Teenager Lists Sex Assault Details Against Jackson (Warning!)

[kuozzman]

This is completely disgusting......

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3998132

The exact allegations made by a teenage boy against Michael Jackson were revealed for the first time today.

The young cancer survivor told private court hearings how the 46-year-old Thriller star molested him as they lay on Jackson’s bed at Neverland.

Transcripts of the evidence, given to a California Grand Jury last year, were obtained by ABC News.

“We were laying on the bed and he (Jackson) told me that men have to masturbate,” the boy told the court.

“He told me that he wanted to teach me to masturbate].

“So we were laying in the bed, and then he started rubbing me.

“He put his hand down my pants and he started rubbing me ... my private area ... he was masturbating me.” The prosecutor asked him: “Did you look over to see his eyes at any time?”

Answer: “Yes.”

“What did you see?” the prosecutor continued.

“His eyes were like squinching really tight,” the boy said.

In the US courts system, a Grand Jury reviews the evidence and decides whether the accused should be indicted.

The jury in the Jackson case returned an indictment in April last year.

The indictment includes four counts of lewd acts involving a minor child, one count involving an attempted lewd act upon a child and four counts of administering an intoxicating agent.

Jackson has pleaded not guilty and called the accusations a “big lie”. The selection of a trial jury will begin on January 31.

More.....

[flakey_foont]

1. Didn't he have a song called

Beat It?

[Eurobabe]

5. LOL

[guitar man]

25. Dude, that is just wrong.....

I tried hard not to laugh, but I just couldn't help it.

[purduejake]

2. I think Jackson has proven himself to be a liar in the past...

like when he accused the police of hurting him. I thought that was ridiculous as he probably got far better treatment than anybody else would. The man is crazy and I wouldn't put this past him. I haven't seen all the evidence, though.

[Zuni]

30. It was the most humiliating expirience. They took pictures of my penis...

[saltpoint]

3. The role of the courts is to determine guilt or innocence --

-- or so I thought.

Trial by media is not a path justice should take.

Was this information released/leaked because Jackson is a celebrity?

[Emillereid]

4. Amen to this! I couldn't agree more.

[kuozzman]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that this type of "leak" is unprecedented......

[Ratboca]

9. This stuff's been

out before. And I agree with you, a court of law determines his guilt or innocence...BUT in the court of public opinion we're allowed to express our views and whether we think he's a pedophile or not, right??

[saltpoint]

10. We can speak, yes. My argument is with --

-- "trial by media," when the media profit from speculation and gossip, usurping the role of prosecution and defense.

One recent example was the Scott Peterson frenzy on Larry King Live.

[Ratboca]

11. you're right about that!

It went on forever! Think the Jackson trial will get as much publicity?

[saltpoint]

12. Oh, probably.

I've resolved to enter a "media black-out" period when it begins and listen to Gordon Lightfoot and Joni Mitchell instead.

[MsMagnificent]

13. Oh puh-lease!

With that kind of reasoning, the public should not have any information whatsoever on ANY part or testimony of a trial until the jury has ruled!

This is no different than information, as you say "leaked" (usually VERY legal -- gag orders are rare) from the millions of other pre-trial judicial cases. It's legally part of the public record.

We can, if we WISH and as you seem to feel most are doing, to make conclusions on Jackson's guilt or innocence based on ONE sworn statement.
And really, why not? Sure it's unfair, but we're each entitled to our opinion, gut feeling, visceral reaction.

So what difference does that make? Really now? Those opinions and about five bucks will buy an espresso at Starbucks. BFD

We, the general public are under NO constriction to limit or withhold our opinion; we're under no oath nor are we gagged.

Don't forget, it is the sworn JURY who matters, not the opinions of the populace. And that is what voir dire is for -- to weed out those who have already formed an opinion, no matter how large or small, pro or con, before they are benched and take the oath.

The more fair among us may wish to withhold their opinion or desire a preponderance of evidence before they decide -- our right too.
But that surely does not automatically make the public dissemination of sworn statements
--alleged, mind you, at least until the jury speaks--
indicative of absolute guilt.

[saltpoint]

19. My objection to trial by media --

-- invokes the 19th century (and some of the 20th) allure of the freak show at carnivals.

Allure includes lurid, by derivation and in context. The freak show both attracted and repelled. It represented the maximum possible ethical blurring.

A celebrity freak show is a gold mine for the media. NBA stars, rock stars, film stars, political figures.

My post argued against that ethical blurring, that freak show energy the media uses to drive ratings and profit.

I probably could have done without your histrionic 'puh-lease.' It was condescending.

[MsMagnificent]

27. Apologies

Sorry about the "Puh-leaze"
It WAS meant with a smiley (Like: Aww... come on : ) not condescending, but I neglected to put the :) in. It's so difficult, without vocal inflection, to express in mere typewritten words the manner in which the words are intended
at least for me -- which is why you'll find my posts usually littered with happy faces, sad, whatever.

But for some reason I didn't want to put one in the subject line and now am in the hot seat

Oh, but also -- as far As the lurid, nosy, freak-show attitudes I really think, however unfortunately, it IS part of the Human make-up.
But I'd rather, if we could choose one trait to get rid of, dispose with the human propensity or outright attraction for war before getting rid of the lascivious nature.

Again, please accept my apologies.

[Angelique]

20. .. OK.. sheeesh.. I'll second what you said.. .. I think.. : )

[MsMagnificent]

21. LOL Tortured phrasing 'R Us

OK, well... 'R Me

But I think (I HOPE!) the meaning is clear by the end, even though the road to it may be difficult sometimes :>

[Angelique]

26. I got your drift.. I only wish I could have said it so well.. :)

[barb162]

6. wonder why this is in a non-US publication, and not ours, what

with all the publicity/dirt crap going on in this country.

[Mend]

8. This story will be released here when it suits the administration

They use stories like this at convenient times to cover up scandals of their own.

[Ratboca]

7. Almost exactly

like the 1993 case! You can read about the 93 case on the Smoking Gun. I think MJ is going down (not literally, of course) this time. Don't you think even one day in jail is a death sentence for him???

[CatWoman]

14. another way you can look at it

is that the Smoking Gun case was studied, and like information is being detailed to ensure a conviction.

[Ratboca]

15. That's what

my husband said. But he's a defense lawyer who thinks that everyone may be innocent, the law takes advantage of people and many don't get proper representation.

[CatWoman]

16. seems I have the same "affliction"

maybe my being black has something to do with it.

[leveymg]

17. Any ideas why they would be going after Jackson now? Timing of leaked

indictment could be effort to taint the jury pool and prosecute in the press - rather like OJ. I have no idea whether he's guilty or innocent, but it seems someone is playing serious hardball here in order to get a conviction.

For a long time Jackson appears to have been protected on high. Why are they going after him now? I know he held the Beatles publishing rights for a while, but that was bought by Sony. Is this a commercial power play, or is it political? Or, did a wealthy pervert simply go to far too many time and is now getting justice long delayed?

Any ideas, theories, rants?

[slackmaster]

18. Jackson has been using his wealth to evade justice for a long time

It's not for the police not making an effort to go after him.

He's a slippery rich person.

[barb162]

22. "Any ideas, theories, rants?" I have always given him the benefit

of the doubt until I read this. Now I have no idea if this story in this newspaper is true or not but if it is (why am I now "feeling" it is?) well, he sure suckered me.

[Dookus]

24. I think they're going after him

because they finally have witnesses who will testify against him. In the last case, the boy and his family were bought off for $20,000,000.

I believe Jackson will be convicted. I also predict he'll flee the country and never serve a day.

[bobthedrummer]

23. "Did/does white stuff come out?" Michael Jackson question to boy.

:grr:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. that's disgusting....

yeeeeeeeeeecccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[DrWeird]

28. OMG. Some body has accused MJ of molestation.

I hadn't heard that before. This is big news.

[Zuni]

29. Fits with the story alleged by the Chandlers in 1993

The original molestation case, of which there is a book of now called All that Glitters