AFP - An independent probe has found that pop star Michael Jackson's claims he was manhandled and injured during his arrest on child abuse charges were false, police said.

Santa Barbara Sheriff Jim Anderson said an investigation by the California Attorney General and the state's Bureau of Investigation had concluded that Jackson was not injured during his November 19 arrest.

"After interviewing 163 witnesses and expending in excess of 2,500 investigative hours, the California Bureau of Investigation determined that Mr Jackson was not injured at the hands of Santa Barbara Sheriffs Department personnel," Anderson told a press conference.

"The investigation also concluded there was no criminal conduct on the part of Sheriffs Department personnel during their contact with Mr Jackson."

But the sheriff declined to say whether he would now pursue criminal charges against Jackson for making the allegations, as he had earlier warned he might do if the charges were proved false.

Anderson said he was prevented from expounding on his statement by a strict gag order surrounding Jackson's child molestation case that is being heard in Santa Maria, in California's Santa Barbara County.

Jackson had claimed during an interview broadcast on the American CBS television network in December that his shoulder had been dislocated and his wrists and back hurt when his hands were cuffed behind his back after he turned himself in for arrest.

"They manhandled me very roughly, my shoulder is dislocated literally, it is hurting very badly," the "King of Pop" said before showing photographs apparently showing severe bruising to his right arm.

He also claimed he was locked in a toilet in the sheriff's department for 45 minutes when he surrendered to be arrested, booked and photographed on charges that he molested a 12-year-old boy at his Neverland Ranch.

But Anderson insisted the results of the official investigation into the allegations had vindicated his department and showed that Jackson had been treated in a "in a professional manner."

Jackson, 45, has pleaded innocent to a 10-count indictment that includes charges of child molestation, giving alcohol to a minor, as well as conspiracies to kidnap, illegally imprison and extort his alleged victim. He is free on three million dollars bail.

But they're smart, and Jackson was smart for not filing a lawsuit or a formal complaint. 60 minutes interview was not a formal complaint, no matter what they tell you on television.

Thriller81 said:

I think you can still launch a lawsuit for slander based on the number of people the 60 Minutes interview reached. Considering 60 Minutes is viewed by the public as a news program, and MJ presented his info as truth... and it was broadcast internationally... looks like MJ made a public accusation.

"manhandled"

I bet he wishes he was "manhandled"

As I said before, that AG "investigation" is full of shit. I don't believe Jackson either, but I damn sure don't believe nor trust the police department, and especially this case with that DA Sneddon guy, please. It'll be a cold day in hell before I believe that the police didn't abuse somebody.

Some police officers are capable of doing foul shit, and know how to cover it up. Beat the shit out of somebody, they would say "he/she was resisting arrest, and deserve it", or beat a person from the body only, and not touch the face, cover the bruises.

But SBPD are smart, and they knew who exactly to fuck wit, because who would believe Michael Jackson.

Thriller81 said:

Yeah sure, what strikes me most is the fact that Geragos was sitting behind the camera. I bet he told MJ to do it.

BlueNote

BlueNote said:

He could've said no.

OK going back to Squiggle's question, which I can't seem to get past.

WHY would MJ say anything about the police if it wasn't true?

I've brainstormed some reasons based on my biases.

1) That office generally has a low-run office that has "doo-doo" on the wall due-due to poor janitorial services.
2) MJ just wants to bitch on TV for sympathy.
3) MJ is a princess/diva and expects immaculate treatment.
4) The police are racist (and remember when MJ was black)!
5) The police love having the feeling of having power over others and would LOVE to treat anyone ESPECIALLY "MICHAEL JACKSON" (famous spoiled diva) that way.

Orgers: Brainstorm first (and post immediately), then later we'll eliminate any possibilities.

CinisterCee said:

Orgers explain how you interpret this. Do you think each camp is somehow covering their own asses?

Is wish those allegations were true, becuase MJ really needs a good ass beating.

As I said before, that AG "investigation" is full of shit. I don't believe Jackson either, but I damn sure don't believe nor trust the police department, and especially this case with that DA Sneddon guy, please. It'll be a cold day in hell before I believe that the police didn't abuse somebody.

Some police officers are capable of doing foul shit, and know how to cover it up. Beat the shit out of somebody, they would say "he/she was resisting arrest, and deserve it", or beat a person from the body only, and not touch the face, cover the bruises.

But SBPD are smart, and they knew who exactly to fuck wit, because who would believe Michael Jackson.

wasn't he only in custody for like 30mins to an hour anyway. the being locked in the bathroom for 45mins wouldn't fit the timeline

Nobody in MJ's camp cooperated in the "ivestigation". You think those cops will admit to roughing up anybody? That's what happens when you investigate yourself.

co sign

You know what really got me? That pic of him with the bruised arm.

First of all, that pic had to have been taken like 10 years ago when his hair was actually in that style, it was in the picture and when he used to wear hats.

If he had a bruised arm, why the hell didn't he roll up his sleave on 60 minutes to prove it live?

He will have to do better than that to have his way in court.

WildStyle said:

163 witnesses, none of them thought to tell the truth?

And if they interviewed people in MJ's camp, it would obviously be completely biased the other way. But we wouldn't hear you complaining about that.

And anyway... how would you explain the tape of MJ being treated courteously?
[This message was edited Thu Aug 26 23:14:00 2004 by MrSquiggle]

MrSquiggle said:

Like prisoners are gonna say whether he was manhandled or not if the cops don't want them to.

The tape of MJ treated courteously proves nothing. That is not where the alleged manhandling took place. It don't prove shit.

U guys forget that the cops cover there ass over this shit all the time. They know what they are doing.

All i'm sayin' is that bruise and lump on MJ's arm got there somehow.

Is wish those allegations were true, becuase MJ really needs a good ass beating.

WildStyle said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan but why didn't he show it to the 60 Minutes guy?

I believe him, when he says that he was locked in the crapper for a while, but I guess he can't prove it. He is so pissed that he pulls out this old pic and thats it, because he wanted them to look bad in the media. Thats why there is no official complaint by MJ, he just couldn't prove it.

BlueNote