Skip to content

Fact Checking the article “You’re Guilty Because I said So!”

December 19, 2010

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
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!

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!

60 Comments leave one →
  1. Dialdancer permalink
    December 19, 2010 11:35 am


    I had not read all her bio. I can tell you a couple of things. (1) She is not going to change her tune. She’s too young. There is nothing like the self-righteous young. (2) Here is a hint to part of her problem ….cheating, it is the first example of that instinctive knowledge of something that is, not God, but cheating. She is not even old enough to know that her belief in the cheating is based upon unconscious knowledge, physical evidence of things heard and seen to know. (3) She has a hangup about Black males of wealth marrying White females. (she did not include Bill Cosby who was accused of sexual assault and imprisonment) In Michael’s case the Media took great care taken not to publish any pictures with him and women of color or with little girls. (you can guess what that was all about)

    Allowing the trial to be done in parody on TV, using people like Allred & Grace as objective experts and the unwillingness to report all the facts was a crime and here is the results.


  2. Riogirl77 permalink
    December 19, 2010 11:45 am

    OMG! Priceless rebuttal David! Standing ovation! ♥
    Oh, HOW I agree!!!!!! Your words parallelled my own thoughts on the piece!

    I am speechless! I LOVED it! THAT is how a writer should write! 😀
    I couldn’t stop reading! How I laughed! And I loved all the linked and sourced links and videos!

    At the risk of sounding totally inadequate, VG is simply an idiot! Well, maybe that is too harsh… maybe just ignorant and opinionated and confused and inexperieneced and… As just a high school grad, she has some serious learning to do! Have you read her profile? She thinks she’s a good writer because she never had less than a B in her school writing assignments! But claims her teachers never complimented her on her writing! Good grief… Scary to think that supposedly, she is being PAID to write this trash.

    As MJ would say, “anything for money…”
    (from song ‘Money’. Michael Jackson. HIStory album, 1995. SONY Music)


  3. Riogirl77 permalink
    December 19, 2010 12:00 pm

    Just wanted to clarify: I really appreciated all the information you provided David… I wasn’t laughing through THAT! Excellent research and relevance!


  4. Olga permalink
    December 19, 2010 12:05 pm

    David the girl still has the kindergarden way of thinking. She is totally stupid and her teachers were right not to like her writing. She should stay in cosmetic business and stop humiliating herself like that. I will stick to my professional ethics and will not draw her a profile although I am the one that actually CAN do it!


  5. Hayat permalink
    December 19, 2010 12:25 pm

    My first thought was, ‘this girl must be a racist’. A bit further, I read that she’s actually BLACK.
    David, you’re a wiz!! Not really, cuz you don’t use magic, you use the TRUTH.

    I got a feeling, that this chick is gonna surprise herself big time, she’ll grow to LOVE Michael.
    I don’t know why, I’ve got this hunch.
    She’ll research, and fall in love with him. Like so many others have.

    I would like to emphasize, that Muslims, do NOT just ask their ‘women’ or ‘girls’ to be virgin and keep their chastity, its supposed to be for everyone. MAN and WOMAN.
    I know, that this is not being practiced in real life, and I feel terrible for the women that suffer from it in those countries where they uphold those ‘laws’ that they’ve abused.
    I’m a Muslim myself. Islam says nothing about the ‘hymen’ – that you MUST ‘bleed’ to be portrayed as a ‘virgin’. Its bull. Sadly, those who have power abuse the real Islam for their own benefit and needs. Just like the terrorists do.

    David, keep up the GREAT work!


  6. ares permalink
    December 19, 2010 1:10 pm

    Just amazing post.Gongrats David. I think that this girl represents the majority of todays youth’s caratteristics . Arrogance, stupidity, ignorance . She is all of this. What suprizes me is that in the age of internet, in the age where everyone can have free entrance to almost every single piece of information with a simple click, instead of using those benefits people have became extremelly lazy and they prefer to believe whatever the otherS tell them or what they have overheard, than do a simple fact checking or read the facts from a reliable source. smh!


  7. pauline permalink
    December 19, 2010 1:16 pm

    thanks to the Martin Bashir interview, Michael’s legacy will forever be associated with p-a.


  8. Olga permalink
    December 19, 2010 2:16 pm

    “She makes this RIDICULOUS generalization that all young people don’t like the Beatles”

    Ignorant people often make laughable generalizations. It’s a common characteristic of ignorance. I bet she conducted a survey on ALL young people on the planet and came up with these result. In that case, which is the ONLY way one can make such a claim, I am expecting to see the journal in which the survey was published. Something tells me I am going to wait forever.


  9. Olga permalink
    December 19, 2010 2:29 pm

    By the way there is another investigation on OJ’s case.

    You can watch the whole video here for free:


  10. Denise permalink
    December 19, 2010 5:37 pm

    Well….I’m a little bit younger than this woman, and Even I’m not that ignorant. It’s amazing. You can be a 22 year-old woman, and have the mental state of a 14-year-old. Like Mj, The Beatles had devoted fans all over the planet, and even though I’m not a huge fan of the Beatles Myself, I admire their work, and their legacy, not to mention John Lennon, and what he stood for.

    If somebody thinks Michael Jackson is guilty based on what they think they may feel, that’s an Epic Fail. Because they want him to have commited these crimes. They’re not going after facts, they’re going after whatever artificial feelings and and assumptions that they are going with. Sort of going by the gut feeling. I believe in that gut feeling type of thing as well. I actually really feel things….And I feel that Michael wasn’t guilty of what he was blatantly accused of. It’s not fair to just slap judgements on somebody that hasn’t even been convicted of the crimes they were accused of. Michael denied it and denied, and he denied once more. Most people think he outed himself on the bashir shock-u-mentary, but everybody knows that was a set up from the very start. And it’s a shame how just one 2 hour program could ruin a man’s life forever. Or lose whatever respect he was trying to get back for good.

    I live in the U.S. and usually here, when someone is accused of a crime, they’re innocent until proven guilty. In this case, Michael guilty until proven innocent. And even when he was proven innocent, he was still guilty to everybody but the fans and supporters. It’s so sad.

    Yes Michael almost always had kids around him, almost all the time, not every minute of every hour, of every day, but he had them around him enough.

    Yes Michael helped the kids and families out, yes Michael was very vocal of the fact that his childhood wasn’t all that good, yeah Michael was interested in playing with kids, showing them a good time.

    Does that prove that he was a CM? No it does not. CM’s don’t give a rat’s tail about helping sick kids, befriending cancer patients, being upset that they weren’t their when the cancer patient passed on (I’m referring to Ryan White)

    They wouldn’t care about kids well-being at all, but just what they can do to those kids, than move to the next one.

    And that’s what people with these stupid hate-generating blogs, books, documentaries, articles, journalist’s, and news reporter’s need to get though their heads.

    And as for that VG woman, she makes all of us young people look like Bird brains, careless, ignorant, silly, air headed.

    Most of us probably are, but not every single one of us.

    Being open minded was self taught for me. My parents didn’t even need to teach not to be ignorant, that came naturally.


    I love the site.


  11. lcpledwards permalink
    December 19, 2010 7:13 pm

    @ hayat
    I’m sorry! In no way, shape, or form was I trying to imply that all Muslims think that way, so I removed all references to Islam, and added in that it is a double standard that men aren’t also shamed when they are promiscuous, regardless of what religion or culture it is. Thanks!


  12. December 19, 2010 10:26 pm

    David, thank you for the article and the attention you’ve brought to this new VG in our life. I’ve left there a message too – here it is:

    VG, your conclusions about Michael Jackson’s behavior are wrong.
    You say the abused often become abusers too. This is true but the mechanism is totally different – children are afraid of their parents when they are cruel to them and since they are fearful to answer back, some pour their anger and resentment on those weaker than themselves (usually smaller children or animals). This is how cruelty generates cruelty and this is why it should be avoided at all costs.

    Cruelty was surely NOT Michael Jackson’s case – everyone says he was unable to hurt a fly.
    His case was completely different. You probably know it yourself that children who are abused by their parents often decide that when they grow up they will never allow themselves to follow their parents’ example? If they were beaten – they promise they’ll never beat their own children, if they were neglected – their kids will have all the attention they need, if they were abandoned in childhood – they will never leave their child no matter what circumstances they find themselves in, if they were hungry and poor – they will work hard for their children to be well fed and well taken care of, if they didn’t receive education it will be their dream to give them education, etc. Recognize the phenomenon?

    The short of it is this – if you were deprived of something in your childhood you will do your best to insure that your children will have it in excess. Each can remember certain incidents in his childhood when he faced injustice from his parents and gave solemn vows to himself while wiping tears – “when I grow up I will never, NEVER in my life do anything like that to my own child”….

    Michael Jackson was severely abused by his father when he was a child – both physically and emotionally, was denied every little joy a usual kid has and started working as an adult at the age of five. This worked a miraculous but absolutely natural effect on him – he could never touch a fly (as the pain of physical abuse never went away) and he could not refuse children anything they asked for (as he himself had been denied virtually everything).

    When you haven’t experienced something yourself you don’t know what it is like and tend to OVERDO it once you finally have it. I am sure you know the phenomenon too. The hungry will overeat, those raised in poverty will overbuy, the ones who spent their life in prison will not know what freedom is and will abuse it – they simply don’t know what it is like, hence all these extremes.

    Same with Jackson – he didn’t know what a normal childhood is and tended to ‘overdo’ it restoring it in the form of Neverland and giving all the children around him the happy chance to enjoy it. And since he could never say NO to a child they practically suppressed him to their whims. The children could turn Michael round their little fingers – watch TV from his bed, eat popcorn sitting there and spreading all the litter around, have pillow fights and make a complete mess of the room, fall asleep in his bed while he had to go to a sleeping bad or a couch, rake through his personal things in the closet, have each of their wishes immediately met (except photographing and drinking wine), and follow him even to the bathroom (as LMP said).

    THIS was Michael’s only problem – he was unable to say NO to a child. As he had been heavily abused himself he couldn’t punish a child, couldn’t drive him away or shut a door in his face, couldn’t reprimand or scold him and had to learn the art of upbringing children without spoiling them very, very hard.

    His friends say that when Michael had children of his own their conversation always revolved about how to raise children, how to discipline them and Michael was known to have extreme problems in punishing a child – the most he could do was deprive them of his attention for a short time and that’s that! (and the result is great by the way judging by his three fantastic kids now).

    Whatever eccentricities Michael had in his behavior with children they weren’t the result of his celebrity status or anything ‘bad’ – they were due to the unique circumstances in which he grew up – starting work at the age of five, having the worst possible offense from his father and never having a single little joy his own older and more fortunate brothers had (they at least went to a normal school).

    Michael had already been a child veteran before he turned into a teenager. And this is SINGULAR experience. If you are able to find another guy with anything similar to it is only him you should compare Michael to. However I doubt you’ll ever find one considering the burden of responsibility on his little shoulders and the crazy success that confined him to even more isolation and difficulty in relations with people.

    The psychologist Dr. Stanley Katz who consulted lawyer Larry Feldman working against Michael BOTH in 1993 and in 2003 and knew BOTH Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo said to the police after reporting the Arvizo case to them that Michael “really didn’t fit the profile of a p-le”. He called him a “regressed 10-year old” instead and the Santa Barbara investigator agreed with him.

    I know that from the point of view of an ordinary citizen you consider Michael’s childish behavior inappropriate. But if you have more or less felt what the REAL problems of Michael Jackson were (complete inability to say NO to a child) please answer the following questions now:

    1) Is it appropriate to draw conclusions from comparing a working five-year-old with an ordinary person who is raised the usual way and starts working only after college?
    2) Is it better to torture, wrongly convict and bring about an early death of an innocent person than give him the same person the benefit of the doubt and leave his alone?
    3) If someone’s guilt is only in giving children too much freedom, is it enough punishment for the culprit to go through two litigations and one trial and be massively harassed by the press and the public for almost twenty years? Sorry I didn’t get it – are 20 years of public crucifixion enough or not enough?
    4) Is it appropriate to accuse someone of a horrible crime if you have no facts but are guided by a “feeling” only?
    5) Would you like to be considered guilty of horrendous crimes on the basis of what other people feel about you?
    6) Or would you prefer to be considered innocent until proven guilty?
    7) Are you sincere in your replies?


  13. lynande51 permalink
    December 20, 2010 1:33 am

    David I read her article about you are guilty because I said so and this poor thing didn’t even have the insulin part of her story right. I read what she said about a nurse giving her Grandmother insulin prior to the meal and how she said it was wrong. Well that is the way it has been done for several years. It is called carb counting and you treat the carbs you are going to eat not what you ate 4 hours prior. It has been this way for a few years now and it is done this way because it is considered more accurate and effective with less chance of a reaction.Like I said poor thing didn’t get much right.


  14. Carm permalink
    December 20, 2010 1:55 am

    I don’t think this young woman’s ignorance and lack of logic has much to do with age. My cousin is in her 60’s and feels that because she is a social worker she is qualified in determining whether or not MJ was guilty of crimes against children.
    She says that children loved him and that they would have never said anything against him so therefore he must have been guilty. How’s that for logic! Unfortunately most people believe that whether or not Michael Jackson molested children is a debatable issue. They feel that they can express an opinion on the matter instead of finding out the truth and the facts supporting it. You can’t really blame them, this is what the media has been telling them for the past twenty years. It’s deeply ingrained in the North American psyche. It has to do with not only a twisting of the facts but also a SUPRESSION of the facts. Just look at Jacques Peretti’s propaganda piece “Michael Jackson: What Really Happened” which David has analyzed on this blog. This highly destructive piece of trash full of factual inacuracies, disguised as a legitimate documentary centres on this “debate” and MJ’s “controversial” lifestyle, which ultimately led to his “downfall”. The mere fact that respected media outlets still allow this highly unethical program speaks volumes–even media watchdogs can’t recognize when they have been brainwashed. Also if I hear another person say that Michael Jackson regularly slept with boys I think I’ll scream. According to Geraldine Hughes, author of “Redemption”, after 1993 Michael was never alone in his bed with a child. Ever. Not only did he sleep on the floor if a kid was in his bed, there was always at least a third party present. In other words he learned the hard way. Perhaps he wasn’t so irresponsible after all, VG.


  15. December 20, 2010 2:29 am

    I know Murray was responsible for Michael’s death, but I have always blamed the bottom feeding media


  16. lynande51 permalink
    December 20, 2010 3:45 am

    I agree with you Teva if not for the media Michael would not have had the kind of stress that kept him from sleeping. They were the killers Murray was just the weapon. The Diane Dimond’s Maureen Orth’s and Nancy Grace’s were the ones with the conspiracy. They were to ones with the greed and ambitions of stardom.


  17. Raven permalink
    December 20, 2010 4:33 am

    Thanks for this rebuttal. A couple of things that really struck me about her article overall:

    I found the examples of Michael’s flaws in character in dealing with his adult relationships and marriages totally irrelevent to the point. So Lisa Marie said he could be manipualtive? That, of course, is based on Lisa’s own experience in her relationship with Michael, which may or may not have validity, but if most of us were “perfect” in our relationships, then the divorce rate wouldn’t be at an all-time high. The bottom line: What relevance does this have to a discussion of his guilt? Of being accused with the very serious crime of child molestation? If it’s an attempt to show a correlation between emotionally abuive behavior in an adult relationship to sexually abusive behavior with children, it’s an epic fail because there is no correlation. They are two entirely different types of abuse. And let’s just say for arguement that everything Lisa Marie said is true (even if, granted, it’s only HER side of the story). The only thing it “proves” is that perhaps he had issues with inter-personal relationships and maybe wasn’t easy to get along with as a spouse. However, last time I checked, that was a character flaw and you cannot convict someone to prison based on a character flaw. It’s not a crime.

    Her article, and your rebuttal, also brings up another point, and it’s one I find highly disturbing yet all too frequent when it comes to would-be analyzers of Michael’s behavior and psychological makeup. There are too many people who never met Michael-and this includes even some well-meaning but misguided psychologists and psychiatrists-who are neverthless willing to offer their expert “diagnosis” of him. Yet how many of these experts in their field would even consider, in real life, diagnosing someone without a professional evaluation based on having talked to the person, observiing them,and actual one-on-one time spent time with them? No self-respecting professional in the field of psychology or psychiatry would even consider diagnosing someone over the phone!!! Yet some of these very same people have absolutely no qualms about offering up their so-called “expert” opinions on Michael Jackson’s psychological makeup, based on nothing more substantial than a few things they’ve read about him in the press or in some book!

    And what’s even sadder is to realize just how dubious are most of the very ‘sources” that they claim to draw their information from!

    Yet they can “claim”-without ever having met the man, or in most cases without having even consulted anyone who knew him-to be able to offer a complete psychological profile! Their misinformation is then picked up, evaluated and digested by people like VG, who then perpetaute the cycle, and on we go!

    I don’t see much difference in that and what VG is doing here. Intuition is fine. Intuition is what tells a mother that she should pick up a phone and call her child because “something’s not right.” And, yes, there’s something to be said for the intuition of a wife when she feels her husband is cheating on her (and vice versa). But again, we’re talking about someone being convicted of a crime in a court of law. There is a reason why we have due process, and thank goodness we do! It means we can’t just convict someone because we don’t like the way they look or their lifestyle or their personal choices. We certainly can’t assume someone’s guilt just because he didn’t always get along with his ex-wife, or because his dad beat him when he was little or because he liked to climb trees! Again, none of these things are a direct correlation to the real issue at stake…did this man or did he not commit a crime?

    This is a question that can only be proven or disproven via a preponderance of the evidence, not by misguided personal bias based on equally misguided, biased information.


  18. December 20, 2010 6:19 am


    Your rebuttal to VG’s article is perfect. A prime example of how a writer is supposed to present an article. I really could not believe what I was looking at as I read VG’s ‘articles’. Her thoughts just went here, there, and yonder. It is really sad that she is getting paid to write any kind of articles, let alone articles about MJ. I do not care what kind of writing someone does from a children’s book to journalistic articles, there has to be research conducted on your subject. VG can say this is her opinion all she wants too, but when she tries to pass of her opinion has fact is a whole other thing.

    I find it very sad, cause by the thoughts she shares its seems she doesn’t take the time first to research anything. I do not know how she made it through school if this is example of the way she wrote her assignments. Also, the way she approaches people. Does she think she can make it through life without help from others? Or, acknowledging when people provide her with facts that will help her understand what she is speaking about? Why doesn’t she look into why everyone is speaking on one accord? VG cannot be of the you are wrong mentality and there is no need to bother because oh ‘everyone is just saying the same thing. Well how would she know what is wrong or right? If she has not looked, read and reread; fact checking for herself.

    There is no excuse for someone who has been presented facts, truth over and over again to remain ignorant and arrogant. VG’s responses are an excuse she is using, not to look further into understanding why the same information is provided repeatedly. She is showing the effect the dumbing down process that has taken hold of her by the media. That is a very damaging combo, cause she is spreading the same dumbing down lies she has be effected by to the public even more.



    Well, said that is an awesome response you posted for VG. It will be interesting to see if she answers your questions.


  19. Rob permalink
    December 20, 2010 5:33 pm

    Wow! Very impressive, thank you for all of your efforts in defense of the truth about Michael.


  20. visitor permalink
    December 20, 2010 11:53 pm

    You did an amazing job David.Just amazing. Loved it!!!


  21. December 21, 2010 5:12 pm

    The song that Diddy said that in was 50 Cent’s “I Get Money” Remix. The boy that was accused of rape was named Marcus Dixon. I didn’t think all the info mattered because it was you that asked me to stick to MJ. So, I tried not to talk too much about anything else.

    Um, I think we just have a different outlook on this case. I don’t what else to say. I love MJ. I cried for days after he died. I’m still in disbeleif that he is dead. However, I looked at what I knew about him, and gathered that he has some issues, and he was capable exactly what he was accused of. I don’t know if he touched kids, but I think he was a manipulator, and possibly did things that a parent wouldn’t want people to do to their kids.


  22. December 21, 2010 5:38 pm

    Dialdancer, I do not have a hangup on black men dating white women, I date white men! I also have been fantasizing about Eminem lately… lol

    I think people are calling me ingnorant over an article that they disagree with. You can’t assume I’m an idiot because you don’t agree with me. Then you have the nerve to call me childish. I wrote 305 articles to date, many of them encouraging to women, teens, and blacks. In some of them I’m actually taking the side of republicans! I’m not ignorant–I’m special:)

    I don’t think my last post showed up, but Marcus Dixon was the accused rapist I was talking about. He was 17, the girl was just shy of 16–which was the legal age. The Diddy lyrics came from “I Get Money” by 50 Cent. It was the remix.

    I am not calling you guys names, because THAT would be ignorant. However, I am calling you guys names outloud. I just refuse to type them. Despite what you may think, I am a professional, I know how to do business, and I am a writer. Maybe I’m not YOUR kind of writer, but I am one.


  23. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    December 21, 2010 10:25 pm

    Once again, David Edwards provides staggering clarity. If you are reading this Vanity, know you are welcome to look all the information here and ask questions.

    There is nothing to hide.


  24. okunuga permalink
    December 24, 2010 6:04 am

    I think if VG actually takes the time to read the court transcript about the case or come to your site to update her knowledge she will change her mind-set about MJ unless she has already made up her mind in which case nothing we say will say is going to change her mind,if this so we should just leave her alone in her ignorance and thank god that people like her are not on the jury that heard and acquit MJ or he would have been found guilty.


  25. December 24, 2010 8:44 pm

    “…unless she has already made up her mind in which case nothing we say will say is going to change her mind,if this so we should just leave her alone in her ignorance”

    Okunuga, the reason for leaving her alone may be quite an unexpected one. The naive me has just found out that these people get paid for the number of views of their articles – at least in the “associated content by Yahoo” where VG is writing, so the more we comment the better it is for the author. It is peanuts but it nevertheless makes her interested in filling the article with innuendoes because this way it will fuel more arguing and the viewing number will rise. (I personally left there 5 or 6 comments as my big text had to be broken into several – they made me register to post that much and this is how I learned of their system).

    It seems that while it is profitable to make innuendoes about Michael they will continue to do so. The same goes for professional media as well – they intentionally make their material biased because they know that this way it will surely attract attention and earn money for them. The truth is the last thing they care for.

    The more I think about it the more I understand that it is fundamentally wrong if people make innuendoes about Michael and then receive money via those who are angered by them.

    At first it seemed to me a kind of an impasse, however now I begin to realize that it happens because WE come to them, not THEY come to us. If we flooded the Internet with our defense articles about Michael it would probably result in reversing the tide – they will have to come to us to say whatever they have to say about MJ. Imagine this happening if all of us write there? Interesting idea, isn’t it?

    I really don’t know why we haven’t tried it yet. Probably we should?


  26. Suzy permalink
    December 25, 2010 7:28 am

    @ Vanity Goddess

    There must be a reason why so many people call you ignorant, have you thought about that? And no it’s not because they disagree with you, but because you write about something you very OBVIOUSLY don’t have a clue about and you even make harsh judgments on people based on very limited information you have! That is ignorant, not “special”, sorry.

    If you don’t see what’s the problem with statements like “XY is guilty because I say so” and “we don’t need evidence to say somebody is guilty” then you unfortunately don’t have any chance ever to become a good writer who will be taken seriously.


  27. January 3, 2011 10:02 pm

    vindicatemj, I do not write articles just to get views. According to the amount of views that other writers on AC have, my views are horrible. I write about what I care about. Suzy, stop talking down to me. You guys are talking about things YOU don’t know about either. “Oh my God, she’s so ignorant!” Why? Because I think MJ did inappropriate things? Well, if that makes me ignorant, then I am surely ignorant. I have a funny idea that the wording you guys are using to describe me would have been a little different had you not known my race. Am I hitting on something now? Just because I’m black doesn’t mean I’m ignorant!!! Frankly, I think some of you guys are just assholes. Do I sound ignorant now?


  28. January 3, 2011 10:06 pm

    “Just because I’m black doesn’t mean I’m ignorant!!! Frankly, I think some of you guys are just assholes. Do I sound ignorant now?”

    VG, I am sorry, but what made you so agitated? You are not ignorant and we are always willing to talk to you.


  29. January 4, 2011 2:42 am

    “I am not calling you guys names, because THAT would be ignorant. However, I am calling you guys names outloud. I just refuse to type them.”

    This statement is contradictory. Its like you forgot your lie in your first sentence cause in your next sentence you admitted that you are calling people names out loud. Whether you type the names or not; which you later did today btw. Your still calling people out there names.


  30. Dialdancer permalink
    January 13, 2011 9:16 pm

    I was wrong in my earlier estimation of Vanity Goddess. Another supposedly black 20 something female college major. (head slap)

    This is what I really came to leave it was sent to me by a friend & MJ advocate.

    How to tame the media, not be tamed by it by Dan Gillmor


  31. January 13, 2011 9:52 pm

    “This is what I really came to leave it was sent to me by a friend & MJ advocate.”

    Dial, the article is great – honest and helpful! I highly recommend it to everyone and the link you’ve supplied is working. Here is some of Dan Gillmor’s advice:

    1. Be Skeptical (of absolutely everything)
    We can never take it for granted that what we read, see or hear from media sources of any kind is trustworthy. This caution applies to every scrap of news that comes our way, whether from traditional news organizations, blogs, online videos, Facebook updates or any other source.

    The only rational approach, then, is skepticism. Businesses call the process of thoroughly checking out proposed deals due diligence, and it’s a term that fits here, too. Let’s bring due diligence to what we read, watch and hear.

    2. Use Judgment: Don’t be equally skeptical of everything

    It’s not surprising that more and more of us are giving in to the temptation to be cynical. Institutions we once trusted have proven unworthy, in an era when greed and zealotry have prompted lies and manipulation to further personal and political goals, and when the people who should have been pushing back the hardest — including journalists — have failed us in so many ways.

    Unfortunately, generalized cynicism feeds the problem. If we lazily assume that everyone is pushing lies rather than trying to figure out who’s telling the truth and who isn’t, we give the worst people even more leeway to make things worse for the rest of us.

    3. Open Your Mind

    The “echo chamber” effect — our tendency as human beings to seek information that we’re likely to agree with — is well known. To be well informed, we need to seek out and pay attention to sources of information that will offer new perspectives and challenge our own assumptions, rather than simply reinforcing our current beliefs. Thanks to the enormous amount of news and analysis available on the Internet, this is easier than ever before.

    The easiest way to move outside your comfort zone is simply to range widely. If you’re an American, read Global Voices Online, a project that aggregates blogging and other material from outside North America. If you are a white American, stop by The Root and other sites offering news and community resources for and by African-Americans. Follow links in blogs you normally read, especially when they take you to sources with which the author disagrees.

    Whatever your worldview, you can find educated, articulate people who see things differently based on the same general facts. Sometimes they’ll have new facts that will persuade you that they’re right; more often, no doubt, you’ll hold to the view you started with, but perhaps with a more nuanced understanding of the matter.

    Challenge Your Own Assumptions
    Have you ever changed your mind about something? I hope so.

    Going outside your comfort zone has many benefits. One of the best is knowing that you can hold your own in a conversation with people who disagree with you. However, the real value is in being intellectually honest with yourself, through relentless curiosity and self-challenge. That’s what learning is all about. You can’t understand the world, or even a small part of it, if you don’t stretch your mind.

    4. Keep Asking Questions

    This principle goes by many names: research, reporting, homework, etc. The more important you consider a topic, the more essential it becomes to follow up on media reports about it.

    The rise of the Internet has given us, for the first time in history, a relatively easy way to dig deeper into the topics we care about the most. We can ask questions, and we can get intelligent answers to these questions.

    5. Learn Media Techniques

    Media-creation skills are becoming part of the educational process for many children in the developed world (less so for other children). In the U.S. and other economically advanced nations, teenagers and younger children are what some call “digital natives,” though some of the most savvy users of digital technology are older people who have learned how to use it and who bring other, crucial skills — most notably critical thinking and an appreciation of nuance — to the table.

    Also, it’s essential to grasp the ways people use media to persuade and manipulate — that is, how media creators push our logical and emotional buttons. Understanding this also means knowing how to distinguish a marketer from a journalist, and a non-journalistic blogger from one whose work does serve a journalistic purpose; all create media, but they have different goals.

    Media criticism was a somewhat sleepy field until bloggers came along, with a few publications and scholarly journals serving as the only serious watchdogs of a press that had become complacent and arrogant.

    Thankfully, bloggers, in particular, have become ardent examples of the new breed of media critics. Some are small-time jerks, dogs chasing cars because it’s their instinct to do so. But many are the real thing: serious, impassioned critics who deserve respect for performing the watchdog role so important to the rest of us.

    We all need to help each other sort out the information we can trust from that we shouldn’t. This will be complicated, but if we get it right, the value will be immeasurable.

    For the full text go here:


  32. January 14, 2011 10:51 pm

    I think what you guys fail to believe is that anyone can have an opinion about anything, but that doesn’t make them ignorant!! You guys think that anyone who thinks differently from you is just stupid. That’s not the way to be. If we all researched everything, we will never have an opinion, becasue there are always facts that combat someone’s opinion. Why the hell should someone research all their opinions?

    OPINION: it’s what a person thinks, not what the facts say! Duh!!!


  33. Lezlie permalink
    January 31, 2011 3:50 pm

    @ Vanity Goddess

    “I think what you guys fail to believe is that anyone can have an opinion about anything, but that doesn’t make them ignorant!! You guys think that anyone who thinks differently from you is just stupid. That’s not the way to be. If we all researched everything, we will never have an opinion, becasue there are always facts that combat someone’s opinion. Why the hell should someone research all their opinions?

    OPINION: it’s what a person thinks, not what the facts say! Duh!!!”

    So, what you’re saying is that a person shouldn’t use facts to back up their opinions? Isn’t that how we arrive at our opinions in the first place? This response to your article completely obliterated you, and I’m gonna tell you why….

    First of all, you can’t convict someone based on your own “instinct and intuition”. The only thing Michael was ever guilty of was going against a societal norm. That does NOT make him a p_le. If “instincts and intuition” were all it would’ve taken to convict him, than he would be alive today because Sneddon would’ve had him locked up, and threw
    away the key!

    Fortunately, the judicial system doesn’t work that way.

    Secondly, a grown man who is under a firestorm of negative publicity is NOT going to defend his position regarding sharing his bed with children IF HE HAD SOMETHING TO HIDE! A p_le doesn’t want you or anyone else to know he is a pedophile! My fiance, who is NOT my son’s father biologically, plays video games with my son, and they fall asleep together side by side. Sometimes, I’ve seen my 6-year old draped across him sleeping cause he tired him out so much. Does that make my fiance a pedophile? Hell, no! I didn’t automatically start letting my son share a bed with my fiance, either. I had to see how my child acted around him, if he was comfortable in his presence, etc. Heck, my son now prefers his company to mine! That should tell you something. There has to be a strong kind of trust to allow people unrelated to your child to share a bed with them. I think MJ’s views on that are expressed very thoroughly, and can be found here:

    While it is true that people can distort facts to shape the opinion of others, this blog doesn’t do that. There is a plethora of evidence on this site that speaks for itself. They even use books, articles, interviews, and documents from the very people who claim Jackson to have been guilty to prove his innocence. They also use court documents, and trial transcripts as well. It’s your choice whether you want to believe it or not. That is why they encourage detractors or those who don’t have an opinion already to conduct their own RESEARCH! That way they can form their own opinion.

    What I think you have a problem with, sistah (no disrespect; I’m black myself), is that the writers and members of this blog have asked you over and over again to back up your opinions with FACTS, and for whatever reason, you can’t do it. So, you’re hiding behind the ridiculous notion that opinions shouldn’t have to be corroborated with facts. Personally, I think you’re afraid to find anything that doesn’t justify with what you already believe to be the truth. That is why you refuse to do the research.

    As a Black woman, I personally take offense to your stance on Black men being acquitted because their “famous”. With the exception of O.J. Simpson, who was found liable in the civil case for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend(as he can actually be called a convicted murderer), what evidence do you have that actually says these men “got away” with whatever they were accused of? What makes you think you know better than what the juries decided in any of the cases? Again, use facts that can be proven! Not media spin or innuendo. I’d have been more apt to agree with you had you said that you felt like they were acquited because of their celebrity status. But what you’re saying actually makes it seems as though you have something against Black men. And that makes you look a bit self-hating.

    Using your way of thinking, am I to assume that Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, and Khloe Kardashian recieved preferential treatment because they’re white when they were released from jail only hours after arriving due to “overcrowding”? NO! That would make my opinion racist as all get out!

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. That much is true. But what they can’t do is present their opinions as fact. And that is exactly what you did.

    Judging from the comments on your blog, your readers noticed it as well.


  34. January 31, 2011 6:09 pm

    Lezlie, I didn’t read your whole post, but what I did read was a repetition of what everyone else is saying. There’s no way I’m going to keep reading the same crap over and over again. You guys act as if I have some kind of power to “convict” someone of something. I’m not a judge or a lawyer–I’m a writer!

    I back up my opinions. That’s the point in my article. I told David Edwards that I would explain why I felt the way I felt in a second part to the first article. That’s the whole point.

    I’m so over all of you…


  35. Lezlie permalink
    January 31, 2011 7:39 pm

    @Vanity Goddess

    You didn’t read my entire post but you felt the need to comment anyway? Hmm… That is definitely telling.

    I’m not trying to tell you that you are wrong in what you believe. You and I can both view the same set of circumstances and evidence, and I guarantee we might not feel the same way on what it it proves. I’m simply asking you to use FACTS to back up your assertions; not innuendo and conjecture. This is why your first article was obliterated so horribly.

    You gave yourself the power to convict Jackson and the others you spoke of. The title of your article is “Your Guilty Because I Said So”. You wrote a piece based on your opinion that contained no dates, no links to documentation, no corrobation to substantiate your point of view! These are the things a writer provides to defend his or her position. You can’t get angry when your readers ask you to do the same thing, if you want to be respected as a writer.

    While I don’t agree that anyone should be calling you names and such, you haven’t been very respectful of the people on this blog, either. That’s what Jackson-detractors do when they can’t prove that what they’re saying is the absolute truth. They only imply. Then call Jackson’s fans “rabid” when we prove them wrong time and time again. For example, I recently had a debate with someone who claimed Michael was guilty because of the settlement. You don’t pay large sums of money if your not guilty, he claimed. Well, I had to break it down for him because he was sadly misinformed. The truth of the matter is had Jackson actually fought those charges in civil court and lost, the only “justice” for the “victim” would’ve come in the form of monetary compensation. People settle civil suits on claims of neglience all the time…does that mean they were actually neglient? NO! The burden of proof lies with the accused to prove that they didn’t act negliently in a civil case. When you have a circumstance like Jackson’s, who had to face civil charges before even being charged criminally, chances are you are going to settle because you want to maintain your 5th Amendment rights, rights you don’t have in a civil trial. Also, you’d want an entire jury to unanimously find you not guilty, not 49%. This is why Jackson fought so hard for the criminal trial to precede the civil trial. He didn’t want the prosecution privy to his defense, and they would’ve been had he not settled.

    I can’t speak for everyone else on this blog but I truly want to understand WHY you feel the way you do. I ain’t trying to change you, since it is clear to me that your mind is made up on this subject. All I want to know is what facts and documentation did you use to come to your conclusions. Not just about Michael Jackson but of all the acquited but “guilty” Black men you spoke of.

    Hopefully, the next article you write will be better than the one that the admins of this blog annihilated.


  36. January 31, 2011 8:33 pm

    Lezlie, both pt.1 and pt.2 have nearly 2,000 views each. I only have about 100 comments on each article. Many of the people commented more than once, I commented several times, and a lot of the people that commented are people from this site!

    Where are all the other thousands of people that read the article but didn’t comment? Well, maybe they agree with me that’s why they didn’t comment. It’s like that for most of my articles. My readers usually agree with me. Just because you MJ worshippers don’t agree doesn’t make a difference.

    And you know something, I like MJ. I just think that he did some weirds things. I stand by my opinion.


  37. January 31, 2011 8:37 pm

    If you want to know anything about how I came to the conclusion that those men are guilty, then you’re going to have to actually read MY article instead of reading the rebuttal. I explained myself in my own article. All I’m doing here is defending myself and standing by my own damn opinion. What’s wrong with you guys?


  38. Anna permalink
    February 1, 2011 12:37 am

    @Vannity Goddess

    It’s fine for you stand by your opinion, most of us can respect that. We happen to diagree with it based on the facts of both cases. That’s how we have formed our opinions. We stand by our opinions as well. Peace!


  39. Lezlie permalink
    February 1, 2011 1:37 am

    @Vanity Goddess

    First off, you need to take the nastiness down a notch. I read your articles, and they are baseless! Which is why I asked how you came to your opinion. You didn’t back up a daggone thing. The only thing you have backed up is your immaturity. I’m not a Jackson worshipper; I’m a fan. There is a big damn difference. God is the ONLY being worthy of my worship. I don’t defend Jackson because I’m some wacked-out fan. I defend him because I believe he was wrongly accused of crimes he didn’t commit. And there is plenty of evidence to prove it.

    If you had found yourself the victim of similar circumstances (i.e. being accused of something you didn’t do), I would defend YOU to the bloody end as well. That’s just my nature; I do not like injustice of any kind.

    Jackson’s detractors are vocal enough that if thousands of them agreed with you, you can bet your ass they would’ve left comments. You can’t assume just because “thousands” didn’t leave comments they agreed with you. That’s a stupid assumption.

    Go right on ahead! Stand by your opinion! No one is asking you not to. But true writers don’t have temper tantrums when their interpretation of the facts that lead to their opinion are called into question. Your defense for your opinions are soley based on your own “instincts and intuition”. That might be good enough for your misinformed readers, but don’t get mad that the members of this blog called you out on your bullshit.

    I was really trying to be nice but your last two comments pissed me off……


  40. Alison permalink
    February 1, 2011 2:40 am

    @Vanity goddess

    “If we all researched everything, we will never have an opinion, becasue there are always facts that combat someone’s opinion. Why the hell should someone research all their opinions?

    OPINION: it’s what a person thinks, not what the facts say.”

    I totally agree with you, you are quite right that you can have whatever opinion you want without doing any research – PRIVATE OPINION!
    however when you start publishing these not backed up by research and facts this is firstly surely libel and slander (for which you can be sued by a living person – the reason for that is because you DON’T have this right), and secondly as Lezlie says if you wish to be taken seriously as a writer you DO need to back up your statements. Fine, don’t back them up – but then DON’T expect to be taken seriously and DO expect people who have more knowledge of the facts, who have done the research you haven’t, to take issue. its quite straightforward.

    as for assuming that no comments equals agreement – i’m sorry but this is a very great misperception. probably 85%, even 90% of the things i read i don’t comment on regardless of whether i agree or not , quite simply because i don’t have time to do this. if i did, my entire life would consist of commenting on articles and i have other things to do so i prioritize. i also don’t comment if i think the article is so silly its not worth my time. i am sure the same reasons will apply to many other people.


  41. Chris permalink
    February 1, 2011 5:28 pm

    @ Lezlie

    Something that always makes me laugh about haters is the fact that Michael went on international TV and told everyone he had children in his room. Yet ppl see that as an act of guilt.
    That would be the equiverlent of a rapist walking down the street with “I Rape Pepople” on there shirt.
    It is complete non sensical. You just simply wouldn’t do it if you were guilty. Whether you are MJ or Jo blogs.


  42. Vanity Goddess permalink
    February 1, 2011 6:18 pm

    In My article, “What is Journalism, & Is it Dead?” I say that people believe that freedom of speech is only for journalists. They believe that you have no right to make your opinion known because you don’t have the “license” or the “credentials” to do so. Freedom of speech is for everyone–not just journalists.

    People think that i should have kept my mouth shut just because I’m not a journalist and didn’t present facts from MJ’s trial. My article isn’t about his trial. My article is about my opinion, and people who frequently read my articles already know that. I’ve also written a lot of non-opinionated articles that I’ve gotten upfront payment on from Associated Content. You guys can convince yourself that I’m no good, but I’m getting paid. So now what?

    A lot of you women who are talking all that trash need to learn how to respect other women. This is why people think that women are so catty. The men have shut up a long time ago about this issue, but the women just can’t let this go.

    I’m sick of people thinking I’m a MJ hater. When the American Idol crowd attributed MJ, I recorded it. When the memorial came on, I recorded it. When Chris Brown attributed him on the WMAs, I recorded it. I bought a t-shirt with MJ on it that I wore on the anniversary of his death. Don’t call me a hater, Chris. You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

    Real writers don’t throw temper tantrums? Oh please! Do you kn0w how may comments I’ve read on this site and on my site? If this is throwing a tantrum, then it certainly took me a long time to throw one! I’ve read like 300 comments by now! Don’t you think I should be getting a little bit agitated by this point?


  43. lcpledwards permalink
    February 1, 2011 6:52 pm

    @Vanity Goddess
    This is David. You’re actions are very hypocritical. You claim that you’re a fan of MJ, recorded all of those tributes to him, and cried at his memorial, yet you said he should have been convicted “because you said so”? How crazy is that?

    Look, I don’t want to sit here and repeat the same arguments again, so I’ll just ask you these questions bluntly: have you read any books about Michael Jackson? If so, which ones? Have you read any websites or blogs about MJ? Have you watched any documentaries about MJ?

    If the answer to those questions is “No”, then that proves to us that you did not perform adequate research and due diligence before writing your articles, and that is why you have gotten the reaction that you have. And your logic regarding the comments is severely flawed; you equate someone not leaving a comment as being in agreement with you, when in reality all it means is that those people who read your post but didn’t leave a comment could have been too busy to leave a comment! Instead of focusing on the people who did not leave a comment and assuming that they agree with you, FOCUS ON THE PEOPLE WHO DID LEAVE COMMENTS! You’ll notice a pattern that they all ask you to present your facts and give your sources from which your opinion is based on, and so far you still have not done so!

    Until you do, you won’t be taken seriously as a writer, regardless of how much Associated Content pays you!


  44. Vanity Goddess permalink
    February 1, 2011 7:27 pm

    How the hell am I a hypocrite? Just because I like him musically doesn’t mean I like him personally! I like R. Kelly too! But guess what, he needs to go to jail for what he’s done in his personal life. I know how to separate the business life from the personal life. You guys don’t know how to do that. You might find that you even like ME personally. But since yall are so wrapped up in MJ, yall don’t know what kind of person I am outside of this conversation.

    I have read blogs, articles, and watched documentaries about MJ. I haven’t read any books about him because I don’t care enough about him to read them. I read business, finance, spiritual, and beauty books. That’s it. I haven’t read nearly as much information about MJ as you guys because you guys worship him. I do not. I felt like the media went overboard with MJ info when he was going through his scandal and when he died. I’m tired of this conversation about this man that is no longer here! Something is seriously wrong with you guys!

    I knew you would comment sooner or later, David. I was just waiting on the moment when you opened your mouth again. All of you are so smart. I would think that so may smart people who know so much about journalism would teach me a couple of things other than, “Do your research. You’re stupid! You’re ignorant! You need to keep your opinions to yourself.”

    What country do you guys live in? Must not be America, because if you are Americans, you would know that this is the nature of our country! Look at all these lying politicians that spew their opinions and lies about each other just to get us to vote for them. Gonna tell them to do their research? Gonna tell them they need to keep their thoughts private?

    What about talk show hosts like Limbaugh, Hannety, and Savage? Are you gonna get them off the air for what they say? They spew their dumb words all the time. What are you guys going to do about that? Nothing at all. You don’t care about that because they aren’t saying anything about Michael!

    And you know, even if you did try to silence them, it wouldn’t work because we live in America and they have the right to lie and spew dumbness all over the place and get paid for it. It may not be right, but that’s the way it is.

    David, you are so good at talking down at others. What’s your secret? I wanna know how to make a mockery out of people. Can you teach me?


  45. visitor permalink
    February 1, 2011 8:48 pm

    @Vanity Goddess
    Why don’t you just admit that you were totally wrong in that “article” of yours and move on with your life? Do you understand that your comments don’t make any sense at all? Do you understand that you contradict yourself on every sentence? So, if you think that Michael Jackson was guilty fine. If that is your opinion, ok.But so you know, if you would really like to become a respectful writer or journalist some day, then the first thing that you need to learn is to always research about a topic that you are going to write about. Especially if it is a topic so serious as allegations.
    See, you don’t like that people judge you for your irresponsibility to write all those things in that piece of yours, without having done a basic research. You really thought that you were going to write one nonsence after the other and no one wouldn’t say anything? Are you serious?
    I have this question for you. Why are you doing at people the same thing that you obviously don’t like to be done at you?


  46. Alison permalink
    February 1, 2011 10:32 pm

    @ Vanity Godess – I’m interested, why did you wear the T shirt of MJ?


  47. February 1, 2011 11:17 pm

    Lynching and freedom of speech are 2 different things. Freedom of speech STOPS (like any other type of freedom) right where another individual’s freedom begins. In order to make an accusation one must use facts.


  48. Anna permalink
    February 2, 2011 12:13 am

    @Vannity Goddess

    The hypocrisy on your part actually is astonishing. You don’t want us to dismiss you as an MJ hater because you have a “negative opinion” about him which you admit is not based facts or atleast not the same facts we have researched. Yet, you have no problem dismissing us as MJ worshippers simply because we have taken the time to learn the facts of both the cases, by reading official court transcripts and books written about the trial.

    Why such as negative opinion about people who have taken time to learn the truth, is that not as honorable as someone who just swallows the headlines and forms opinions out of instinct and intuition rather than facts?

    As long as you continue to ignore facts of both cases whether or not you are as interested in MJ as much as we are you will probalby continue to hold this negative opinion of MJ and of us. Also, as long as you continue to ignore this sites research, findings and sources and still remain indignant about us not sharing your opinion, then we will probably remain to have a negative opinion about your article and yes your opinion about MJ.

    If your not that interested in learning what the real facts that’s fine. If you have a negative opinion because of this, that’s fine too. However, don’t dismiss everyone who’s done research and learned the truth as an MJ worshipper simply because they have found valid arguments to disagree with your opinion. All that shows is that you want a right to your opinion which is not based on any facts that we have learned and you can’t agree to disagree with those who have shown valid reason’s not to share it.


  49. Chris permalink
    February 2, 2011 11:11 am

    “Don’t call me a hater, Chris. You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.”

    I didn’t call anyone a hater I spoke about haters GENERALLY. I want nothing to do with you or your articles.

    The only thing I will say is that you will become a successful writer one day because your right in America and UK they let anyone with anything to say about anything whether true or not run their mouths because as much as these pathetic countries like to think they are socially ahead they only apply their moral code when it suits them.

    I wonder if someone started accusing you of being e.g. a murderer with no truth to back it up if you would like that filth put across the internet, but when it is someone else it is perfectly acceptable because you have a right to an opinion.
    The human race has existed for thousands of years but it’s ignorance never fails to amaze me.
    That one was directed at you.


  50. Lezlie permalink
    February 2, 2011 12:54 pm

    @ Chris

    Wow! I live in America.

    And, as much as I love my country, your synopsis was dead on.

    I couldn’t have said it any better myself.


  51. Julie permalink
    February 2, 2011 2:31 pm

    What gets me is that people such as VG and others convict MJ without ever having met him and for that matter the ones that accused him (only 2 out of thousands upon thousands of children he was around and those 2 took money). How can “they” have more insight than the 2005 jury that acquitted him and how can they have inside knowledge based on an accusation that to me screams extortion more than anything else!

    I will never understand the lack of reasoning behind it. A nerve has obviously been struck with VG because she comes on this site to defend herself, while saying she bought a T-shirt and wore it on the anniversary of his death. Why would you want to do that if you truly felt he was what she is saying about him?


  52. Dialdancer permalink
    February 3, 2011 3:56 am

    This was written for another site, but it works well given the current conversation.

    Here is a truth set in concrete. JORDAN CHANDLER…COULD NOT…IDENTIFY MICHAEL’S GENITALIA. You can be objectively judgmental, but you cannot get around this one proven fact.

    Jordan Chandler who supposedly wrote a statement which was designed to disgust, intrigue and titillate with graphic detail, but was short on real life knowledge COULD NOT after months of this very intimate act IDENTIFY MICHAEL JACKSON…………

    Not did not….could not. How are you going to have oral relations with someone and do not know what they look like????? Not him or any other who claimed to have witnessed these act or partook in this. Could not. This alone should have stopped further proceeding. So why should Michael have gone to jail?


  53. Juls permalink
    February 3, 2011 4:35 pm

    this is a very good article.
    I’ve noticed that not one white man is mentioned.
    every one this VG character goes after are all successful African American men.

    yes she’s black herself, but only 22,
    and someone that young is still eating the fast food the media feeds them,
    instead of waiting for the steak, as for her Oprah piece, maybe she’s starting to open her eyes. regardless thank your article, thank you for your reasearch, and the truth.


  54. Vanity Goddess permalink
    February 5, 2011 3:38 pm

    Anna, I wore the MJ t-shirt because I like Michael Jackson. I just think he did some questionable things. I keep saying this, and no one gets that yet. I have his greatest hits collection too. Like I said before, I’m able to separate the business life from the personal life. I do that because I have a business as well, and I do not want what people’s feelings about me personally to affect whether they do business with me or not. I think MJ is better than all the other entertainers we’ve ever had–including Elvis. That’s just my opinion. Are you going to jump on me about that too and tell me to research some Elvis shit? I hope not because I’m not going to do it!

    I don’t mind conflict. i spent my childhood years trying to avoid conflict, and I’m through with that. I don’t mind turning up the heat, so the idea that I don’t like people combating me is stupid. If you’ve read any of my articles, you’ll know that i seek to push buttons. Not because I want to fight, but because i want to make people think.

    i learned from the best–RUSH LIMBAUGH. The first time i listened to his show, i was 18 and he referred to the Obamas as “negroes”. I hated that. But you know what, the next day I listened again, and again, and again. I kept listening because I was learning about things. i was getting mad, but i was learning. Rush Limbaugh made me think. So did Shawn Hannity. So did reporter John Stossel and Dan Rather. I respect people who are willing to push the envelope and push buttons.

    I’ve been offended and attacked thousands of times. All it did was make me better at what i do and who i am. I’m 22 years old and the idea of reading something or listening to something that i don’t agree with no longer scares me. I’m not biased. There is two sides to every story and most people only want to hear their side. I want to expose the other side because the other side is what people are afraid of. The other side is politically incorrect. People need to grow a backbone and stop having a jelly spine. MAN UP!! if you can’t stand the heat, then get the fuck out of the kitchen!

    My theme song for this point in my life is “Off the Wall”. I love it. It makes me feel good inside. Some other woman on here asked why I felt the need to come on this site and defend myself. Well, because DAVID TOLD ME TOO!!! I never knew a damn thing about this site until David told me to read his rebuttal. So i did. It’s not a big deal. The big deal is how we’re going in circles. I have a good feeling that if MJ was still alive, yall would be a little nicer. You’re upset because he’s dead. His death isn’t my issue. His life’s issues are because of that Joe Jackson and because Conrad Murray kept jabbing needles in him full of demerol or propyphol or whatever it’s called. That’s their fault. Don’t blame me for MJ’s issues because when he was alove i thought he was innocent. it wasn’t until i RESEARCHED mental illnesses and took psychology classes that i learned what abusers do. I personally was emotionally abused, and i have family that was both emotionally and physically abused. That’s what i try to say in my article. I do not know Michael, but I KNOW ABUSE.

    Unless someone asks me a particular question, I’m not commenting anymore. I stand by my opinion. Be a grown up and accept that. I’ll read your comments, but I’m not commenting anymore.

    It’s you guys who assume I don’t like MJ, then say that I’m a hypocrite. I’m not a hypocrite. I never said I don’t like the guy. That’s what YALL assumed. I’m so sick of this conversation.
    Everyone is repeating themselves–including me. When are we going to stop?


  55. lcpledwards permalink
    February 5, 2011 8:28 pm

    @ Vanity Goddess
    We should all stop now. How long can we beat a dead horse? Over the last 2 months or so, we’ve all made our arguments, and we are all entitled to our own opinions (but not our own facts). Nobody will EVER challenge you for what you feel about MJ’s music, or who you think is better than or worse than, but when it comes to the allegations, that’s what gets people’s blood boiling!

    You insinuated in your 2 articles that MJ was an abuser, and that’s what brought such a fierce backlash against you. But you’ve made your rebuttals in your comments, and I appreciate being able to have a civil dialogue with you. I think we should all just bring this conversation to a close and just move on from here. Here at Vindicate MJ we have bigger fish to fry (and you guys know who I’m talking about!). Thanks for accepting my challenge to write a persuasive argument proving MJ’s guilt! You are so much braver than some many other people that we know who say even worse things about MJ, but have backed down from my challenge each and every time!

    It was great debating you these last few months, but I’m sure I speak for a lot of people when I say this: it’s time to move on! Thank you, and good luck with the rest of your articles!


  56. February 5, 2011 8:54 pm

    I have read blogs, articles, and watched documentaries about MJ. I haven’t read any books about him because I don’t care enough about him to read them. I read business, finance, spiritual, and beauty books. That’s it.

    VG, so let us draw a line between you and us and make the situation clear.

    – YOU read (newspaper) articles and watch documentaries shown about MJ (the quality of which we all know). However you don’t read books because you don’t care for them (to a certain degree you are right – Diane Dimond’s book is a waste of time, so reading about beauty might be a lesser time waste). But the common feature for all of the above is that you don’t do any research.

    -WE read articles, blogs, books, watch documentaries and study various court documents comparing them between themselves and with the articles, blogs, books, docs, etc. In short it is us who are doing research.

    – YOU haven’t read nearly as much information about MJ as we guys because “we guys worship him”. You do not.

    – WE weren’t born Michael worshippers and there was a time when some of us even doubted his innocence but extensive research have turned us into Michael’s supporters and advocates because the biggest thing in the world we cannot put up with is injustice.

    – YOU like his music and even wore a T-shirt* with Michael’s image when he died, but you “think” him guilty though you never analyzed his “guilt” seriously.

    – Some of us may like Michael’s music and some may not (I’m not sure Thomas Mesereau likes it?) but what we universally like about Michael is that he was innocent (we have done tremendous research to learn the precious truth).

    ***It’s good you’ve mentioned a T-shirt – now we know that this is no sign of a Michael’s supporter. By the way i don’t have a MJ’s T-shirt yet.

    – YOU are tired of this conversation about the man that is no longer here. And you think that something is “seriously wrong with us” (because we go on talking about him?)

    – WE are tired of this conversation too but also think that there is something seriously wrong with people who 1) believe every lie the media tells them 2) know for sure that lies are all around them because “they live in America and they have the right to lie and spew dumbness all over the place and get paid for it” 3) but it doesn’t move them to try and seek the truth 4) and as result they take everything at their face value. This way they will believe anything anyone will tell them and will side with those whose voice is lounder.

    – If not knowing the truth and not wanting to know it, accepting lies as part of your life and preferring reading “beauty” books and making your judgment on the basis of this ‘extensive’ information – is considered NORMAL, then I agree that we are somewhat outside this “normality”. Thank God we are.

    – When are we going to stop?
    – Right now, because everything is clear now. You have your beauty and spiritual books to read (I hope they help you to perfect your spirit) and we have a lot of hard work to do looking for the grains of truth in the torrents of lies which are so lavishly poured on your compatriots (according to your own admission).

    To each his own…


  57. Anna permalink
    February 5, 2011 9:21 pm

    @Vanity Goddess

    I’m with David on this and Helena’s right too “to each his own.” I have no problem deciding to respectfully agree to disagree with you at this point about why MJ was acquitted. Thanks for coming here atleast and reading the rebuttal and our comments. Good luck with your buisness and writing! Peace!


  58. Kate permalink
    February 28, 2012 4:46 pm

    You are brilliant and patient. Consistent, wow.
    I’m so tired of haters and it seems like an endless battle,
    and I lose patience as they often seem to be the “lost cause”,
    I won’t even start with her after reading the titles – her persona is
    pretty obvious. Young, fairly ignorant about the case, stubborn and… well, that’s enough.
    Great work you do here, I bookmarked this site, so whenever I need
    motivation to educate another hater, I’ll read one of your blogs
    to get me courage 🙂
    Great, great work really, Thank you so much.


  59. Truth Prevail permalink
    February 28, 2012 6:36 pm

    The Truth is what shows michael’s true intentions about kids is the Conrad Murray Recording I Don’t know how people can doubt that.


  60. Truth Prevail permalink
    February 28, 2012 6:48 pm

    “Sony wouldn’t have tried to sabotage MJ’s sales in order to force him into bankruptcy and get their catalog, right?”

    Just want to add something to that David i don’t think it was only because of The Beatles but also because it was worth a lot of money remember that catalog didn’t only include music by The Beatles but like the whole of Western music.

    Sony music are crooks they have been after MJ ever since he got that catalog!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: