Shame On The LAPD

[Huey]

While I'm sure most of you are aware of this story, I find it hard to understand why it take a year to determine if charges should have been filed. In fact, waiting a year is neglegent as far as I'm concerned. It seems pretty clear, Pee Wee either had child porn or not. It doesn't take a scholar to determine what child porn is. Also, I can understand that it would take longer to investigate the charges against Jeffrey Jones yet a year?

 

Nov 16, 3:43 AM (ET)

 

By ANDREW BRIDGES

 

LOS ANGELES (AP) - A year-old pornography investigation has led to the filing of criminal charges against two Hollywood actors: Paul Reubens, best known as Pee-wee Herman, and veteran character actor Jeffrey Jones of "Ferris Bueller's Day Off."

 

Reubens was charged with one misdemeanor count of possessing materials depicting children under the age of 18 engaged in sexual conduct, said Ana Garcia, a spokeswoman with the City Attorney's office. He surrendered to authorities Friday and was released on $20,000 bail.

 

Jones, who played the uptight principal and comic foil to Matthew Broderick in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," was charged with hiring a 14-year-old boy to pose for sexually explicit photos - a felony - as well as misdemeanor possession of child pornography. He was freed on $20,000 bond after surrendering Thursday.

 

Reubens, 50, and Jones, 56, are acquaintances and both cases stem from the same police investigation, said Los Angeles County District Attorney spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons.

 

 

"Los Angeles Police Department brought us both cases at the same time in connection with an investigation," Gibbons said Friday.

 

Reubens could face as much as a year in jail and a $2,500 fine if convicted. If Jones is convicted, he faces up to three years in prison and would have to register as a sex offender for life.

 

"This is all about photos. There's no allegations of any touching or any improper acts with a minor," Jones' attorney, Jeffrey Brodey, told the Los Angeles Times. "This will be resolved very quickly so he can get on with his life and get back to work."

 

Brodey did not return a call from The Associated Press on Friday.

 

Reubens' attorney, Blair Berk, dismissed the charge against his client as "simply untrue and without merit."

 

"Mr. Reubens has never at any time knowingly possessed any artwork from his extensive vintage and antique art collection even remotely related to anything improper," Berk said in a statement.

 

Jones is to be arraigned next Thursday. Reubens' arraignment is scheduled for Dec. 19.

 

Authorities searched the homes of both men on Nov. 16, 2001, according to the offices of the district and city attorneys. The statute of limitations on the misdemeanors would have run out Saturday if charges had not been filed.

 

Reubens pleaded no contest to an indecent exposure charge in 1991 after he was arrested in Sarasota, Fla., for allegedly exposing himself in a movie theater.

 

After that plea, Reubens' long-running "Pee-wee Herman Show" was canceled and his star faded, although he has had supporting roles in a number of films since, including "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Blow."

 

Jones has appeared in dozens of films, including "Amadeus,""Ed Wood" and "Beetlejuice."

[woodlawn]

Two men are found in possession of child porn and you criticize the police? Are you serious?

[CT Dick]

>Two men are found in possession of child porn and you

>criticize the police? Are you serious?

 

Not just in possession:

 

>Jones.... was charged with hiring a 14-year-old boy to

>pose for sexually explicit photos - a felony

 

I'm glad the LAPD is out there trying to protect children.

 

Dick

[Huey]

>Two men are found in possession of child porn and you

>criticize the police? Are you serious?

>

 

First I did not read anywhere that they had been convicted. You have them in prison already. Here in LA the words "rush to judgment" actually ring true by your statement.

 

IF you were to read my remarks I was not commenting on the merit of the charges. Only the process of the investigation. Specifically the length of time it took to determine if our pal Pee Wee had child porn or not. Usually it is pretty obvious wouldn't you think? It seems the ONLY reason they were both finally charged was based on the statue of limitations, NOT on the evidence. Otherwise, why wait so long?

 

Enjoy your weekend .

[Guest RushNY]

I can understand the anger felt about it taking so long but they would not have been charged at all if there wasnt some evidence and a good chance of prosecution.

 

Pee Wee is a pretty obvious case but with Jeffrey Jones i must admit i was shocked as he is pretty well known but it seems to me that there is probably a more thorough and deeper probe and investigation going on into the sexual predelictions of Hollywood and its community the good thing at least is that they WERE charged not got off with a slapped wrist like i'm sure some have .

 

The other reason is that kid cases take longer is that the prosecutors/police have to a 1000% sure that everything is above board and will stand up in court so these deviant motherfuckers will be nailed good and proper.

[bluenix]

>The other reason is that kid cases take longer is that the

>prosecutors/police have to a 1000% sure that everything is

>above board and will stand up in court so these deviant

>motherfuckers will be nailed good and proper.

 

Four years from now, posing nude for a photographer will be considered gainful employment for this teenager. In which case "deviant motherfuckers" become, er, clients.

 

I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be a felony or that it shouldn't be prosecuted. I am arguing that people in general are too quick to take what is merely a convention, a social norm -- in this case the age of consent -- and treat it as if it were an immutable law written by the finger of God.

 

Meanwhile, I wonder how many nervous celebrities are consulting their attorneys.

[woodlawn]

>>Two men are found in possession of child porn and you

>>criticize the police? Are you serious?

>>

>

>First I did not read anywhere that they had been convicted.

>You have them in prison already.

 

 

Not true. If you were to read my remarks (above) I merely stated that they were found in possession of the materials. More than that is needed for conviction.

 

>IF you were to read my remarks I was not commenting on the

>merit of the charges. Only the process of the investigation.

>Specifically the length of time it took to determine if our

>pal Pee Wee had child porn or not. Usually it is pretty

>obvious wouldn't you think? It seems the ONLY reason they were

>both finally charged was based on the statue of limitations,

>NOT on the evidence. Otherwise, why wait so long?

 

First, in such cases it is usually the DA's office not the police that decides if and when to file charges, so you are blaming people who did not even make the decision.

 

Second, the article you posted did not state that the reason for delay was to determine the facts, and it is extremely unlikely that that was the reason. There are many other reasons for delay in bringing charges in such cases. The most common is to negotiate with the accused a plea to a lesser charge in return for testimony against someone else. If negotiations were not getting anywhere and the statute of limitations was about to cut off the ability to file charges, charges would then be filed. Another common reason for delay is that witnesses or evidence needed for the arraignment or preliminary hearing were not available earlier. I could name several others.

[Guest RushNY]

>>

>

>Four years from now, posing nude for a photographer will be

>considered gainful employment for this teenager. In which case

>"deviant motherfuckers" become, er, clients.

 

EXACTLY- 4 years from now-not now or in the last year when the kid was under-age i'm sure nobody here in their right mind would consider a 14 year old 'fair game'.When someone is 18 they can do whatever .......that includes posing nude for photographers and escorting .

 

I agree with the comment about the nervous celebrities tho',Will this be the 1st of many somehow i doubt it,the LAPD has to come up against a more powerful force i.e the studios and the publicists.x(

[Huey]

>I can understand the anger felt about it taking so long but

>they would not have been charged at all if there wasnt some

>evidence and a good chance of prosecution.

 

Not the way it seems to work arund here RushNY. Headlines rule over eveidence and with the statue running out and a new police chief, well, I'll just leave it at that.

 

>Pee Wee is a pretty obvious case but with Jeffrey Jones i

>must admit i was shocked as he is pretty well known but it

>seems to me that there is probably a more thorough and deeper

>probe and investigation going on into the sexual predelictions

>of Hollywood and its community the good thing at least is that

>they WERE charged not got off with a slapped wrist like i'm

>sure some have .

 

Interesting that you feel the good thing is that they "were charged" almost like you feel they are guilty without trial.

>

>The other reason is that kid cases take longer is that the

>prosecutors/police have to a 1000% sure that everything is

>above board and will stand up in court so these deviant

>motherfuckers will be nailed good and proper.

 

Once again I will take the other point. Living here all my life I've seen way too much "McMartin" over the years. Costing tax payers hundreds of millions of dollars and not a guilty verdict on one that amounted to anything.