Fact Checking the article “You’re Guilty Because I said So!”
On October 30th, a writer with the username of “Vanity Goddess” (VG), a 22 year old black female who has her own “handmade cosmetic business”, wrote an opinion piece called “OJ Simpson to Michael Jackson – Why Has “Acquitted” Become the Verdict for Guilty Famous Black Men?” I call it an “opinion piece” because it surely lacks any facts behind her assertions that the defendants listed in that article were guilty! To summarize the piece, she claims that OJ Simpson, Diddy, R. Kelly, and Michael Jackson should have each been convicted for murder, shooting someone, statutory rape, and child molestation, respectively. I didn’t stumble unto this piece until December 9th. Prior to that, there were 17 total comments, and the last comment was made on November 7th, so more than a month went by without any comments, and I’m sure that VG thought that she was done defending her work. But as soon as I found it, I sent it out to various MJ friends of mine, and an additional 92 comments were made! Here is one comment that VG made on December 11th in response to me:
Everyone who is commenting is making the same comment. Everyone is like, “Where’s the proof that these people are guilty?” The thing with proof is that its not something that matters. When a man cheats on a woman, he asks his woman to PROVE he’s cheating. The woman doesn’t have to PROVE anything, because she has what we call an “intuition” or an instinct. It’s a “gut feeling”. If we have to PROVE everything, we will never believe in anything, because most things are hard to prove. PROVE God exists. PROVE he doesn’t. You see what I mean. Is God non-existent because we have no proof? Michael himself said he slept in the bed with kids!!! That’s my proof! I don’t care what anyone says. THAT’S NOT APPROPRIATE!!!!!
Boy, where do I start! First, she compares someone being on trial for numerous felonies to a man that cheats on his wife! Then she throws away the legal standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by saying that her “gut feeling” tells her that MJ is guilty! Lastly, she confuses inappropriate behavior with criminal behavior. It’s not a crime to sleep in the same bed as an unrelated child, and even Tom Sneddon himself confirmed that in this press release from February 6th, 2003, the day after “Living With Michael Jackson” aired in the U.K. Here is quote directly from the scumbag himself:
The conduct of any adult under these circumstances sleeping with a child is certainly calculated to raise concerns and be considered by most reasonable people as unusual at best. For this reason all local departments having responsibility in this are taking the matter seriously. On the other hand, these same departments’ authority are specifically defined by California’s Penal Code and related statutes. These by necessity must define the scope and direction of any investigation. Many of the media inquiries suggest there has already been a mental leap of misbehavior suggested by this unusual conduct. Mental leaps of misbehavior are not acceptable as legal substitutes for credible, cooperative victims or percipient witnesses.
The relevant California Penal Code sections dealing with misconduct by an adult with a child are found in Penal Code sections 288, 647.6 and 314.1 and 803(g). A review of these sections reveals that the act of an adult sleeping with a child without more is insufficient to warrant a filing or support a conviction.
Now let’s see my comment to her, and her reply to me, from December 15th:
VG, everyone has a right to their opinions, but NOT THEIR OWN FACTS! And if you are going to say that MJ should have been convicted, you will need to show us how he got away with it? We have asked you repeatedly to present ANY inculpatory facts you have that should have sent MJ to jail, yet you have REFUSED to mention any! If you’re not going to tell why you think MJ was guilty, other than your own suspicions, then I will stop commenting now, and will suggest that others do the same. We are trying to have an intelligent dialogue with you, but you keep deflecting our requests. Did you even bother to read those links I included in previous comments?
Here’s her reply:
Nope, I have not bothered to read the links because half of the commenters gave me links. I have about 20 links to look at! I haven’t gotten to yours. I think MJ did a weird thing by sleeping with boys, and I would have put him in jail for that– or a small period of time to teach him a lesson. YOU are trying to have an intelligent convo with me, but everyone else has been hostile, so I was hostile back. They just went on ahead and said I was immature, stupid, not a writer, and all kinds of other things. They don’t respect me, so I fought back. I think the men in the article are guilty of inappropriate behavior, that’s all. But I appreciate your comments, and I’ll get to the links.
Notice how she thanked me for being intelligent with her! See guys, we can catch more bees if we use honey than if we use vinegar! (As the old saying goes!) And if she thinks that OJ murdering 2 people is merely “inappropriate behavior”, then you have some serious mental issues! But the main point I wanted to show is her crazy idea that she would have convicted MJ on prejudice, based on her comment about “teaching him a lesson”!
Here’s another glorious comment, from December 15th:
“This writer has a lack of knowledge”, “This writer is childish”, “This writer needs to do some research”. Research on what?! Who has to do research on their own opinion? Not me, certainly. Michael Jackson slept in bed with kids. End of story. And a lot of you are disrespectfully disagreeing with me. None of you guys are saying, “You know what, here’s what I think….” All of you are like, “Hey VG, you’re stupid”. And then have the nerve to call me childish! You guys are in denial. If a grown man sleeping in bed with kids is normal, then allo grown men to sleep in bed with your kids. Was Mike misunderstood? Yes. Was he a child molester? We don’t know. I don’t know, and you guys don’t know either, so stop playing the “do research” card. It doesn’t work with me. However, I am very pleased with the fact that you took the time to read the article even though you hate it so much.
I’ll finish up my critique of this article with the following excerpt:
What’s so hard about putting a famous black man in jail? Why won’t the law enforcement do it? Well, they’re doing it now. Michael Vick, T.I., Lil’ Wayne…they all did some time. Looks to me like the law enforcement started putting more famous black men in jail within the last couple of years. Hmm…let’s see…oh, yeah! We had a black president for the last couple of years! Maybe that’s why people no longer feel the need to cut black men a break. But whatever the reason is, if you’re guilty of a crime, you should go to jail whether you’re black or not–or famous or not. You shouldn’t get off because you’re a great football player or because you know how to moonwalk.
Wow! So VG seems to think that there is a direct correlation between the election of President Barack Obama and the conviction of Michael Vick (dog fighting), T.I. and Lil’ Wayne (who were both sentenced for weapons violations). What great logic, huh? Could it be that those three individuals were convicted because they were really guilty? Has that thought ever crossed her mind? Or does she really think that “the law enforcement” went easy on MJ and the other black men simply because George Bush was in office, and they wanted to apply an affirmative action program to help black defendants get acquitted now to make up for the black defendants who were wrongfully convicted decades ago? Sheesh! And how can she say that Michael Vick was convicted because President Obama was elected when he was sentenced to jail on December 10th, 2007, almost a year before Obama won the election in November 2008?
And not only is her logic absolutely ridiculous, but her grammar is horrible! “The law enforcement” should simply be “law enforcement”, and “We had a black president…” should be “We’ve had a black president…..”
Ok, so due to the overwhelming amount of negative replies that VG received for that opinion piece, she obliged my request to write a second article describing exactly how MJ molested children and got away with it. And here is her aptly titled opinion piece written on December 18th , called “You’re Guilty Because I Said So! Why Common Sense Matters in Law Enforcement”. That title leaves little to the imagination of the amount of logic (or lack thereof!) that VG uses in assessing MJ’s guilt!
I feel the best way to refute this trash is to just take excerpts and then post the appropriate links/info to rebut them, so here is the first excerpt:
Most of the commenters said, “How do you know MJ is guilty? Where’s your proof?” I told them that my proof is my own intuition and instinct. They didn’t like that, of course.
It’s a great thing that we live in a country that allows you to be innocent until proven guilty. Fairness is something that matters to me. I think everyone should be treated fairly, and they should have a fair trial. That’s indisputable.
Just two paragraphs into this post, and we’ve come to our first contradiction! She says that MJ is guilty “because she says so”, thus implying that her “intuition and instinct” are infallible. But a few sentences later she says that “everyone should be treated fairly, and they should have a fair trial”. What’s the point of giving people fair trials if we can just convict them based on our “intuitions and instincts” (which are merely euphemisms for BIASES and PREJUDICES!!)
Well VG, there was a time when people (disproportionately blacks) were sentenced to jail and even to death, based on the “intuitions and instincts” of all white juries and/or lynch mobs! (You oftentimes could not differentiate between the two!) Here is a website that has a short movie and a slideshow of lynching photos, where you can see the mutilated and charred bodies of the mostly black victims hanging from trees and bridges. Pay particular attention to photos 33 & 34, which show a black woman named Laura Nelson, who was lynched on May 25th, 1911. This could have easily have been VG if she had been alive 100 years earlier!
Here’s another excerpt, where she single handedly dismantles the one of the pillars of our justice system: that proof is required to be convicted!
To be “proven guilty” is a difficult issue, because some people are guilty even if you haven’t found physical proof that they are. And when there is some kind of physical proof, that still doesn’t prove that you’re guilty either. There was a case between two teenagers that engaged in intercourse. The girl claimed it was rape, yet the boy claimed it was consensual. He was given a sentence of 10 years in prison for rape. Their “proof” for this crime is when the girl was examined, she had a torn hymen. A torn hymen is proof of sexual intercourse, but it is not proof of rape. He was sentenced to 10 years for this (The charges were later dropped).
Proof is flawed even when we think we legitimately have some. But what people don’t realize is that proof can be something that law enforcement doesn’t use very often—common sense.
Now, to her credit, she is correct in that it’s possible for a person to be guilty of a crime without physical proof, and for someone to be innocent of a crime with physical proof. But her execution is horrible! She used the wrong analogy here because this opinion piece is about MJ being guilty without proof, but she uses a case where someone was innocent with proof! And she doesn’t even bother to tell us anything about the case, whether it’s the names of the teens, their ages, the date of the arrest or the trial, etc. She didn’t corroborate her own “opinion” with facts, so how do we know that she isn’t making this case up out of thin air?
And then she has the audacity to say that a torn hymen is “proof” of sexual intercourse?!! And this is coming from a 22 year old female?!! She should know better! There are many ways that a female can tear her hymen without intercourse! Here is an explanation of some ways to tear her hymen besides sex:
The hymen is also not an indicator of virginity. The tissues of the vulva are generally very thin and delicate prior to puberty, so many girls and teens tear or dilate their hymen while participating in sports like bicycling, horseback riding, gymnastics or while inserting tampons. A girl may not even know this has occurred, since there may be little or no blood or pain involved when this happens. Remnants of the hymen are usually still present until a woman delivers a baby vaginally.
The myth that an intact hymen is an indicator of virginity has gotten many women killed in certain parts of the world where they are still treated as second-class citizens. In some countries, women purchase products that are designed to release a blood like substance when triggered, thus giving the illusion of a broken hymen. Certain cultures are very strict when it comes to chastity, and pre-marital sex is strictly forbidden for both men and women. Many women have been disowned by their families, brutally beaten, and even murdered in so-called “honor killings” because they were sexually promiscuous, and this is why there is so much demand for “fake hymens”. This is a blatant double standard, regardless of your culture or religion, because when is the last time you heard about a man getting disowned by his family, or being murdered, simply for being promiscuous?
Now, let’s get to the meat of her article. Here is where she lists the “evidence” of the aforementioned black defendants:
O.J. Simpson wrote a book called If I Did It. Someone who is wrongfully accused of such a horrible thing as murder is not going to go write a book about what would happen had he done it. That is not rational behavior of someone who is innocent. An innocent person would want to distance themselves from that situation—not go write a book called If I Did It.
Now, I’ll admit, she’s absolutely right, and I’ll give her credit. But her research is incomplete because she failed to mention that the book “If I Did It” was never published due to the overwhelmingly negative response from the media and the public! Ironically, the publisher of the book was Judith Regan, who said it was “distasteful” for the Chandlers to shop a book that violates the confidentiality agreement “before the ink was even dry”, yet she had no problem publishing a book that was probably conceived by a murderer “before the blood was even dry” on his Bruno Magli shoes!
Speaking of the actions of people after a crime has allegedly been committed, would the father of a real molestation victim want to record a studio album full of songs to rebut the claims of the person who allegedly molested his son? I don’t think so! So VG, wouldn’t this make MJ innocent, using your standards? Evan Chandler’s actions -writing “All That Glitters” & wanting to record an album – are antithetical to what a typical father would do in the same situation!
R. Kelly had always been accused of being a pedophile before the child pornography incident ever happened. R. Kelly was married to singer Aaliyah when she was 15 years old. Before his case, he already had a history of being with someone who was too young for him. Not only that, but he did an interview a couple of years ago on BET admitting that he has “some 18 and 19 year old friends, but not anybody illegal.” Why would you even have 18 or 19 year old friends and you’re in your 40’s? What 40 year old man hangs out with 18 year olds? That isn’t something people do.
VG accuses R. Kelly (who wrote MJ’s “Cry”, “One More Chance”, and “You Are Not Alone”, which he covered here) of being a pedophile because of his alleged marriage to R&B singer Aaliyah, who was 15 years old at the time. I say the word “alleged” because neither R. Kelly nor Aaliyah ever publicly acknowledged being married! But even if they were married, that does not make him a pedophile because the definition of pedophilia is defined as the sexual interest in children aged 13 or younger (i.e. prepubescent, which means before puberty!). At 15 years old, Aaliyah would have been pubescent, or even post-pubescent, so the terms hebephilia or ephebophilia, respectively, would have been more accurate in this case. And if you’re wondering about the child pornography trial, of which he was acquitted on all charges in June 2008, the girl was 14 years old at the time, well into puberty, so once again the term “pedophile” would be inappropriate for R. Kelly.
(And let me make this perfectly clear: in no way, shape, or form am I saying that his actions with that girl were acceptable, if he was truly guilty. I’m just trying to point out that when researching an article, especially about someone’s guilt or innocence, you MUST use the correct facts in order to maintain credibility with your readers. It may seem like I’m nitpicking here, but R. Kelly’s alleged interest in teenage girls would be inappropriate at best, but is NOT pedophilia.)
P. Diddy made a comment in one of his songs saying “My lawyer is so good, so Diddy got acquitted”. That’s another thing an innocent person wouldn’t say. If you are innocent, you wouldn’t say “I got acquitted because I had a good lawyer”. You would say, “I got acquitted because I didn’t do anything. I got acquitted because I’m innocent.” It wouldn’t be because “I had a good lawyer.” I thought Diddy saying that was stupid and made him look like he was laughing in our face.
First of all, I want to make it clear that I don’t know any of the facts of Diddy’s 2001 trial on weapons violations, but I do know this much: If I was going to reference the lyrics of an artist in an article, I would at least have the common sense to name the song that the lyrics come from! VG specifically refers to it as “one of his songs”. This is similar to what she did earlier, when she didn’t mention the name of the case involving the two teenagers. How do we know that this song even exists? This is yet another example of poor research and writing skills. VG, you’re supposed to give your readers this type of information so that they’ll be able to corroborate it!
One last thing: since VG seems to think that those lyrics are an affirmative indication of Diddy’s guilt, couldn’t we use MJ’s lyrics from “This Time Around” as an affirmative indication of his innocence? (Noticed how I mentioned the name of the song!)
Let’s pay attention to the second verse:
This time around I’ll never get bit
Though you really wanna get me
This time around I’m taking no s…
Though you really wanna fix me
Somebody’s out to use me
They really want to use me
And then falsely accuse me
This time around
They’ll take it like spit
‘Cause you really can’t control me
Well, using VG’s logic, that verse – well actually the entire HIStory album! – are undeniable proof that MJ was innocent in 1993, simply because he said he was innocent in a song. Obviously that logic is laughable! The lyrics to a song – while sometimes admissible in court – are never in and of itself indicative of someone’s guilt or innocence. What proves MJ’s innocence are the facts of the case, not a song!
O.J. was the most nonchalant convicted murderer I’ve ever seen. He was so relaxed. His demeanor was almost arrogant when he was in the courtroom. Had someone had me on trial for something I didn’t do, I wouldn’t be able to keep a straight face like he did. I would always frown or cry! People would know that being in that courtroom is the last place I would want to be. But O.J., he seemed comfortable.
So now VG expects OJ and every other innocent person to sit in court for 8 hours a day, frowning and crying nonstop. Are you kidding me?! !! Well, if OJ being comfortable is a sign of his guilt, then what about MJ’s demeanor? What about how frail and gaunt he looked as the trial progressed? What about his bodyguards having to physically help him get to and from the courtroom? What about the times when MJ cried in court? (Which we didn’t see because it wasn’t televised?) Should those be taken as signs of MJ’s innocence? Once again, VG has contradicted herself!
OK, now on to MJ! Let’s see her first contradiction right here, in the very first sentence of the first paragraph!
I don’t know if MJ molested children, but I do think he was an emotional abuser and did do inappropriate things when he was with children.
Wait a minute VG! The title of the article clearly says “You’re Guilty Because I Said So!”, but now you’re saying that you “don’t know” if MJ molested children? But in your previous article, you titled it “Why Has Acquittd Become the Verdict for Guilty Famous Black Men?”, and you said that “you shouldn’t get off because you know how to moonwalk”. What is it, VG? Is Michael Jackson innocent or guilty? We all thought that this would be the definitive, be all, end all article to silence MJ’s supporters once and for all, and yet you still “don’t know” if he’s a child molester?
OK, here is where she really pisses me off!
When the children were with him on the Neverland Ranch, they were away (or isolated) from their parents. When they are away from their parents, their parents have no control or authority over what happens when they aren’t around. He also told the kids to call him Peter Pan. He was trying to make the children view him as a kid or non-authoritative. He created an atmosphere that was “no adults allowed”. If the children viewed him as a kid just like they were, then they would have a bond with him that they wouldn’t normally have with him had they viewed him as an adult.
First of all, MJ NEVER told anyone to call him “Peter Pan”, and the notion that MJ “isolated” kids away from their parents while they were at Neverland is totally false! MJ always sought parental approval before letting kids visit him at Neverland, and before they slept in his bedroom quarters! This was corroborated by the following people, who are just a small portion of the numerous people who have defended MJ over the years:
- Ahmad Elatab – in November 2003, shortly after MJ’s arrest, he gave this interview to debunk the myths surrounding Neverland. Here’s a summary of the article: He was 16 when he met MJ, which debunks the myth that MJ hung out with prepubescent boys! MJ got his parent’ s permission before allowing them to visit! (By the way, they asked MJ to visit, he didn’t invite them!) MJ slept on a pullout couch while they slept in his bed.
- Carol Nilwicki: In the fall of 1993, Geraldo Rivera conducted a “mock trial” of MJ on his television program in which his studio audience was allowed to vote on MJ’s guilt or innocence. . A mother and her sick daughter were on the witness stand, and were “cross-examined” by the prosecutor. I don’t have the video of this episode, but Ian Halperin transcribed some of it in “Unmasked”, on pages 109-112. I’m not going to type the entire segment, but I’ll point out some key points. The mother, Carol Nilwicki, and her sick daughter Carol, tried to buy tickets to an MJ concert in 1987, but they sold out. (What a surprise, huh?) So they made a videotape begging for MJ to send them tickets, and they sent the tape to Neverland, and a few days later MJ called them and offered tickets, and befriended the whole family! Carol made sure to emphasize that MJ asked for her and her husband’s permission before speaking to their daughter. Later on, the prosecutor asked the mother if she would let any other 35 year old man fraternize with her daughter, and she made a very valuable point, that I definitely need to emphasize here. She said the following: “You must realize something. We sought Michael Jackson out. He did not seek my daughter out.” Needless to say, the audience voted to acquit MJ that night!
- Here is MJ’s attorney Tom Mesereau thoroughly obliterating the misconceptions about Neverland on the Tonight Show in 2005, after the acquittal. For more info on Neverland, please see this post.
He did not “bribe” any child with warm milk and cookies! That was given to them because they asked for it! Going back to Ahmed’s interview, he said that “there were no rules. Any whim was fulfilled instantly.” Kids were given any type of food or NON-ALCOHOLIC drink that they asked for! Why would he need to “bribe” them?
The rest of the article is filled with so much conjecture, speculation, hearsay, and insinuations that I won’t even bother to analyze that trash. But I will say this: if MJ had been on trial for “fitting the description” of an abuser, based on his childhood and his emotional issues, he would have been locked up and the key would have been thrown away! But he wasn’t on trial for “fitting” any so-called description; he was on trial for conspiring to hold the Arvizos hostage at Neverland and ship them to Brazil, plying the Arvizo children with alcohol, showing them pornography (the latter two counts were allegedly done with the intent to molest), and then finally molesting Gavin Arvizo!
Now, let’s play a game here: let’s apply VG’s logic to a real life situation! Here is an experiement done by ABC News for their show “What Would You Do?”, which tests how oridinary people react to extraordinary situations. In this episode, a group of white actors were hired to play the part of employees and security guards at an upscale department store, and a group of black actors were hired to play the part of customers. This is designed to highlight the epidemic of black shoppers who are stereotyped as being “thieves” or “thugs” or “hoodlums”, and are harassed while they shop, otherwise known as “Shopping While Black”.
According to VG’s logic, if this was a real situation, those white employees would be 100% correct because their “intuitions and instincts” told them the black customers would steal, and the white security guards would be able to arrest them merely on his own suspicions! And then, they wouldn’t even need to go on trial because a white judge would “assume” they were guilty, and then sentence them to jail!
Since VG is a 22 year old black female, around the same age as some of these actors, I wonder how she would react if she was confronted like this while she was shopping?
Here is a third article that I wanted to analyze. VG had the audacity to question why the Beatles are still so popular! This article was written on December 9th, around the time of the 30 year anniversary of John Lennon’s death. One thing about VG is that she really knows how to choose a title for her articles! It’s called “The Beatles: I Don’t Get Why They Were So Big – I Mean, Weren’t They Just A Boy Band?” Seriously! Like I said, she leaves nothing to the imagination in her titles!
Even if you’re not necessarily a fan of the Beatles, we should all respect what they did for music. If they weren’t a legendary band, then Sony wouldn’t have tried to sabotage MJ’s sales in order to force him into bankruptcy and get their catalog, right? Apple wouldn’t have paid hundreds of millions of dollars for the right to sell their songs on iTunes, right? (Terms of the deal were not disclosed, but Apple surely paid somewhere in that range!)
Here is a quote from the article that sums it up oh so succinctly:
I’m young. I’m only 22, so I basically know nothing about the Beatles. I don’t get why people hold on to their legacy for so many years. I thought they were just a typical boy band. I’ve seen girls act crazy over NSYNC, Hanson, and the Jonas Brothers too. Are we going to hold on to their legacy 30 years from now? Probably not.
Ok, now here’s where she shows her hypocrisy by comparing the older generation’s love of the Beatles’ to the younger generation’s love of MJ. I thought she said in the other article that MJ was guilty? She makes this RIDICULOUS generalization that all young people don’t like the Beatles:
“I don’t think very many young people get why the Beatles matter so much. Do you hear any young people talking about how cool the Beatles are? What about people that are in the music industry? We young people are able to appreciate old school talent—just not the Beatles. We love Michael Jackson. And it’s not a “black thing”. We have Justin Beiber—a 16 year old white boy—going up on stage to accept his AMA saying, “If it wasn’t for Michael Jackson, I wouldn’t be here.” Justin Timberlake used to say the same thing. When was the last time you heard a young person say something like that about the Beatles?“
And to top it all off, this is something that her mom told her about MJ and the Beatles.
“My mother just revealed to me that John Lennon and Michael Jackson made an album together. I bet that was big, but I don’t hear anyone talking about that at all. You would think that that would be a very cherished album since the both of them are now dead.“
Oh my goodness! How misinformed can one person be! Did she even bother to check MJ’s discography or Lennon’s discography? I think her mom probably mistook John Lennon for Paul McCartney, who as we all know made a few songs with MJ, but not an entire album! Paul and MJ recorded “The Girl is Mine”, “Say Say Say”, and the highly underrated “The Man”, which McCartney included on his 1983 album “Pipes of Peace”, and is now for sale on iTunes!
Paul McCartney also wrote “Girlfriend” for MJ’s “Off The Wall” album, and what many people don’t know is that he and his group The Wings recorded it for their album for 1978 album “London Town“. For those of you who haven’t heard it before, here it is for your listening pleasure!
Well, I don’t want to totally trash VG, so I’ll give her credit where credit is due. She wrote a piece questioning Oprah’s motives for interviewing MJ’s parents and children after years of negative comments about him. It’s called “Did Oprah Interview Katherine Jackson to Redeem Herself from All that Crap She Used to Say About Michael Jackson?” I think this is something that we ALL can agree with VG on:
I just think it’s kind of two faced for Oprah to interview the people who are closest to him—his mom and his kids—and make it seem like everything is fine and dandy. She accused their son and father of being a molester, yet she’s smiling in their face. I don’t see how she can do it. Like I said, I think Michael did some strange things too, but I don’t know if I can put on a complete front for his family just so I can get an interview with them.
I wonder if the children are aware that Oprah thinks their father is a child molester. And if they are, I wonder how they feel about it.
I always thought Oprah was a two face though. She always talks trash about someone or something, then smile in their face when she’s interviewing them. I feel like a lot of her interviews are just to get ratings. It’s her last season, so she wants to go out with a bang. If she cared anything about the Jackson family, she would have had them on sooner, and she would have attended Michael’s funeral. She didn’t do any of those things.
She’s two faced. She just wants the ratings. I’m sure her opinion about Michael is the same that it’s always been.
Bravo VG! You’ve partially redeemed yourself, but don’t get too comfortable! Oprah’s so two-faced that she should star in the next Batman movie! (Two-face was one of Batman’s enemies, by the way.) You’ve still got a lot of work to do before you become a credible writer on anything, nevermind Michael Jackson! You’ve got to learn to conduct proper research, cite your sources, using proper grammar at all times, and be consistent in what you choose to write about. I lost count on the number of contradictions in these articles!
But I will thank you for writing part 2, because most writers would have simply ignored our request to see the evidence. I would suggest to you that you skim through this website and learn about the allegations. And then, if you still think he is guilty, write a part 3, and this time actually include some cold hard facts to back up your opinion, such as providing readers with the prosecution’s timeline, excerpts from the witnesses’ testimony, the evidence presented in court, etc.
Until then, nobody will take you seriously!