The Supreme Court of Michigan has held, as a general rule, a prosecutor may not vouch for the credibility of a witness in such a way that leads the jury to believe the prosecutor has special knowledge the witness is testifying truthfully. People v. Bahoda, 448 Mich 261, 276; 531 NW2d 659 (1995). However, this Court has held a prosecutor may argue from the facts that the defendant, or another witness, is not worthy of belief and a prosecutor is not required to state his inferences and conclusions in the blandest possible terms. People v. Launsburry, 217 Mich App 358, 361; 551 NW2d 460 (1996). Furthermore, this Court has held a prosecutor may comment on the evidence and argue regarding the credibility of witnesses where there is conflicting testimony and the defendant's guilt or innocence depends, at least in part, on the believability of the witnesses. People v. Foreman, 161 Mich App 14, 25; 410 NW2d 289 (1987), vacated on other grounds People v. Kirkpatrick, 431 Mich 897; 432 NW2d 172 (1988); People v. Flanagan, 129 Mich App 786, 796; 342 NW2d 609 (1983).