I'd like to think the difference between the revelations in the teaser and the broadcast the next day was down to fans complaining - it gives us hope that our voice makes a difference. Dates and ages are so easy to check, so the quality of journalism is shocking. I thought ent tonight was an ok show, as it was the one mary hart anchored until she retired.
I too think it laughable they believe this meth head's account of a relationship with mj when he had suddenly changed his previous story and sold this newly remembered relationship to a notorious big paying tabloid at a time when he was financially destitute. Yet when lmp, who was married to mj, a multi-millionairess in her own right, claimed consistently down the yrs she had a sexual relationship with her husband, she's doubted - it's pathalogical the way they refuse to acknowledge mj was straight.
It's maddening. In her latest Elle interview LMP says once again that she and MJ went on and off for 4 years after their divorce, yet they say that Lisa says the relationship was "real - at least for her." What fake relationship goes on for another 4 private years? What fake relationship involves Michael still speaking to her in 2005 even after she'd trashed him in the media? If that was some business deal, then MJ seriously screwed that one up.
I think they'd only believe her if she released some love letters perhaps, and we know MJ has love letters from her.
But yeah, we're up against so much. They're so quick to broadcast Fiddes and Scott, with nothing to back up their claims, when they both have a history of lying, when simple facts like times and dates can be checked out, when the autopsy report and other details from their accounts can easily be disproven, but not a single one of these places chose to investigate or question any of these stories before relaying them. Yet when it comes to LMP or other stories like that they're instantly dismissive and snarky and snide about their stories.
According to the ET thing it was a promo of an interview clip with the interviewer asking Scott "was Michael improper with you when you were 16?" and Scott saying, "Yes." If that exists then it's worrying because it means Scott was trying to sell this new account and of course, ET were buying it without question. Who else will he try it with? Who else won't we be able to fact check before it gets out? We're up against so much.
And if he wants to claim that MJ would bring Emmanuel Lewis around - Emmanuel only starred in the TV show Webster in 1983, which was how Michael befriended him. Scott was out of Liberace's life at this point because he'd been kicked out in April 1982, so how would Emmanuel have been around? Is there any evidence that MJ met Emmanuel before April 1982? I bet the original version was Janet being around because that was what the original co author says, but see how he changed it to make it more seedy. Emmanuel a young kid being in a room with MJ. Ugh. And Janet never speaks up to defend MJ.
uke:
