Quantcast

Did he or didn't he: Michael Jackson Indicted

Makeuptalk.com - Makeup forums and reviews

Help Support Makeuptalk.com - Makeup forums and reviews:

Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
1,992
Reaction score
1
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=629 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=3>California jury indicts Jackson

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=416><!-- S BO --><!-- S IIMA --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=203 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
Mr Jackson will be asked to enter a plea next week

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IIMA -->A grand jury has indicted pop star Michael Jackson who will now appear in court next week.

The move means the panel decided there was enough evidence against Mr Jackson for him to face a trial.

There have been no details of the accusations considered by the grand jury and new charges could be brought against the 45-year-old singer.

He was arrested in November amid accusations that he molested a 12-year-old boy but denies any wrongdoing.

Under those charges, he faces seven counts of child abuse and two of plying the boy with alcohol in order to seduce him.

Mr Jackson has dismissed the accusations as "a big lie" aimed at extorting money from him. The BBC's Peter Bowes in Los Angeles says it is believed that the alleged victim may have been among the witnesses to testify before the grand jury during its closed-door 13-day hearing. Mr Jackson is now expected to appear in court on 30 April to be charged formally and enter a plea.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
22,667
Reaction score
441
Location
Huntington Beach, CA
Oh how I wanna beleive htat he didn't but it sure sounds like he DID.





Originally Posted by Californian


California jury indicts Jackson







Mr Jackson will be asked to enter a plea next week




A grand jury has indicted pop star Michael Jackson who will now appear in court next week.

The move means the panel decided there was enough evidence against Mr Jackson for him to face a trial.

There have been no details of the accusations considered by the grand jury and new charges could be brought against the 45-year-old singer.

He was arrested in November amid accusations that he molested a 12-year-old boy but denies any wrongdoing.

Under those charges, he faces seven counts of child abuse and two of plying the boy with alcohol in order to seduce him.

Mr Jackson has dismissed the accusations as "a big lie" aimed at extorting money from him. The BBC's Peter Bowes in Los Angeles says it is believed that the alleged victim may have been among the witnesses to testify before the grand jury during its closed-door 13-day hearing. Mr Jackson is now expected to appear in court on 30 April to be charged formally and enter a plea.








 
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
1,992
Reaction score
1
Originally Posted by Steve I don't know if he did it or not? If he did it, he is stupid beyond belief because (besides being a perv) he should have known he was under the microscope. If he didn't do it, he is stupid beyond belief because he should have known he was a ripe target and should not have put himself in that position.
In either case, I think the DA is attacking like a rabbid dog and I doubt very much that guilt or innocence played any roll in the desicion to prosecute. Watch closely when he speaks to the press and you'll see the foam flying from his mouth! I think the DA got his nosed browned back 10 years earlier and now it's personal.

I doubt we'll ever know!

I have more thoughts but I feel blood pressure rising
...

I don't think we'll ever know the truth. To me, something is definately fishy with Mr. Mike. I hope they can prove beyond reason, that he is guilty if he is and let him go if there is no incontrovertible proof.
Something tells me that at least some of these kids aren't lying. Either way, you got it right, Steve, playing with fire is likely to cause burns sooner or later. Is he all THAT surprised to raise suspicions when a child explains sexual acts between Mike and himself that previously the child didn't know existed? Is he all THAT surprised that sharing beds with boys who are not relatives or sons is a bit odd? Is he surprised that calling the kids in his fan club "rubbers" is a bit suspicious? ETC...

I'm hoping for a "fair" trial with a verdict that will hold him responsible any abuses if they were committed.

 

Latest posts

Top