I agree that Petra can do what she chooses as an individual and I recognize that her intentions are excellent--to see Michael's name vindicated and cleared. But I do see what respect77 is saying too. This could backfire if the general public goes to VMJ or other websites, which really are for fans the way they are written, or at least people with an open mind, b/c the writers are steeped in all the facts and also have their own directions to add to the evidence and the documents, some of which we don't have or don't have the complete version of. What I am trying to say is that there's a lot of 'fill in the gaps' going on and we all have our theories, such as who hired Gardener to interview Jordan (just as an example).
Basically, I think we need to emphasize that the evidence, such as it was or was not, was totally examined by 2 DA's in 2 counties, that millions of dollars were spent, and many people questioned (400), 100 search warrants, FBI investigation, and 2 Grand Juries who refused to indict, and one GJ that did, and a 5 month trial which included prior acts, and that the result of all this exhaustive investigation was 14 not guilty verdicts and an inability in 1993 to indict b/c of lack of evidence. To me, this says it all. They tried exhaustively with huge budgets and they violated MJ's rights in the process but they still could not find enough evidence to bring to trial or when brought to trial to convict.
So that is what needs to be emphasized IMO. The the court system came up with not enough evidence, so how is some person on the internet going to prove that MJ was guilty now? Not going to happen. They are just talking, spinning theories, but the people who had the evidence (the DA's and FBI) could not charge in 93 (or any other time) or convict in 05.
The media has created so much confusion here with their bs but what goes in the media and what is evidence in a courtroom or in an investigation are 2 widely different things and people need to know that the media is not a courtroom (just a court of OPINION in which many uninformed people mouth their ignorance). We have had enough commentary from the media and I think it's better not to get all tangled up in it but just refer to the fact that the legal system chewed up everything they could get their hands on, with the media as their willing helpers, and they could not convict, so if they couldn't do it--that means MJ was simply not guilty! In fact, I sometimes wonder why we are still taking about it--well, I guess b/c the media has lit so many fires. But maybe they will eventually die out on their own if they are not fed. Look at the Sullivan mess--it has died down and his book is still not selling. Maybe we should go after the media? Document their role in the whole mess from Day One.
The other major point is to educate people about the difference between a criminal and civil court and how settling in a civil suit does not prevent a criminal case from occurring and is not an indication of guilt.I think people afe confused on this and don't understand the 2 different court systems. For example, Feldman is a civil lawyer, not a criminal lawyer, so when Chandlers and Arvizos went to him that means they want to file a civil suit for $$$$, as opposed to jail time.
Petra, I wish you well in your project, sincerely, but I am just raising some points since you shared with us your plan. I don't mean to offend you at all. Thanks for your comment above.