Forums › Forums › General Discussion › Trouble in Burtonland
- This topic is empty.
- AuthorPosts
- November 17, 2002 at 11:32 am #35733
Anonymous
GuestThis ends up being somewhat related to Danny Elfman, because both of these guys are Burton regulars… I am just sad about this.
—
Actors Jeffrey Jones, Paul Reubens charged in Los Angeles porn investigation
Sat Nov 16, 3:42 AM ETBy ANDREW BRIDGES, Associated Press Writer
LOS ANGELES – 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, Florida, 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 (news – Y! TV)” and “Blow.”
Jones has appeared in dozens of films, including “Amadeus,” “Ed Wood” and “Beetlejuice.”
November 17, 2002 at 6:17 pm #42941Anonymous
GuestI I I love little girls…….
November 17, 2002 at 6:31 pm #42942Anonymous
Guestthey make me feel so
November 17, 2002 at 10:11 pm #42944Anonymous
Guest“we’ve come for your daughter, chuck!” -beetlejuice
November 18, 2002 at 12:17 am #42945Anonymous
GuestUh oh! The little (boy’s) just too little, too little, too little…
Damn, I really like those guys’ roles.
-E (who just happens to be watching “Amadeus” right now!)
November 18, 2002 at 5:28 am #42949Anonymous
GuestWishing kids dead are one thing….but wishing them naked is just plain wrong–and gross! (In my sick little world that all makes sense).
November 18, 2002 at 5:48 am #42952Anonymous
GuestGeez . . . this isn’t a good thing to joke about.
November 18, 2002 at 6:29 am #42953Anonymous
Guest“Damn, I really like those guys’ roles.”
Okay, this probably warrants correction: the MOVIE roles…not whatever role they may have played in the pornography claim. Really, though, you must agree that Jeffrey Jones is a fantastic character actor. However, if he did sneak a peek at underage children, he really should be prosecuted.
-E
November 18, 2002 at 7:59 pm #42957Anonymous
GuestI agree with you, E… But this means we’ll probably won’t see Jeffrey Jones again in movies. Well, maybe in a few years he’ll turn up in the direct-to-video movie hell. Any of you knows if Burton was planning to use him in “Big Fish”?
November 19, 2002 at 1:01 am #42969Anonymous
GuestI wondered what happened with this. I heard about it a year ago on a radio show but then heard nothing else. I figured it was untrue since I didn’t see any other stories anywhere. I figured with Paul Reuben’s previous run in with the law that the press would have been all over this. Sad to learn it wasn’t just a joke a year ago.
November 19, 2002 at 8:00 am #42975Anonymous
GuestSorry–but I wasn’t exactly joking in my statement….
November 22, 2002 at 5:17 am #43048Anonymous
GuestOh, I don’t know. Robert Downey, Jr. keeps popping up every once in awhile and he’s a freakin druggie! Will Wynona’s incarceration stop her from filming, I think not! So, is this the end of Jeffrey Jones, nah! But, however, I think that they should have the damn book thrown at them and instead of being light on a star, set an example! If it was a nobody, they’d be facing some serious time and fines. Why should we be more kind to stars? We should be more hard if you ask me! They are who our children look up to! If they get off, what do our children think? Hmm, make sense?
November 22, 2002 at 12:03 pm #43060Anonymous
GuestPaul Reubens made it onto one of the smartassed questions on Leno’s mock celebrity jeopardy last night.
category: movies
answer: Features boys under 15 riding on magic broomsticks
wrong question given: What is Harry Potter?
Correct question: What will you find in Paul Reuben’s basement?
or something to that effect.
This is the kind of stuff I excepted to hear a year ago. I still can’t believe they weren’t all over this story when it first broke. Rather a nice change that they weren’t since charges hadn’t yet been filed, but very strange considering the guilty before proven innocent attitude the press tends to take.
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
