Thread by @MJInnocentUK

THREAD 1/25

About the recent #MichaelJackson write up featured in the @Telegraph, courtesy of @MrGuyKelly, who evidently falls short of journalistic integrity by believing that facts apparently are irrelevant when it comes to telling the truth.

A poster boy for the reason why so many are turning their back on mainstream media to access factual content elsewhere.
Here, we will break down some of the falsehoods he presented behind a paywall & give you the public, the accurate information for free. Ready?

GK: the MJ musical stops "curiously short" of mentioning the allegations against MJ.

FACT: The musical itself is based around the creation of the #DangerousTour & is not an academic study of MJ's entire life.

Even if it was, a musical is most certainly not the appropriate forum in which to examine serious allegations.

If GK is truly interested in scrutinising the allegations (which we suspect he is not), perhaps he might review the court transcripts & legal filings -

…which provide great insight into the allegations - fitting given that a court is the appropriate forum for this.

Note that MJ was proven innocent in a court of law & the allegations levelled against MJ in #LeavingNeverland have been thrown out of court multiple times.

GK quotes #DanReed as saying that after the 2005 trial the Estate "smeared literally anyone" who spoke against MJ.

FACT: Well, given that the Estate didn't exist until after MJ's death in 2009, DR's statement is categorically false.

Furthermore, the only smearing that has taken place has been towards MJ by DR himself & the men in his film. Numerous statements made by both men are factually untrue & have the effect of besmirching MJ's reputation; the definition of smearing.

GK & DR seem to imply that by defending MJ or continuing to do business, the Estate is somehow corrupt.

FACT: The executors are legally obliged to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries. It would not be in the best interests of the beneficiaries of the Estate to allow..

..accusations to go unchallenged, particularly where there is clear evidence that the allegations are untrue. It is also in the best interests of the beneficiaries for the Estate to engage in profitable business activities.

So, far from being corrupt, the Estate is, in fact, complying with its legal obligations.

GK states that the Estate "frequently traduces" anyone with a bad word to say.

FACT: For the most part, the Estate actually (& to the annoyance of MJ's fans) turns a blind eye to the almost daily disparagement & character assassination of MJ by numerous individuals.

However, challenging accusations of criminal misconduct is neither unreasonable nor can it rationally be described as an attempt to "smear" anyone.

GK states the Estate has questioned the "journalistic integrity" of DR.

FACT: DR destroyed his own journalistic integrity by producing a film containing umpteen provable falsehoods, many of which he could have avoided simply by performing the most basic of research.

Sadly for DR, had he done his research, he would have found that the actual facts did not support the story he wished to tell & so he would not have had a film at all.

GK quotes DR as describing the Estate's defense of the accusations against MJ as "gangster tactics''.

FACT: The Estate has highlighted that the men making accusations have lied. This is a statement of fact. The Estate have also pointed out that they are seeking millions of dollars (potentially hundreds of million) from their lawsuits. This is also a statement of fact.

It is ludicrous to suggest that pointing out facts & putting on a defense constitutes "gangster" activity. If this is the case, then every single defendant and, indeed, defense lawyer, can be accused of "gangster tactics".

GK states that DR has experienced the "ire" of the Estate simply because they’ve initiated legal action for breach of contract
FACT: HBO entered into an agreement with MJ. The Estate considers HBO to have breached that agreement & have commenced legal proceedings to this effect-

- a perfectly valid response to a potential breach of contract. Is GK truly suggesting that in doing so, the Estate have unleashed some sort of uncontrollable rage against DR? One shudders to think what would happen if DR or GK could influence the legal system:

…defendants would not be able to defend themselves against accusations and contracts would not be worth the paper they were written on as parties would be unable to enforce the agreed terms!

According to GK, DR believes MJ's fans "work as foot soldiers" for the Estate.

FACT: most of MJ's most prominent supporters vociferously and publicly criticise the Estate for myriad issues.

Those who support MJ do so because they have studied the allegations against MJ in great detail and consequently believe him to be innocent. They are certainly not employed by the Estate!

GK suggests that #JanetJackson stood by MJ "until recently".

FACT: Janet continues to stand by MJ as she made abundantly clear in her recent documentary.

GK describes MJ’s kids as "inscrutable" without actually giving any reason for this characterisation.

FACT: Prince & Paris have spoken many times in support of their father. Bigi (perhaps wisely) chooses to stay out of the public eye but has made clear his support for him too.

GK states "Reed isn't particularly interested in" MJ. Of course both GK & DR are entitled to make that claim. Nevertheless, DR's behaviour suggests otherwise...

GK states that "all [DR] asks is that they include everything" in any legacy productions.

FACT: this is somewhat hypocritical given that DR himself chose not to include everything in his own film. Most notably anyone that could provide any rebuttal whatsoever to the stories being told in his film.

(Continued in the 2 images attached)

#MJInnocent ✊🏾