[angelize56]

I guess the evidence spoke for itself finally! We shall see what happens now!

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 Posted: 10:18 PM EDT (0218 GMT)

SANTA BARBARA, California (CNN) -- A grand jury investigating allegations that pop star Michael Jackson molested a 12-year-old boy indicted him Wednesday. His attorneys said he would plead not guilty.

The charges contained in the indictment were not immediately known.

Jackson, 45, pleaded not guilty in January to seven felony counts of lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 and two counts of giving the child an "intoxicating agent."

The 19-member grand jury convened March 29 and met for 13 days to decide whether there was enough evidence to indict the singer.

In the criminal complaint, prosecutors say the incidents for which the singer has been charged took place in February and March 2003 when the boy was 12.

Thomas Sneddon Jr., Santa Barbara County district attorney, said the complaint includes special allegations that could make Jackson ineligible for probation if convicted in the case, which grew out of an investigation launched following a documentary on the pop singer broadcast by ABC.

The complaint contends that Jackson "had substantial sexual contact with John Doe."

The charges against Jackson were filed in December, nearly a month after authorities raided his Neverland Ranch home. He has been free on $3 million bond since his formal arrest last November.

The 3,000-acre ranch is in Santa Barbara County, northwest of Los Angeles.

Grand jurors heard from more than a dozen witnesses, including the boy, his brother, mother and father and the mother's two attorneys, Larry Feldman and William Dickerman.

Feldman represented another boy, 13 at the time, who leveled similar accusations against Jackson in 1993. The singer resolved that case out of court in a multimillion-dollar settlement, and no charges were filed.

Psychologist Stan Katz, who reported the current child molestation allegations to law enforcement officials, also testified, sources said.

Katz said the allegations surfaced during a therapy session with Jackson's accuser, who had been referred to him by Feldman.

Feldman also referred the 1993 accuser to Katz, who reported those allegations to authorities.

Sources said other witnesses from the 1993 case have appeared before the grand jury as well, indicating prosecutors might have been attempting to establish a pattern of behavior by Jackson.

Jamie Masada, owner of the Laugh Factory nightclub and the man who claims to have facilitated the introduction of Jackson to the latest alleged victim, has likewise testified, said another source familiar with the case.

To encourage two former Jackson employees to testify before the jury, prosecutors have considered bringing charges against them of intimidating the family of the alleged victim, the source said.

Earlier this month, Los Angeles police said they were investigating new allegations of child abuse against Jackson from the 1980s.

One of the singer's lawyers said he expected the story will eventually be proved false, and a source told CNN there were "doubts" about whether the accuser was ever with the entertainer.

The one-paragraph statement from police said they were contacted by the Los Angeles County district attorney's office in March.

Jackson's lawyers, Mark Geragos and Benjamin Brafman, called the new allegations a "smear campaign."

In a documentary made for Britain's Granada Television by journalist Martin Bashir, which was broadcast in the United States in February of last year on ABC, Jackson said he still allowed children to stay with him in his bedroom, despite the notoriety of the 1993 case.

"Why can't you share your bed? The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone," Jackson says in the documentary.

"You say, 'You can have my bed if you want it. Sleep in it. I'll sleep on the floor. It's yours.' I always give the beds to the company."

A grand jury investigating allegations that pop star Michael Jackson molested a young boy has indicted him.

[SexyTech]

Alan Combs is discussing this on his radio show right now!

He's Polling the audience if they think he's innocent or guilty!

[oldie]

Wasn't he supposed to pass a sanity test first

[gotrootdude]

Micheal may be strange, but that doesn't mean he's molesting kids. Why doesn't the media wait until a guilty charge is found before pasting a man's face all over the news? They should be ashamed of themselves. How many times is he going to be in the news with unproven negative statements against him.

[AlbertB]

For my money, I really feel there is the element of a witchhunt growing here, and has been for a long time. Michael Jackson is guilty of inappropriate behaviour without a shadow of a doubt and by his own words. He is undoubtedly guilty of stupidity beyond belief again by his own words. But if you ask me whether he is guilty of child abuse I would have to say in my own words, not in any serious way, not in any way I would define as child abuse.

I really believe he has a love of children and I believe that the idea of harming them in any way would be abhorent to him. I believe and admire the way he has refused to let public opinion and hysteria change his beliefs about how he behaves, even if I question the sanity of that behaviour itself. Especially taking into account the amount of money it has cost him from the slimeballs who wish to draw their own pint of blood from the public outcry!

He is a man trapped by a totally distorted childhood and an unimaginably unreal adulthood. He has coped with this by building a shell of childlike behaviour around him to make up for the lack of the former and to escape the latter. He is now genuinely one goat short of a petting zoo. We all know that children behave in ways that adults perceive as sexually threatening from their perspective but to the child have no sexual content at all, tickle fights for example. So far as I can see and believe, Jackson behaves no worse that that. And I can understand his own words on the subject when he says that these things are done in innocence at a child's level and why should he change his behaviour when he is guilty of nothing by deed or intent. People here won't even change their behaviour to stop using their mobile phone while they drive when that takes other's lives for God's sake!

There are those who are fixated on this issue and are determined to see every adult/child relationship in the light cast out by it. Too many have nothing in their lives but to question the motive of anyone who loves interplay with children and has an eccentric side to their nature, and Jackson has that in Spades. Those who have nothing to live for in their lives other than to see child abuse and paedophilia everywhere are determined that he shall be brought down whether he is guilty or not just to add a high profile scalp to their lodge poles, prove that paedophilia is everywhere, and feed the frenzy! They are in the same basket as the ones who take out these actions just to milk his millions.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by SexyTech

Alan Combs is discussing this on his radio show right now!

He's Polling the audience if they think he's innocent or guilty!

What was the outcome of the poll? 99.9999% guilty, right?

Oh wait, Colms is a liberal (his own admission)
So, the premis of his show was probably to have a bunch of people on who would deliberately take the liberal stance. (typical liberal tactic)

So I'm guessing that about 25% of the "class" decided that since there hadn't been a trial that he must be considered innocent until proven guilty.
In other words it is far too important to maintain political correctness above any OPINION about the case. Sheeesh!

Even saying all that, there are children involved, and even most liberals will place children in front of political correctness. (hence 75% probably calling him guilty anyway)

How did I do, Ben?

My OPINION is that he is guilty as hell and needs to be locked up for a long, long time.

I have no quams about expressing my opinion on the case.

BTW, OJ Simpson did the deed, Rodreguez did the deed to Dru Sjodin, and Scott Peterson is WAY guilty.

[Infidel_Kastro]

Originally Posted by AlbertB

For my money, I really feel there is the element of a witchhunt growing here, and has been for a long time. Michael Jackson is guilty of inappropriate behaviour without a shadow of a doubt and by his own words. He is undoubtedly guilty of stupidity beyond belief again by his own words. But if you ask me whether he is guilty of child abuse I would have to say in my own words, not in any serious way, not in any way I would define as child abuse.

I really believe he has a love of children and I believe that the idea of harming them in any way would be abhorent to him. I believe and admire the way he has refused to let public opinion and hysteria change his beliefs about how he behaves, even if I question the sanity of that behaviour itself. Especially taking into account the amount of money it has cost him from the slimeballs who wish to draw their own pint of blood from the public outcry!

He is a man trapped by a totally distorted childhood and an unimaginably unreal adulthood. He has coped with this by building a shell of childlike behaviour around him to make up for the lack of the former and to escape the latter. He is now genuinely one goat short of a petting zoo. We all know that children behave in ways that adults perceive as sexually threatening from their perspective but to the child have no sexual content at all, tickle fights for example. So far as I can see and believe, Jackson behaves no worse that that. And I can understand his own words on the subject when he says that these things are done in innocence at a child's level and why should he change his behaviour when he is guilty of nothing by deed or intent. People here won't even change their behaviour to stop using their mobile phone while they drive when that takes other's lives for God's sake!

There are those who are fixated on this issue and are determined to see every adult/child relationship in the light cast out by it. Too many have nothing in their lives but to question the motive of anyone who loves interplay with children and has an eccentric side to their nature, and Jackson has that in Spades. Those who have nothing to live for in their lives other than to see child abuse and paedophilia everywhere are determined that he shall be brought down whether he is guilty or not just to add a high profile scalp to their lodge poles, prove that paedophilia is everywhere, and feed the frenzy! They are in the same basket as the ones who take out these actions just to milk his millions.

Mornin' Albert, how are you doing. Sorry about the Princess Di photos yesterday, stupid media.
Anyway, I read your posts and I had to interject a bit.

I really believe he has a love of children and I believe that the idea of harming them in any way would be abhorent to him.
That may be true, however, you must decide if to him, would touching them inappropriately, be harming them? Pedophiles love children, enough that they have to touch them, we would see that as harmful, but they wouldn't.

He is a man trapped by a totally distorted childhood and an unimaginably unreal adulthood. He has coped with this by building a shell of childlike behaviour around him to make up for the lack of the former and to escape the latter. He is now genuinely one goat short of a petting zoo. We all know that children behave in ways that adults perceive as sexually threatening from their perspective but to the child have no sexual content at all, tickle fights for example. So far as I can see and believe, Jackson behaves no worse that that. And I can understand his own words on the subject when he says that these things are done in innocence at a child's level and why should he change his behaviour when he is guilty of nothing by deed or intent..
This is not normal ADULT behaviour. Period.

Too many have nothing in their lives but to question the motive of anyone who loves interplay with children and has an eccentric side to their nature, and Jackson has that in Spades.
Would you find him to be eccentric if he wasn't rich or famous?

I'll wait for the trial, and if they find him innocent, he's innocent, but if he is harmless as you say, why did he settle a previous case? Because it was a civil suit? Because he didn't want to go through the hassle of a lawsuit and trial? The only problem I have with that is if he was innocent, much like he is saying he is now, wouldn't he fight it to remove all suspicion?
He is innocent unless proven guilty, but would you let your kids play with him?

[oldie]

Not a reply to any of the above posts, but rather an over simplification as to how I view the case.

In black and white (no pun intended !)

I would think that the vast majority of people would agree the guys not exactly the norm And not simply with regards to his liking or love of young boys, but his well documented history of absurdity and odd behaviour.

Anyways, for brevities sake ... Black = normal and White = abnormal. Take your pick

Not following the story so I don't know what his defence is pleading??? Diminished responsibility

Oldie

[AlbertB]

Hi IK, thanks for being so calm in such an emotive issue.

That may be true, however, you must decide if to him, would touching them inappropriately, be harming them?

That depends how you define inappropriate. Sexually I would say yes of course absolutely forbidden. But is wrestling/play fighting inappropriate between an adult and a child? If so, is that because of the nature of the physical content or what may be in the adult's mind at the time? I taught martial arts to children and adults for years. Was the unavoidable physical contact I had with thousands of children paedophilic? And what if I had been a swimming instructor? And if it is ok for a swimming coach then how about a friend or neighbour teaching the kid to swim? Where is the line? To me it depends what was in my or other's minds at the time. I don't think there is anything other than a childish desire to be liked by kids in Jackson's mind, and I lean towards thinking that things never went past basic childish games such as the basic body tickling either, and I don't mean doctors and nurses! I think it is adults, both unscrupulous and perhaps over-sensitive, who are feeding this.

This is not normal ADULT behaviour. Period.

No it is not, but perhaps a little of it should be!

Would you find him to be eccentric if he wasn't rich or famous?

Yes, no different. Where I was brought up every local community had a slightly oddball person, an old widow or a middle aged man who never married, these were people who were extremely kind to kids. I never knew one of them to be a problem with children, though undoubtedly some cases of it could be found, but there were still one or two in the community who would always try to convince others of the "danger" they posed. Fortunately in those days adults could all think for themselves and not be led by the nose by those more fanatical or the media frenzy for headlines. There is no more paedophilia nowadays than there was then and it was as rare as a fish's toe nail clippings! The media have made a monster to scare us all into buying the next installment in order to stay safe and Jackson is their trump card in it.

[Infidel_Kastro]

ALbert, its funny you mention "trump card" because Doanld Trump was on Larry King last night when the story broke and he adamantly defended him, Trump thought if this more as a "shake down" than anything else.
I liked your your example of teaching martial arts to kids and the unavoidable physical contact, especially after I read yesterday that the Scottish PGA has stated to its members to try to avoid physical contact with junior clients in order to stave off any problems.
However, you state that "But is wrestling/play fighting inappropriate between an adult and a child? If so, is that because of the nature of the physical content or what may be in the adult's mind at the time? " I guess the easiest way to answer that is whether or not the adult is deriving any sexual pleasure from it. In MJ's case, I can't answer that.
I understand your point also about perhaps lightening up, maybe we all need to. However, aprt of my job does put me in contact with sexual offenders,a nd one of them is a pedophile, there is a difference. Nice person, they just like children, and they don't consider anything wrong with that.
Maybe I am finally jaded, don't know.
And yes, I remeber growing up and knowing that oddball person, the one that likes kids, and in most cases they were genrally nice people who never had kids of thier own, or maybe they were all grown up. Those people are beautiful, they make childhood a happy remembrance, and my parents knew those people because they wanted to know who was interacting with their children, which is waht I feel there needs to be more of.

[Ciberblade]

It's predictable, still the news wants to convict him in the court of opinions (and thus far done a good job) which will in-turn lower support, in-turn helps the prosecutors Hmmm

[AlbertB]

IK, I feel your last post to have been quite remarkable! To be functioning in the centre of this issue and to keep such an open mind about things is something special! I salute you.

What you said about the easiest way to decide if contact with children is allowable or no is whether the adult is deriving any sexual pleasure or not is the key to the matter and I am glad you put it and not me, it is what I have been hinting at in previous posts. The issue of advising against most contact on the grounds of laying yourself open to false accusations is of course a factor in all dealings nowadays and one which I take very seriously. While I make the decision to not let my MA teaching be affected by such issues, I would take a very different view under circumstances of being alone with a 14 year old girl for example. That is where I think Jackson has been mostly at fault, he has not taken simple sensible steps to prevent these accusations if he is innocent, but on the other hand also where I feel he would have been much more cunning had he been truly guilty by design.

Keep those posts coming in my friend, I always get a few days of headache after one of your better ones as I think it out and readjust .

[angelize56]

Breaking news just out that Michael has gotten rid of his celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos. Maybe he'll hire Johnny Cochran.

[angelize56]

If it's in the Enquirer...it must be true!

Nat'l Enquirer: Boy's prints on Jacko's porn stash

BY MICHELLE CARUSO
DAILY NEWS WEST COAST BUREAU CHIEF

Cops found Michael Jackson's fingerprint and a fingerprint from the boy accusing him of sex abuse on the "same page" of a porno mag seized from the pop star's home last year, according to a published report.

The fingerprints, allegedly found in a copy of Barely Legal magazine, could help bolster the boy's claim that Jackson used porno mags to get him aroused, according to a story in this week's National Enquirer.

Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting the then-13-year-old cancer survivor and conspiring to hold the boy and his family hostage at Neverland early last year. Jackson has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

The boy, who turned 15 on Dec. 2, told investigators Jackson kept a stash of porno mags in a briefcase in his bathroom. When cops searched Neverland in November 2003, they found the porn stash in that location, the Enquirer says.

At a recent court hearing, Santa Barbara County prosecutor Ron Zonen said "magazines" were part of the evidence against Jackson.

Barely Legal, which is published by Hustler mag honcho Larry Flynt, reportedly contains pictures of adult women dressed as saucy teenagers.

Jackson's lawyer Tom Mesereau and prosecutors are under a gag order and cannot comment on the case.

Cops raided Neverland for the second time Friday. They took photos and measurements of Jackson's home for use in creating trial exhibits, and a DNA sample from Jackson's mouth.

Cops also nosed around the ranch's telephone and communications systems, a source told the Daily News.

According to the Enquirer, investigators are trying to prove that from his bedroom, Jackson had the ability covertly to monitor and record phone conversations elsewhere on the ranch.

The trial is set to begin Jan. 31.

[iltos]

IK and AlbertB

great conversation, you two

it outlined fairly what a bizarre individual jackson is....i personally find him so childlike in his public persona that its difficult to imagine his relationships with children being pedophilia....

tho i also understand him to be a ruthless and sharp businessman, which is incongruent with his public persona....

the one thing that strikes me is that, regardless of his love for children, no privledges of privacy or amount of wealth should allow an adult's behavior to come so close to outright inappropriate behavior with a child....assuming he is as innocent as he claims....the line is just to thin from a child's point of view, regardless of any innocence in jackson's heart.....that, at least, is complete irresponsible in a "normal" world.