, it related solely to Gavin Arvizo. He was not found “innocent”—no one is in a court of law—but “not guilty”. A jury must be certain beyond reasonable doubt; if even 1% of doubt remains, the law requires acquittal.

Curiously, MJ Innocent highlights “false allegations” and “miscarriages of justice”, yet treats the 2005 verdict as absolute proof of Jackson’s innocence, insisting everyone else accept it without question.

Now consider the evidence against Jackson. From early adulthood, he appeared fixated on children, particularly boys. He went to extraordinary lengths to place himself in one‑to‑one situations with them, often spending dozens—if not hundreds—of nights in his private bedroom. Such behaviour is neither normal nor innocent.

When accused in 1993, he did not seek a criminal trial to clear his name. Instead, he paid a substantial settlement and continued the very behaviour that had drawn suspicion.

In 2005, he had the opportunity to be cross‑examined and explain why he felt compelled to have young boys as companions. He refused. A trial in which the defendant—whose behaviour was already abnormal—refused to answer a single question was hardly fair. That concern is compounded by Wade Robson’s later admission that he falsely denied abuse, misleading the jury and undermining other defence witnesses. As prosecutor Ron Zonen emphasised, complete cooperation is essential for securing a conviction.

You could argue that a criminal trial in which the defendant—whose behaviour was already highly abnormal—refused to answer a single question was hardly fair. That concern is compounded by Wade Robson’s later admission that he falsely denied abuse, thereby not only misleading the jury but also undermining the credibility of other defence witnesses. As prosecutor Ron Zonen emphasised, complete cooperation is essential for securing a conviction.

To champion the 2005 verdict is, in effect, to claim Jackson’s behaviour was acceptable—that the hundreds of nights he spent alone with unrelated children were neither wrong nor suspicious. Such a stance is not only misguided but so morally bankrupt that it amounts to an endorsement of paedophilia.

Moreover, the law and policing are far from flawless. Consider Jimmy Savile, once revered in the UK for raising £40 million for charity. After his death, he was exposed as one of the most prolific sexual predators in British history. Countless victims came forward, detailing horrific abuse within BBC studios and hospital wards. Yet during his lifetime, only two allegations surfaced, both dismissed for lack of evidence. Despite the scale of his crimes, Savile never spent a single day in court or prison—a harrowing testament to systemic failure.

4. “THIS IS NOT ABOUT CONCERN FOR GENUINE VICTIMS”

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 

The MJ Innocent campaign damages other victims of sexual abuse, particularly those abused in childhood. By censuring two men who were groomed into close friendships with Jackson—friendships that led to hundreds of nights spent in his bed as children—the website disregards the troubling 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.

The Survivors Trust possesses extensive knowledge of the tactics employed by child molesters and the behaviours exhibited by their victims. In stark contrast, MJ Innocent appears to be run by two individuals whose sole interest lies in glorifying their favourite celebrity.

It has been reported that MJ Innocent offered to revise some of the wording displayed on London buses. Yet this gesture is futile, as it would still direct people to the same website—a site that condemns two men for speaking out about their experiences of child sexual abuse and their conflicted emotions towards their abuser.

MJ Innocent remains fixated on the fact that Michael Jackson was acquitted of molesting one boy in a United States court, while dismissing differing perspectives and the reality that many criminals evade justice.

Court documents reveal that Jackson spent hundreds of nights in bed with young boys, owned so‑called “art” books containing nude images of children, maintained an extensive collection of pornography in his “child‑friendly” home, and ultimately succumbed to chronic drug addiction. These are not the hallmarks of a mentally sound individual.

Nevertheless, MJ Innocent insists that the public should view Michael Jackson in an exclusively positive light, without qualification or doubt.

Read The Survivors Trust perspective on Leaving Neverland here: thesurvivorstrust.org

CONCLUSION

Once again, the individuals behind MJ Innocent demonstrate profound delusion and moral bankruptcy. This time, their focus has turned to the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, and Transport for London. Through an open letter, they attempt—unsurprisingly—to present Jackson as an innocent victim, untouched by wrongdoing, while ignoring the possibility that he was a predatory child sex abuser.

The group claims their freedom of speech is being violated. Yet it is MJ Innocent that seeks to control public opinion through blatant misinformation, rather than encouraging people to examine the facts for themselves.

Equally telling is what their website omits. There is no mention of the traits commonly associated with child molesters, nor of the methods used to groom and manipulate victims. Instead, it is a one‑sided campaign, driven by an unhealthy obsession with glorifying a dead celebrity.