OJ Simpson talks about Michael Jackson

[AliCat]

Report: Simpson Has Party At Michael Jackson's Ranch

October 23, 1995

O.J. Simpson held a birthday party for his daughter at Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch two days before he went to Florida for a golf trip, the New York Daily News reported Monday.

His children, Sydney, who turned 10, and Justin, 7, frolicked at Jackson's lavish private amusement park on his estate near Santa Barbara, Calif., on Oct. 15, according to the newspaper.

The pop singer and his wife, Lisa Marie Presley, were not at home.

The children were ecstatic when they returned home to their grandparents, Louis and Juditha Brown.

"They were so excited. It was all they could talk about," a family source told The News.

The Browns were granted temporary custody after their daughter, Nicole, and her friend Ron Goldman were slain June 12, 1994. Simpson was acquitted Oct. 3 in the double-slaying.

On Sydney's actual birthday, Oct. 17, Simpson flew to Florida to reunite with girlfriend Paula Barbieri.

The Browns threw their own birthday party for Sydney on Sunday, the News reported.

Jackson and Simpson share the same lawyer, Johnnie Cochran Jr. Cochran represented Jackson when he was faced with child molestation charges, negotiating a multimillion-dollar settlement with one alleged victim.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/

 

[analogue]

Re: OJ Simpson talks about Micheal Jackson

removed

 

[Tony R]

Re: OJ Simpson talks about Micheal Jackson

Great. Anybody else have an article of someone talking about Michael? Oscar Pistorius maybe?

 

[barbee0715]

Re: OJ Simpson talks about Micheal Jackson

^^^hahaha!! Too funny.

 

[AliCat]

Re: OJ Simpson talks about Micheal Jackson

If you watch the video, you will realize that OJ and the Jackson's were once neighbor's in Encino, when OJ was married to his first wife. Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson had several lawyer's that were the same representation, including Howard Weitzman and Johnny Cochran. Michael didn't seem to have a problem with OJ Simpson visiting "Neverland," after he was found not guilty of a double homicide. OJ wanted a place to celebrate his daughter's birthday and Michael didn't have a problem with that. It's interesting in the video of OJ speaking of Michael's religion. I'm wondering if Michael tried sharing the Holy Bible with OJ. OJ did divorce his first wife because of Nicole, who he later married.

 

[Michaels Lover]

Re: OJ Simpson talks about Micheal Jackson

it's Michael...not Micheal

 

[FullLipsDotNose]

This is what I love about MJ... He didn´t care who your parents were.

 

[Tony R]

This is what I love about MJ... He didn´t care who your parents were.

In all fairness he never knew my parents.

 

[SheilaMJFan4Ever]

Re: OJ Simpson talks about Micheal Jackson

If you watch the video, you will realize that OJ and the Jackson's were once neighbor's in Encino, when OJ was married to his first wife. Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson had several lawyer's that were the same representation, including Howard Weitzman and Johnny Cochran. Michael didn't seem to have a problem with OJ Simpson visiting "Neverland," after he was found not guilty of a double homicide. OJ wanted a place to celebrate his daughter's birthday and Michael didn't have a problem with that. It's interesting in the video of OJ speaking of Michael's religion. I'm wondering if Michael tried sharing the Holy Bible with OJ. OJ did divorce his first wife because of Nicole, who he later married.

Good point! OJ was found not guilty in a court of law and Mike respected that, opening his home to OJ and his children. It's hypocritical to continue to call Simpson a murderer (after a jury said he wasn't), then get mad at people that continue to call Mike a pedo-file after he was found NOT GUILTY in a court of law.

 

[AtlasAir]

Re: OJ Simpson talks about Micheal Jackson

Are you of the mind/opinion that OJ didn't murder his wife?

 

[HIStory]

Re: OJ Simpson talks about Micheal Jackson

Good point! OJ was found not guilty in a court of law and Mike respected that, opening his home to OJ and his children. It's hypocritical to continue to call Simpson a murderer (after a jury said he wasn't), then get mad at people that continue to call Mike a pedo-file after he was found NOT GUILTY in a court of law.

Two totally different cases and totally different reasons for the not guilty verdicts.

I sometimes see fans (typically those who are not very knowledgable about the details of MJ's trial) using the "but he was found not guilty so that proves he was innocent" argument on Internet boards when debating with haters and doubters. That is in itself, if they have nothing else, is weak, exactly because of what you pointed out here. Haters then usually come back with "OJ was found not guilty, too - see how much that means"? They have a point there because wrong verdicts happen all the time (in both directions).

But the fact is that most of us who researched the case do not believe in MJ's innocence just because of the verdict being not guilty but because we know all about the details of that case. If the facts were the same but he had been found guilty, I would still believe in his innocence because the facts all point to the direction that he did not do it. Thankfully he got a good jury who managed to put aside all their prejudices they might have had, managed to just judge by what they saw in court, managed to ignore the tabloid's media's pressures to convict MJ etc.

My point is, verdicts in themselves do not prove guilt or innocence. One verdict might be correct, another might be totally wrong - and that happens all the time. MJ was not innocent just because he was found not guilty in a court of law. There are tons of facts proving that the verdict was totally the correct one. In OJ's case, from what I have seen, it was less straightforward verdict - I mean racial tensions riding high about that case in the nation and that influencing the jury etc. In MJ's case there weren't such side issues. It was all about the case itself. I am sure that Meserau too could have gone there and accused Sneddon and his troop of racism (and he might even have been right), but he did not need such tactics and he made the conscious decision not to use that card. Thankfully. He had all facts on his side, he did not need to get desperate.

As for the topic, I don't find anything wrong in MJ letting the Simpson kids have some fun at Neverland - they are totally innocent victims of the tragedy themselves, no matter who the murderer was. I also think MJ might have believed in OJ's innocence, especially because he experienced being treated unfairly by law enforcement and to some extent we all tend to project our own experiences onto others as well. Still, I am not sure why this needs a topic here, especially by bringing up some 20 year old article. I don't think it's something to brag about that OJ liked MJ.

 

[SheilaMJFan4Ever]

Re: OJ Simpson talks about Micheal Jackson

Two totally different cases and totally different reasons for the not guilty verdicts.

I sometimes see fans (typically those who are not very knowledgable about the details of MJ's trial) using the "but he was found not guilty so that proves he was innocent" argument on Internet boards when debating with haters and doubters. That is in itself, if they have nothing else, is weak, exactly because of what you pointed out here. Haters then usually come back with "OJ was found not guilty, too - see how much that means"? They have a point there because wrong verdicts happen all the time (in both directions).

But the fact is that most of us who researched the case do not believe in MJ's innocence just because of the verdict being not guilty but because we know all about the details of that case. If the facts were the same but he had been found guilty, I would still believe in his innocence because the facts all point to the direction that he did not do it. Thankfully he got a good jury who managed to put aside all their prejudices they might have had, managed to just judge by what they saw in court, managed to ignore the tabloid's media's pressures to convict MJ etc.

My point is, verdicts in themselves do not prove guilt or innocence. One verdict might be correct, another might be totally wrong - and that happens all the time. MJ was not innocent just because he was found not guilty in a court of law. There are tons of facts proving that the verdict was totally the correct one. In OJ's case, from what I have seen, it was less straightforward verdict - I mean racial tensions riding high about that case in the nation and that influencing the jury etc. In MJ's case there weren't such side issues. It was all about the case itself. I am sure that Meserau too could have gone there and accused Sneddon and his troop of racism (and he might even have been right), but he did not need such tactics and he made the conscious decision not to use that card. Thankfully. He had all facts on his side, he did not need to get desperate.

As for the topic, I don't find anything wrong in MJ letting the Simpson kids have some fun at Neverland - they are totally innocent victims of the tragedy themselves, no matter who the murderer was. I also think MJ might have believed in OJ's innocence, especially because he experienced being treated unfairly by law enforcement and to some extent we all tend to project our own experiences onto others as well. Still, I am not sure why this needs a topic here, especially by bringing up some 20 year old article. I don't think it's something to brag about that OJ liked MJ.

Are you trying to be insulting for the sake of scoring points here? This isn't a pissing contest and the cases don't have to be "similar" to point out how both men were still being punished (via the media and public opinion) for crimes they did not commit per the outcome of their trials. Neither man should have had to deal with the scorn of the bitter because of it, but it is what it is. I don't waste my time attempting to change minds by re-trying cases that have long been closed. People can believe what they want to believe; it won't change the end results of Mike's and OJ's trials.

As for what you think should or shouldn't be posted here, that's not your call or mine.

 

[HIStory]

Re: OJ Simpson talks about Micheal Jackson

Are you trying to be insulting for the sake of scoring points here?

What is so insulting to you in what I wrote?

I just don't like the OJ case being compared to the MJ case, because it's a very superficial comparation, based solely on the verdicts being "not guilty" in both cases. There is more to cases than just the verdict. As far as I am concerned people do not have to believe in MJ's innocence or in anyone's innocence, for that matter, just because the verdict was not guilty. There are cases where you can legitimely dispute the outcome of a trial or legitimely question a verdict. In OJ's that is the case. In MJ's case however, that is not the case.

OJ was mainly aquitted for negligent prosecutional conduct, such as them treating the evidence with neglect. For example, his blood was found at the crime scene, but his defense managed to cast a shadow of doubt over that evidence because they said it was a result the proseution negligently carrying around the blood samples. The equivalent of something like that in the MJ case would be something like DNA connecting him to molesting Arvizo, but his defense finding some technicality to cast a shadow of doubt on that. No such thing ever happened in his case, because there was nothing material connecting him to the alleged crime.

And I see you avoided to reply to AtlasAir's question, although I too would be very interested in the answer. You do not have to re-try anything, simply your opinion was asked. If OJ wasn't the murderer in your opinion then who was? Because in that case a crime did definitely happen. In MJ's that's not the case.

 

[innuendo141]

Re: OJ Simpson talks about Micheal Jackson

God, I remember when Johnny Cochran was added to the team back during that period... The OJ/MJ comparisons were in absolute full swing.

 

[barbee0715]

Re: OJ Simpson talks about Micheal Jackson

God, I remember when Johnny Cochran was added to the team back during that period... The OJ/MJ comparisons were in absolute full swing.

and they still are. I never see an argument anywhere about Michael's case where somebody doesn't write "oh you think OJ is innocent too." Only now they might add Jodi Arias. And I know nothing about that one. I'm surprised they don't bring up George Zimmerman. I thought he was guilty.

I think the OJ case and Michael's case were apples and oranges. Based on evidence. What I think about one doesn't necessarily mean what I think about another. And I hate comparisons on the 2 cases.

 

[HIStory]

God, I remember when Johnny Cochran was added to the team back during that period... The OJ/MJ comparisons were in absolute full swing.

OJ had lawyers from both sides of the MJ-Chandler case. Cochran and Weitzman from MJ's side, Robert Shapiro from the Chandlers' side. He was an advisor of Evan Chandler in the case against MJ and also the defense lawyer of Barry Rothman, the Chandler's first lawyer who MJ accused of extortion.

In fact, Ray Chandlers book All That Glitters seems to be pretty happy about the fact that all those lawyers on both sides of the case were so close to one another and this made them hopeful for achieving their goal which was admittedly a "highly profitable settlement" (their words) from the get-go:

Feldman, Shapiro, Hirsch, Weitzman & Weis, (Oy vey!), all were part of a neat little "old boy" network, just the ticket for getting this nightmare over and done with — quietly.

(...)

"I feel a lot more comfortable now," Evan told Rothman, after Feldman was off the line. "Maybe they'll be more cooperative with Feldman and Shapiro at their throats."

 

[barbee0715]

Re: OJ Simpson talks about Micheal Jackson

^^Maybe this us why I see all this hatred (even on YouTube) about Weitzman and "Jewish white Estate lawyers". Totally idiotic.
I argued back a few times but I'm wasting my breath.

 

[HIStory]

Re: OJ Simpson talks about Micheal Jackson

I think the OJ case and Michael's case were apples and oranges. Based on evidence. What I think about one doesn't necessarily mean what I think about another. And I hate comparisons on the 2 cases.

I agree. Most of the Simpson aquittal came down to accusations by the defense that the prosecution planted evidence out of racist motives (the glove, blood etc.). That was the main pillar of OJ's defense and aquittal. Not to say the prosecution did not give them enough ammunition to do so. Mark Furman was indeed a racist and the police committed several major mistakes - such as searching Simpson's house without a search warrant etc. So basically because of the police's numerous mistakes and misconducts the defense managed to shift the discosure to the prosecution's/police's conduct being in the focus and whether the prosecution tried to frame OJ out of racist motives. And apparently they gave jury enough reasonable doubt because of that. And that's why OJ was aquitted.

In MJ's case there weren't such side issues distracting from the main issue. It was clearly a decision about whether MJ was guilty or not and not about whether the prosecution was racist and how they conducted themselves during the investigation and whether they had underhanded motives with this case (I am sure they did) or whether they planted evidence (there wasn't any material evidence of MJ committing the crime). I am sure Mesereau could have cried racism as well and I think he would not have been wrong about claiming Sneddon and Co. were racists. There were also very questionable things this prosecution too did, but I am glad MJ's defense was not based on such things, but on the actual case at hand. Eventually this makes the verdict in MJ's case a lot, lot stronger than the verdict in the OJ case. In fact, when the media tried to attack the verdict in the MJ case all they could come up with was that silly "celebrity justice" notion, but they were never able to bring up factual points about why MJ should have been found guilty. In fact, even many in the media had to concede in the hindsight that they could not find anything wrong with the verdict. Those who did were always forced to base that on emotional manipulation ("poor little cancer victim wasn't served justice" etc) rather than bringing up anything factual from the case.

Mesereau also said he made the conscious decision not to make it a case about race and never to go there. OJ had a jury where out 12 jurors I think 8 or 9 were African-Americans. It shouldn't matter ideally, but in a case where racial tension, discussions about police racism was so in center stage, maybe it did eventually matter.

MJ did not have one African-American juror, and in fact, several members of the jury, including the jury foreman were Latins - the same ethnicity as the accuser was. Mesereau said later that he was not concerned about that, he did not want to make race an issue during the jury selection either. He said he was confident that when the jury sees the case they will arrive at the right decision, regardless of enthicity, and they indeed did.

The only one ever trying to take advantage of possible racial biases was Janet Arvizo, who on the stand, once winked at the jury and snapped her fingers and remarked "you know how it is in our culture" - accompanied by a wink at the Latin members of the jury. The jury - as they later told - was actually disgusted by that and they were like "no, that's not how it is in our culture".

 

[analogue]

Re: OJ Simpson talks about Micheal Jackson

and they still are. I never see an argument anywhere about Michael's case where somebody doesn't write "oh you think OJ is innocent too." Only now they might add Jodi Arias. And I know nothing about that one. I'm surprised they don't bring up George Zimmerman. I thought he was guilty.

I think the OJ case and Michael's case were apples and oranges. Based on evidence. What I think about one doesn't necessarily mean what I think about another. And I hate comparisons on the 2 cases.

People compare MJ and OJ because both of them were celebrities. But the similarities end there.

But people do believe that MJ was guilty just because he's a celebrity. People have this mentality that all celebrities think they're above the law and can get away with anything.

 

[KOPV]

Re: OJ Simpson talks about Micheal Jackson

those who think MJ is guilty think it because YES he's a celeb... A celeb that had Johnny Cochran on his side and when OJ is a celeb that had a big case that looks like "he got away with it" with Cochran behind him too.. It is easier to believe MJ could be the same.

That and the usual we hear.. the "pay off" and a bunch of random stuff that has nothing to do with guilt ... I literally have heard "look at him".. "he's weird".. "he bleached himself".. People use the "strange" view on him to be the "ah ha" now I makes sense. even though it dosnt..

That plus he openly said he has slept In the bed with many children..

whatever the case is.. Nothing has EVER said guilt

 

[AliCat]

Re: OJ Simpson talks about Micheal Jackson

OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson attend lawyer's funeral

April 6, 2005 - Los Angeles, California
1. Wide shot exterior of West Angeles cathedral, location for Johnnie Cochran's funeral
2. Mid shot of church sign
3. Mid shot former American football player O.J. Simpson speaking to reporters
4. Close up photographer.
5. Close up Simpson and attorney F. Lee Bailey
6. Close up photographer
7. Close up Simpson
8. Wide shot media outside church
9. Singer Michael Jackson and his attorney Thomas Mesereau (white hair) arriving
10. Close up Michael Jackson
11. Close up photographer
12. Close up Mesereau and Michael Jackson
13. Reverend Jesse Jackson speaking to reporters
14. SOUNDBITE: (English) Reverend Jesse Jackson, Friend of Johnnie Cochran
"Well, Johnnie Cochran was great before he was famous, great in a sense of service rendering. We love Johnnie Cochran. Many people know he became famous during the O.J. trial, but Johnnie used to try many cases of people who could not afford a lawyer, but who had been wronged."
15. Singer Stevie Wonder arriving
16. Music producer Sean "P Diddy" Combs arriving
17. Cross atop church
18. Wide shot people arriving

POOL
April 6, 2005 - Los Angeles, California
19. Various of funeral inside church

FILE: October 3, 1995 - Los Angeles, California
20. Cochran and Simpson in court, as 'not guilty' verdict is read


O.J. & JACKSON TO ATTEND COCHRAN'S FUNERAL

Mourners including O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson gathered in Los Angeles on Wednesday for the funeral of well-known American lawyer Johnnie Cochran (Junior).

The lawyer's service at West Angeles Cathedral was to include remarks from the Reverend Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton.

Talking to the press before the service, the Reverend Jackson called Cochran "a great man".

Cochran had worked with Jackson on a lawsuit in the 1990s.

American singer Michael Jackson, whose current molestation trial is in recess, walked slowly into the church with his entourage, including his attorney Thomas Mesereau.

O.J. Simpson, the former American football player who was defended by Cochran in his 1994-95 murder trial, also arrived.

Five-thousand people attended the funeral, bearing witness to Cochran's work on high-profile civil rights cases and celebrity trials.

Among those planning to attend was Elmer "Geronimo" Pratt, a former Black Panther freed in 1997 after spending 27 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit.

Cochran was his lawyer in the case and had called the outcome the happiest experience of his career.

Cochran was 67 when he died on March 29 of an inoperable brain tumour at his home in Los Angeles.

He was diagnosed with the tumour in December 2003.

Attorneys Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck, who worked with Cochran as part of Simpson's legal "dream team," were to speak at the funeral.

Former Cochran client Abner Louima, a Haitian immigrant who was tortured by New York police, was also to speak, along with music producer Sean "P Diddy" Combs.

In his career, Cochran also represented other American celebrities such as football great Jim Brown, actor Todd Bridges and hip hop artists Tupac Shakur and Snoop Dogg.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_u0v2NttM0

 

[SheilaMJFan4Ever]

Re: OJ Simpson talks about Micheal Jackson

What is so insulting to you in what I wrote?

I just don't like the OJ case being compared to the MJ case, because it's a very superficial comparation, based solely on the verdicts being "not guilty" in both cases. There is more to cases than just the verdict. As far as I am concerned people do not have to believe in MJ's innocence or in anyone's innocence, for that matter, just because the verdict was not guilty. There are cases where you can legitimely dispute the outcome of a trial or legitimely question a verdict. In OJ's that is the case. In MJ's case however, that is not the case.

OJ was mainly aquitted for negligent prosecutional conduct, such as them treating the evidence with neglect. For example, his blood was found at the crime scene, but his defense managed to cast a shadow of doubt over that evidence because they said it was a result the proseution negligently carrying around the blood samples. The equivalent of something like that in the MJ case would be something like DNA connecting him to molesting Arvizo, but his defense finding some technicality to cast a shadow of doubt on that. No such thing ever happened in his case, because there was nothing material connecting him to the alleged crime.

And I see you avoided to reply to AtlasAir's question, although I too would be very interested in the answer. You do not have to re-try anything, simply your opinion was asked. If OJ wasn't the murderer in your opinion then who was? Because in that case a crime did definitely happen. In MJ's that's not the case.

What's insulting is you assuming that OJ committed that crime. You don't know that, can't prove it and neither did the DA's office. It's obvious you may feel he did it, but the justice system in the US isn't based on feelings. It's not perfect either, but NO nation's judicial system is.

As for Alicat's thread content, there isn't anything about the subject matter that violates the site's rules. If it did it would have been removed. That said, anything else about OJ being discussed (other than the kindness and non-judgment Mike showed him) in this thread is deliberately going off topic.

 

[HIStory]

Re: OJ Simpson talks about Micheal Jackson

What's insulting is you assuming that OJ committed that crime.

Actually in the post where you accused me of insulting (OJ? you?) I did not go into questions of OJ's guilt or innocence just into the differences in the two cases and into the huge differences of how and why a not guilty verdict was achieved in each case. Those huge differences in the reasons behind the two verdicts are facts, regardless of anyone's belief about whether OJ was or was not guilty.

 

[innuendo141]

Re: OJ Simpson talks about Micheal Jackson

What is so insulting to you in what I wrote?

I just don't like the OJ case being compared to the MJ case, because it's a very superficial comparation, based solely on the verdicts being "not guilty" in both cases. There is more to cases than just the verdict. As far as I am concerned people do not have to believe in MJ's innocence or in anyone's innocence, for that matter, just because the verdict was not guilty. There are cases where you can legitimely dispute the outcome of a trial or legitimely question a verdict. In OJ's that is the case. In MJ's case however, that is not the case.

I agree with this. It's an easy link for people who believed the charges against MJ to lob him in with OJ when clearly the majority of people (in the world, from what I have gathered since his trial) believed that he got away with murder.

I couldn't care less about what the Jury said. To look at the evidence in both cases speak for themselves.

To just go by what the law has said without taking into account the surrounding is silly. Oscar Pistorius was originally charged with culpabably homiciding (or whatever) his girlfriend, after shooting through a locked toilet door several times..... And people were supposed to take this as justice?

Na. Each to their own. OJ is currently where he belongs in my humble opinion.

 

[KOPV]

there was NO physical evidence against Michael.... THAT's the biggest difference between the cases! OJ guilty or not...

 

[elusive moonwalker]

great. Anybody else have an article of someone talking about michael? Oscar pistorius maybe?

lol...........

 

[AliCat]

Michael was all about civil rights for people. Case in point...

Michael did work alongside Johnnie Cochran again, after the mid-1990's. The video showing OJ Simpson praising Michael was in 2005, while Michael's trial was going on. It's why OJ Simpson mentioned his children. OJ Simpson's trial of the century ended on October 3, 1995 and Sydney Simpson, daughter of Nicole and OJ Simpson, her birthday was a couple of weeks later. Michael was not at his ranch, but gave OJ Simpson permission to have the celebration at Neverland.

Michael believed that if a person could go back in time to the time that made them so angry that they would kill and were shown love instead of hatred, then they would be a contributing member of society when they became an adult and not taking another's life. Michael talked about this with Shmuley Boteach. It's Michael's message even when he died, always caring about children and their rights.

 

[Themidwestcowboy]

American Crime Story TV Series (OJ Simpson Case) Small MJ mentioning..

So I was watching the new Mini series of the OJ simpson case and in a scene where Johnnie Cochran is contemplating on which attire he should wear for the day he mentions MJ. It's really nothing big but..

"I got a thousand million things to do today i gotta stop by the DA and meet with the taylor family do a TV Appearance so I can't dress to festive I need to be strong, uplifting." Then his wife asks what about Lime green? Then Johnnie Cochran responds with

"That would be exceptional except then I got to run out to Neverland, MJ's got some new pile of commotions so i can't wear lime. Michael's afraid of that color. I've never met someone with so many phobias"

Oh so MJ was afraid of that color?

 

[barbee0715]

Lime green phobia? What about the time he and his brothers were introduced to the world? Hollywood Palace 1969?? Now that's LIME GREEN and he didn't seem too scared to me!

You know, it probably seems hard to believe, but I've never really seen or heard OJ Simpson talk before-that I really remember-I'm not a football fan, and never really went to any of his comedy movies-I remember the Hertz commercials, of course. But I went back and watched that clip that was posted-I can see why people liked him so much-he's very charming, personable, and interesting in that little bit talking about his kids going to Neverland.

 

[8701girl]

I see some fans getting mad at other fans just cuz they dont belive he was guilty...HAVE NONE OF YOU LEARNED A THING FROM MJ'S 2005 TRIAL AND ALL THE HELL HE HAD BEEN THROUGH SINCE 1993????!!

Michael was treated the same way from the media & general public beliving he was 100% guilty even after he was aqquitted in 2005
so i guess its ok to banter co mj fans just cuz they dont agree with your "simpson guilty" mindset ....nice real nice proves you never learned from mj and what he stood for


REMEMBER WHAT HE SAID IN THE INTERVIEW WITH OPRAH :

" NEVER JUDGE A PERSON UNLESS YOU HAVE SPOKEN WITH THEM ONE ON ONE"