Micky Jackson in trouble again

Beechwoodspark

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Thanks. I just read all the info on Omer Bhatti. Never heard of him until your post. Fascinating, and this Omer comes across as a very happy, well adjusted sort of guy.

Clearly, the Jackson's kids still love him and see him as part of their family.

Yes it’s amazing how well it went under the radar

Pretty much accepted that he was abused by MJ for years

Galwayguy35

Boggles wrote: »

She was the prosecutions witness in 2005.

Under cross examination in her deposition in 2016 she again eventually stated she only saw Jackson in the shower.

The 2 million payoff from Jacksons estate helped change her mind IMO, I 100% believe she did see him in a shower and in bed with a child and was telling the truth when she said this.

Mr.Wemmick

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Yes it’s amazing how well it went under the radar

Pretty much accepted that he was abused by MJ for years

I must say, I am learning more about M. Jackson from this thread than any documentary.

wakka12

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Not to mention the book, made by paedophiles, which Jackson had personally inscribed with how he wanted this childhood for his own children, which apparently features naked boys (in 90% of the images) posed spread-eagle where you can literally see everything. It sounds sickening and not something a normal person with no sexual interest in children would have at all

I dont understand, why is this book legal? Why were paedophiles allowed to make that?

Boggles

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The 2 million payoff from Jacksons estate helped change her mind IMO, I 100% believe she did see him in a shower and in bed with a child and was telling the truth when she said this.

But she didn't change her mind or at least not until questioned.

In 2005 and 2016 she stated that she saw Jackson in the shower with Robson to the prosecution questions, under cross examination she then stated that she infact only saw Michael.

She also shot down her own claim that she saw him in bed with Safechuck.

Does she appear in the "documentary"?

Beechwoodspark

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Pretty much accepted that he was abused by MJ for years

I don't suppose you would have a link to that statement? Any credible news provider will do.

The Satanist

Now that media outlets are banning his music, can we expect to see similar treatment for the catholic church? We can start with removing the angelus and "mass on Sunday". Thanks.

The Satanist

The Satanist wrote: »

Now that media outlets are banning his music, can we expect to see similar treatment for the catholic church? We can start with removing the angelus and "mass on Sunday". Thanks.

Only if we ban Satanist's as well. It wouldn't be balanced if we didn't do that.

buried

Exactly. Ban that christmas $hite too. Still paying for the hoors bastard I is

Kevin Finnerty

What did he do now? Sticky brown gloves all over WhatsApp

buried

buried wrote: »

Exactly. Ban that christmas $hite too. Still paying for the hoors bastard I is

and Bank Holidays. Anti-capitalist they are.

Mr.Wemmick

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't suppose you would have a link to that statement? Any credible news provider will do.

Read the material available on-line. I got the sense that Omer was Jackson's wife and raised the kids. In Jackson's crazy world, Omer brought stability and calmness, especially to the kids. He comes across like a really decent guy.. and he met Jackson when he was 7.

It's very difficult to get your head around some of this stuff, tbh.

Mr.Wemmick

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Read the material available on-line. I got the sense that Omer was Jackson's wife and raised the kids. In Jackson's crazy world, Omer brought stability and calmness, especially to the kids. He comes across like a really decent guy.. and he met Jackson when he was 7.

It's very difficult to get your head around some of this stuff, tbh.

I'm just looking for one credible link to the statement made- I don't think that's much to ask. I know where the internet is, thanks.

Galwayguy35

Boggles wrote: »

But she didn't change her mind or at least not until questioned.

In 2005 and 2016 she stated that she saw Jackson in the shower with Robson to the prosecution questions, under cross examination she then stated that she infact only saw Michael.

She also shot down her own claim that she saw him in bed with Safechuck.

Does she appear in the "documentary"?

Are you saying you haven't even seen the programme?

ceadaoin.

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Read the material available on-line. I got the sense that Omer was Jackson's wife and raised the kids. In Jackson's crazy world, Omer brought stability and calmness, especially to the kids. He comes across like a really decent guy.. and he met Jackson when he was 7.

It's very difficult to get your head around some of this stuff, tbh.

I think Michael liked him so much because he looked a lot like him. Or at least the look he was trying to achieve through surgery. He even tried to pass him off as his son and started a rumour that he was the result of a one night stand he had while on tour. Yeah.. sure, Jan. Lol

here's what Bhatti had to say when asked about the abuse accusations a few years ago

I don’t wish to say too much about it, but I will say Michael in many ways was very innocent. But you can’t expect everybody to have the same view on everything. To him certain things was natural and completely innocent, things that not necessarily all people would view the same way.

I wonder what are the "certain things" he was talking about?

And here's one of their happy family photos. Beyond weird

8-10

Kevin Finnerty wrote: »

What did he do now? Sticky brown gloves all over WhatsApp

What?

Mr.Wemmick

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes, here's one of their happy family photos. Beyond weird

That is definitely a husband, wife and child photo if ever I saw one.

Omer was with the family and raised those kids, and did a great job too, I reckon. If you see the children photos they all look like happy, normal kids, having fun.

As opposed to the photos of his boy companions who all look and dress like little adults/mini Jacksons.

is_that_so

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Are you saying you haven't even seen the programme?

Does a poster's understanding of all of this really depend on their having sat through 4 hours of a one-sided programme?

Boggles

wakka12 wrote: »

I dont understand, why is this book legal? Why were paedophiles allowed to make that?

The claim is that 2 paedos were involved in one of the books.

There is no credible evidence to back this up, some fringe blog making all sorts of wild unsubstantiated claims that don't add up.

You can still buy the book and it's stocked in American libraries up down the country.

Either way the books were apparently gifted to Jackson.

Boggles

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Are you saying you haven't even seen the programme?

No, but none of the information is new.

There is no new evidence presented, correct?

Galwayguy35

is_that_so wrote: »

Does a poster's understanding of all of this really depend on their having sat through 4 hours of a one-sided programme?

Well yeah it kinda does.

Personally I wouldn't comment on something if I hadn't even seen the programme being discussed but I guess that's just me.

Galwayguy35

Boggles wrote: »

No, but none of the information is new.

There is no new evidence presented, correct?

How about you watch it and get back to us.

Then you will be fully up to speed.

Boggles

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Well yeah it kinda does.

Personally I wouldn't comment on something if I hadn't even seen the programme being discussed but I guess that's just me.

There was about 40 pages in this thread before the documentary came out.

Again was there any new evidence in it?

Boggles

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

How about you watch it and get back to us.

Then you will be fully up to speed.

If I am going to watch 4 hours of fiction it at least better have some dam good car chases in it.

is_that_so

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Well yeah it kinda does.

Personally I wouldn't comment on something if I hadn't even seen the programme being discussed but I guess that's just me.

I guess it is. Director has stated himself it is one-sided. If that's your way of coming to conclusions it's your prerogative.

ToBeFrank123

you could watch 4 hours, 40 hours or 400 hours of something but if its one sided with no proper cross examination or proper fact checking and the interviewees have a history of being unreliable witnesses, then guess what, its wasting everyone's time.

The Directors lack of a counter point is interesting to say the least. It would have made for a much better documentary. The best documentaries offer both sides of the story.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

The claim is that 2 paedos were involved in one of the books.

There is no credible evidence to back this up, some fringe blog making all sorts of wild unsubstantiated claims that don't add up.

You can still buy the book and it's stocked in American libraries up down the country.

Either way the books were apparently gifted to Jackson.

Nope. Not true. There is evidence. Google the names of the editors and contributors. You can find info on them that isnt "fringe blogs".

One was allegedly gifted to him. The other was personally inscribed by Jackson himself. Maybe he gifted it to himself?

You seem very invested in denying any wrongdoing by Jackson despite not even being a fan. And you use the exact same arguments that the MJ obsessives use. Weird

Galwayguy35

Boggles wrote: »

If I am going to watch 4 hours of fiction it at least better have some dam good car chases in it.

Right so sure you keep believing it's all fiction.

ToBeFrank123

One thing I do find odd though is MJs estate takes in 850 million a year.

And his nephew has to f*cking crowdfund to pay for a counter documentary. WTF!

jeremyj1968

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The Directors lack of a counter point is interesting to say the least. It would have made for a much better documentary. The best documentaries offer both sides of the story.

One of the things that I found very unusual was that there was NO witnesses at all outside of the families. No independent passers by or ex staff at hotels, nobody at all - surely it would have been possible to get somebody to substantiate their stories?

I would have been very interested for example to see if there were any records from the hotels where one of the mothers claimed that Jackson was deliberately moving them further and further away from his own room (with the intent of putting distance between them while he was allegedly abusing their kid).