Skip to content

Tom Sneddon. Their BEST man did his BEST job and found NOTHING. New ‘witnesses’ are requested Not to Disturb

June 28, 2010

The conversation with Brian (our new witness of  molestation’ emerging in the comment section) has made me change plans again and say a word of praise about our favorite guy – the Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon.

Yes, you’ve heard me right. I’m not going to look much into all the wrong Tom Sneddon did to Michael Jackson, which everyone knows about – I’ll focus on a special kind of professionalism Sneddon displayed during his 10-year long persecution of Michael Jackson –  the professionalism which should be constantly thrust into the face of Michael’s haters.

Tom Sneddon was the BEST man the prosecution could ever muster. Their BEST man did his BEST job with the BEST support he could get from the media and nevertheless reached NOTHING as a result (except ruining Michael’s health, alas)….  If such an experienced, skillful and dedicated hater of MJ as Tom Sneddon wasn’t able to put Michael behind bars it can only mean one thing - the absence of evidence in Michael’s case was absolute, total, radical, exhaustive, complete and unconditional.

If it hadn’t been for Michael’s ruined life I would be almost grateful to the Prosecutor for the thoroughness with which he swept those  Michael’s ‘cases’ with a fine broom:

  • His people traveled to every corner of the world to interrogate everyone in sight (for ex. to a far-away place like Australia they went twice to meet Brett Barnes who even the first time vehemently denied any abuse).
  • He encouraged the whole nation to participate in a hunt for ‘victims of the predator’ in 2003, collaborated with the FBI in search of every scrap of evidence and went through whatever he could find with a really fine tooth comb.
  • He confiscated all Michael’s medical records looking for the changes his genitalia might have undergone and stripped him of all dignity by making him undress in front of the gang of curious people and photographing his private parts naked…
  • What he couldn’t find he falsified – just as those fingerprints on adult magazines put by the Arvizo accusers right in front of the grand  jury.
  • What he  couldn’t show he hid from the public eye saying it was a match while it wasn’t – remember Tom Sneddon’s declaration where he admitted it was him (not the doctor) who made a determination about the similarity of  Jordan’s drawing and photos of MJ’s private parts – though they were completely at variance with each other both in color and non-circumcision condition.
  • The prosecutor checked up on all past ‘abuses’ and made the legislation change to be able to bring those cases into the 2005 trial or allow third parties to testify on behalf of some fictitious victims.

In short Tom Sneddon completely outdid himself in collecting whatever there was to collect about Michael Jackson in order to humiliate him beyond measure and get rid of him once and forever.

You are asking me why I am saying all that?

Because all the heroism Ton Sneddon demonstrated in the prosecution field means that not a single speck of dust Michael Jackson ever stepped on was overlooked and went unexamined without a magnifying glass. In such circumstances it was IMPOSSIBLE to miss a single piece of evidence or anything even remotely resembling it.

And this fact completely RULES OUT the possibility of any new witnesses appearing out of the blue now - which is the outrageous thing we’ve just seen with our own eyes in this blog.

This makes our approach to these guys simple and easy as a piece of cake – each time a new applicant presents himself as a ‘witness of molestation’ his attempt should be immediately laughed off, eradicated and smashed with an iron fist.

A word for the volunteers for the status of new ‘witnesses’ or ‘victims’:

It is a little too late, guys.  You’ve had enough time for the past 15 years to state your case and lay out your cards. It is OUR turn now - so please have the decency to step down and let the other side have their say. We’ve been listening to you long enough and are not taking it any more.

Your best guy Tom Sneddon has done ALL the job for you, so relax please and Do Not Disturb.

*   *   *

THIS SUPPLEMENT includes a wide range of opinion about Tom Sneddon and is provided here to show that the District Attorney used every trick possible in his trade for persecuting Michael Jackson:

1) The National District Attorneys Association was full of praise for their Attorney when he was still in office:

  • After a brief period as a criminal defense attorney with a Beverly Hills law firm and army service during the Vietnam War, he joined the Los Angeles DA’s office as a deputy DA. In 1969 he moved to Santa Barbara County to become deputy DA. In 1982 he was elected DA and has been re-elected five consecutive times since his initial and contested election.
  • He continues to be a formidable courtroom presence and still prosecutes high-profile cases. His take-no-prisoners courtroom demeanor won him the nickname, “Mad Dog” early in his career, but the years apparently have mellowed him. His present nickname is “Snuffy.”
  • Called “a ferocious athlete” since his undergraduate days at Notre Dame, where he was on the boxing team, he coached youngsters’ teams for 18 years and at age 61 he can still pitch a wicked softball.
  • A newspaper article described him as “arguably the single most powerful person in all of Santa Barbara County.”
  • Sneddon has served far longer than any other DA in the county’s history and during that period has created what one observer has called “a high-powered office of talented career prosecutors where the turnover is conspicuously low and the morale strikingly high.”
  • Tom Sneddon, a native of the Los Angeles area, supervises a staff of 247, including 50 attorneys.
  • Asked what has given him the greatest satisfaction in his career, he has a two-word answer: “Helping people.”

2) DA HELPED DIANE DIMOND OUT OF A ‘HARD’ SPOT

By Lloyd Grove with HUDSON MORGAN
Wednesday, March 16th 2005

Yesterday, I learned that the Santa Barbara district attorney played a key role in killing a slander suit that Jackson filed against her a decade ago.

In 1995, when Dimond was working for “Hard Copy,” she reported that Sneddon was searching for an explicit 27-minute videotape showing Jackson molesting a boy.

Sneddon soon concluded that no such video existed, but not before Dimond appeared on L.A.’s KABC radio and her Paramount-produced tabloid show to trumpet the imagined X-rated details.

“It was taken right before Christmas, as the story goes, and it was recorded by one of Michael Jackson’s own security cameras,” Dimond said on the radio, touting her “Hard Copy” scoop. “Truly explicit,” she added, noting that she had not seen the alleged tape.

Sneddon, in an unusual instance of a prosecutor involving himself in a civil suit, signed a declaration supporting Dimond’s version of events. The trial judge dismissed the suit, saying Jackson couldn’t prove malice or false reporting.

Jackson appealed the judge’s ruling, and Sneddon’s declaration was cited extensively in the November 1998 California Court of Appeal’s decision affirming the summary judgment.

Neither Jackson’s lawsuit nor Sneddon’s role in snuffing it is disclosed in Dimond’s official bio on the CourtTV.com Web site or in the detailed history of her Jackson coverage, which includes her exclusive November 2003 interview with Sneddon.

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Diane+Dimond

3) Who Is Tom Sneddon?  A Look At The Man Pursuing Michael Jackson

LOS ANGELES, Dec. 18, 2003

By Tatiana Morales

… Jerry Roberts, editor of the Santa Barbara News-Press tells The Early Show, “I think people do feel that he is a man on a mission. You know, this is going to be the signature case of his career…

The two words that you hear the most are probably pugnacious and tenacious,” Roberts says, “He has a reputation for being fiercely competitive. He’s a law-and-order guy who sees the world in black and white. There’s bad guys and good guys, and he sees himself as the good guy.”

Still, even his detractors concede Sneddon is good at what he does.

Gary Dunlap [defense attorney who was falsely accused by Tom Sneddon and later acquitted] says, “I know he’s a very effective prosecutor. Tom Sneddon is not a lightweight”. “He lost his opportunity against Michael Jackson in 1993, and he doesn’t want to leave office without paying that score back.”

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/earlyshow/leisure/main589094.shtml

4) The DA In The Michael Jackson Case

Wed Nov 19, 2003

Tom Sneddon, the District Attorney in Santa Barbara in charge of the 1993 case, said about it: “When that case went to bed … it went out of my mind. I haven’t given it a passing thought.” Here’s a sampling of just a few Internet entries on this issue to see whether this statement is true:

The Independent (London), August 20, 1994
A ruddy-faced veteran prosecutor with a reputation for bloody-mindedness, Thomas Sneddon is not willing to accept that his case is hopeless without the testimony of its central figure – Jordan Chandler.

Michael Cooney, an attorney who knows Sneddon well, says: ”Tom Sneddon is a very determined individual who will go further than almost anyone to prove something which he feels needs proving. Once he decides action is worth taking, he will pursue it to the very end.”

Showbiz Today, September 22, 1994
GIL GARCETTI, Los Angeles County District Attorney: We have concluded that because the young boy who was the catalyst for this investigation has recently informed us that he does not wish to participate in any criminal proceeding where he is named as a victim, that we must decline prosecution involving Mr. Jackson.

TOM SNEDDON, Santa Barbara County District Attorney: Should circumstances change, should other evidence become available within this period of the statute of limitations, like Los Angeles County, we would re-evaluate the situation based upon what information is available to us at that particular point in time.

The New York Times, September 22, 1994
Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garletti and Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon announced that after a 13-month investigation in which 400 witnesses were interviewed, no charges would be filed against Michael Jackson.

The boy who had accused him of misconduct has declined to testify against him in court in any possible prosecution. The formal investigation concluded in September 1994 and the case is closed. However, under California law, cases involving minors expire six years after the date of any alleged accusation, and in this particular case the statute of limitations expires in 1999.

The Chattanooga Times, August 19, 1995
Meanwhile, Saturday’s Today newspaper said Santa Barbara, Calif., District Attorney Tom Sneddon had twice contacted Presley’s mother, Priscilla, for information about Jackson’s relationships with young boys.

The New York Beacon August 23, 1995
Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon told the magazine that Jackson has not been “cleared” of sexual involvement with two boys, as Sawyer said during his interview of Jackson on ABC’s “Prime Time Live.”

“The state of the investigation is in suspension until somebody comes forward,” Sneddon said to the “Vanity Fair”. In the June 14 interview, Jackson told Sawyer there was “not one iota of information that was found that could connect me to these charges” of child molestation.

But Sneddon told the magazine in its September issue that he has seen photos of Jackson’s genitalia, and “his statement on TV is untrue and incorrect and not consistent with the evidence in the case.”

The Advertiser January 27, 1996

“The reality is, no matter what he does, he can’t escape the fact that he paid out millions of dollars to prevent a 13-year-old boy from testifying against him in court,” says Santa Barbara District-Attorney Tom Sneddon, who originally investigated claims Jackson had molested the boy at his Neverland ranch.

Mr Sneddon says, contrary to popular belief, it would be “inaccurate” to say Jackson was cleared of all charges. “The state of the investigation is in suspension until somebody comes forward and testifies,” he says.

Broadcast News (BN) February 15, 2001

Sneddon tells the New York Daily News the case against Jackson was never closed and it can be re-opened at any time. He says the statute of limitations hasn’t run out because Jackson was living out of the country for so much time.

Source: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/11/19/867/02974

5) The District Attorney

December 15, 2007

Excerpts from the Floacist  http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/12/15/the-district-attorney/ and http://surftofind.com/jackson :

  • After having spent millions of dollars on the Michael Jackson investigation in 1993, District Attorney Tom Sneddon did not find enough evidence to bring charges against the pop star.
  • Over the next few years, Sneddon and several of his employees made numerous statements to the press where they implied that there was indeed evidence to corroborate Jordan Chandler’s story. They failed to explain, however, why two grand juries did not indict Michael Jackson if such evidence actually existed.
  • According to reporter Geraldo Rivera, members of the Santa Barbara Police Department were shown footage of the strip search of Jackson’s genitalia. “I’ve got a videotape that was shown to every cop in Santa Barbara of Michael Jackson’s penis,” Rivera said.
  • In 1995, Sneddon told Vanity Fair magazine: “The state of the investigation [of Jackson] is in suspension until somebody comes forward.”
  • Upon viewing the Living with Michael Jackson documentary that aired in February 2003, Sneddon saw an opportunity to re-open the case. In a press statement released on February 6, 2003, Sneddon said: “We encourage anyone who may be a victim or has credible evidence that a crime may have been committed contact the Department of Social Services Hotline (800) 367- 0166, or Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department Sgt. Phil Willis at (805) 681-4053”( The Press release here)
  • A few days later, somebody leaked Jordan Chandler’s Declaration of December 28, 1993 onto the Internet.
  • On February 13, Tom Sneddon gave an interview to tabloid journalist Diane Dimond where he again stressed the fact that if another victim came forward, the case would be re-opened.

5) Malicious Prosecution? Has Jackson been treated fairly?

by the Floacist (with some additional facts from other sources)

October 25, 2007 http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/malicious-prosecution-has-jackson-been-treated-fairly/

  • During the raid of Neverland, police went into areas that they were not permitted to go into and took items that were not on the search warrant.
  • At his press-conference (Nov. 19, 2003) Tom Sneddon acknowledged that he knew about these allegations since June but didn’t take action until November because of Halloween. The fact that 70 policemen made a surprise raid to Neverland when Michael Jackson was in Las Vegas exactly on the day he was releasing his new CD was a pure coincidence.
  • Though the warrant for arrest of Michael Jackson was issued on the same day as the search warrant and Michael surrendered to the authorities the next day (Nov.20, 1993) the charges were brought against Jackson only a month later (Dec. 18, 2003). Tom Sneddon is said to delay filing charges until December so that the SBPD could set up a website for members of the press.
  • Tom Sneddon dismissed the Department of Children and Family Services investigation as an “interview” and accused the DCFS of being incompetent (the DCFS conclusion was that the accusations were ‘unfounded’). However it turns out that Sneddon’s own department also investigated Michael Jackson in February and came back with the same ruling as the DCFS. NBC News correspondent Mike Taibbi, discovered that two weeks after “Living with Michael Jackson” aired, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department launched their own investigation into Michael Jackson’s alleged activities. The investigation lasted from February until April 16th and was closed with “no further action required.”
  • Sneddon said that the law was changed so that child victims in a molestation case could be forced to testify. This was a LIE; the law was changed so that if a civil suit was filed, it would remain inactive until the criminal trial was resolved.
  • At the press conference, more victims were invited to come forward.
  • During the press conference announcing the accusations against Michael Jackson, Tom Sneddon laughed and made several jokes at Jackson’s expense.
  • Tom Sneddon gave yet another interview to Diane Dimond where he called Michael “Jacko Wacko.
  • Dimond admitted to knowing about the allegations months in advance. Why was the DA leaking information to a tabloid journalist?
  • Sneddon enlisted the help of a PR firm to deal with the media. Tellem, the PR firm working for Sneddon, also works for Dave Schwartz, the stepfather of Jackson’s first accuser.
  • In December, Jackson told Sixty Minutes that he was roughly handled by police officers when he was arrested; he showed photographic evidence to substantiate his claims. The SBPD responded to Jackson’s allegations by releasing audio clips of Jackson whistling in the car before he was booked. Jackson, however, did not claim that he was abused on his way to the station. The only mistreatment he alleged before the booking was when the handcuffs were put on but you can hear him on the audiotape complaining about the handcuffs being too tight.
  • The actual abuse was not alleged to have occurred until Jackson was brought into the booking station. The SBPD did not show any footage of Jackson in the booking station, claiming that they did not film Jackson’s booking because they didn’t anticipate that there would be any problems.
  • Sheriff Jim Anderson said that if Michael Jackson’s claims of police abuse turned out to be false, he would charge Jackson with making a false complaint. Since Jackson never actually made a formal complaint, Anderson’s statement is not in accordance with the law.
  • Sneddon has obtained 69 search warrants, including warrants to search Jackson’s bank statements, financial records and security boxes. What evidence of child molestation did Sneddon hope to find in Jackson’s financial records?
  • The charges from the criminal complaint are completely different from the charges in the indictment. After the inconsistencies in Sneddon’s case were brought to the attention of the public, the timeline of alleged abuse changed, the number of times the abuse allegedly occurred changed and allegations of kidnapping have suddenly materialized.
  • Jackson’s defense team filed a 126-page motion asking for the indictment to be thrown out. The document states that during the grand jury proceedings, Sneddon bullied witnesses, failed to properly present exculpatory evidence, refused to let the jurors question the prosecution witnesses and provided the jurors with a false legal definition of the term “conspiracy” (for which Jackson was indicted)
  • According to a motion filed by the defense, the amount of search warrants that have been given to them by the prosecution does not match the amount of search warrants that have actually been issued by the prosecution. Six search warrants are missing, 10 affidavits used to support the search warrants have been heavily redacted and 49 affidavits used to support the search warrants have not been given to the defense at all. What is Sneddon hiding?
  • According to the defense team: “There is no case in the history of the state of California that has condoned anything like the abuse of power demonstrated in this grand jury proceedings.

6) Michael Jackson is speaking about police brutality

Interview with Ed Bradley on “60 minutes”

December 28, 2003

MICHAEL JACKSON: They did it to try and belittle me, to try and to take away my pride. But I went through the whole system with them. And at the end, I wanted the public to know that I was okay, even though I was hurting.

ED BRADLEY: What happened when they arrested you? What did they do to you?

MICHAEL JACKSON: They were supposed to go in, and just check fingerprints, and do the whole thing that they do when they take somebody in. They manhandled me very roughly. My shoulder is dislocated, literally. It’s hurting me very badly. I’m in pain all the time. This is, see this arm? This is as far as I can reach it. Same with this side over here.

ED BRADLEY: Because of what happened at the police station?

MICHAEL JACKSON: Yeah. Yeah. At the police station. And what they did to me … if you .. if you saw what they did to my arms … it was very bad what they did. It’s very swollen. I don’t wanna say. You’ll see. You’ll see.

We were given a photograph said to be taken after Michael Jackson was released on bail. Jackson says the swelling above his wrist is where the police handcuffed him.

ED BRADLEY: How did they do it? I mean, what, physically, what did they do?

MICHAEL JACKSON: With the handcuffs, the way they tied ‘em too tight behind my back …

ED BRADLEY: Behind your back?

MICHAEL JACKSON: Yeah. And putting it, they put it in a certain position, knowing that it’s going to hurt, and affect my back. Now I can’t move. I …  I … it keeps me from sleeping at night. I can’t sleep at night.

And Jackson says there was more.

MICHAEL JACKSON: Then one time, I asked to use the restroom. And they said, “Sure, it’s right around the corner there.” Once I went in the restroom, they locked me in there for like 45 minutes. There was doo doo, feces thrown all over the walls, the floor, the ceiling. And it stunk so bad. Then one of the policemen came by the window. And he made a sarcastic remark. He said, “Smell … does it smell good enough for you in there? How do you like the smell? Is it good?” And I just simply said, “It’s alright. It’s okay.” So, I just sat there, and waited.

ED BRADLEY: For 45 minutes?

MICHAEL JACKSON: Yeah, for 45 minutes. About 45 minutes. And then… then one cop would  come by, and say, “Oh, you’ll be out in … in a second. You’ll be out in a second.” Then there would be another ten minutes added on, then another 15 minutes added on. They did this on purpose.

What about Jackson’s allegations? Was he mistreated? Did the police injure his arm and shoulder? Did they lock him in a bathroom for 45 minutes? To get answers to those questions, we made repeated calls to both the sheriff’s office and the office of the district attorney. They declined our request for an interview and referred us to the statement on their Web site, which says about allegations of mistreatment: “That is not true.” It was the sheriff’s deputies who executed the search warrant of the Neverland ranch.

The full transcript: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/28/60minutes/main590381.shtml

7) Tom Mesereau, Michael Jackson’s Defense Attorney about the 2005 trial:

“The prosecution was permitted to introduce evidence that Jackson had settled other claims of child molestation in civil court. The actual dollar amounts were not admitted (as if anyone hadn’t heard them!). It was also permitted to introduce evidence of alleged prior similar acts of child molestation. Prosecutors were permitted to introduce such evidence extending back 10 years.

As icing on the cake, the court permitted them to call third-party witnesses who watched the alleged acts without any requirement that the actual alleged victims testify”. http://www.mesereauyu.com/index2.html

8) The jurors about Prosecution in the 2005 trial:

http://wp.me/pIuKO-oD

HULTMAN: Well, I think the prosecution did everything they could possibly do with this case. I think the problem was the family. But as the prosecutor would tell you, they don’t pick their victims is what they said. And in this case, the accuser and his family had some real credibility problems. And that was kind of the key to the whole issue.

COCCOZ: I want to say, you know, I think the prosecution did a wonderful job. They went through with a fine toothed comb. And I think Mr. Sneddon, you know, he did his best. And we have to, you know, really give them credit for that.

But there was nothing — we had a closet full of evidence. There was nothing in that closet that was able to convince any of us of the alleged crimes. And, I mean, it was — I kept waiting and waiting throughout the trial you know, when are they going to bring in some kind of evidence that was going to be convincing and they never brought it.

 

8) 9) William Wagener “On Second Thought”:

 

May 10, 2010

“… I want to ask the judges why they didn’t demand that Tom Sneddon be indicted for falsifying evidence in the Michael Jackson trial. I was a witness… I was right there in the courtroom, watched him get caught falsifying the fingerprints evidence, the phone evidence that they tried to create saying it was a conspiracy. Half a day on that! Then Tom Sneddon wanted to withdraw it from the evidence pool in the court. No, the Defender Tomas Mesereau said “That stays on”. The jury looked at all this evidence: “There is no way we can convict this guy. We got a pile of crap from Tom Sneddon”.

…This guy literally falsified evidence and it is under record. This thing which he did to Michael Jackson was so beyond the pale of forgiveness. Thomas Sneddon should be serving time in prison. You cannot falsify evidence and then just say, “Oh, we lost the case”. No, no..

He had that boy put his fingerprints on the magazine at the grand jury and the reason we know that is because the alert Tom Mesereau the Defense Attorney got the grand jury transcript and one the jurors said: “Shouldn’t that boy be wearing gloves?”. Then after the grand jury they sent it out for fingerprints analysis.

So when did the boy have his fingerprints on the magazine when the boy testified he hadn’t even been at Neverland for months when that magazine was published? And yet he claimed it was the magazine Michael Jackson gave him in bed.

If the DA were green behind the ears and he made a stupid mistake like giving the evidence to a boy and then sending it out… Ok, he made a mistake and we could let it go. But 25 years?

We shouldn’t be forgiving Tom Sneddon. The man should be serving time in jail… The man is guilty as sin”.

10) I couldn’t resist the temptation to also include a “D.S.” VIDEO here - the song is actually one of my favourites:

UPDATE February 14th, 2012

Here is a video analysis of the ever-changing stories of the Arvizo family in the weeks after MJ’s arrest, as well as the fact that Sneddon’s own department cleared MJ of abuse in the weeks after the Bashir documentary aired.

And here is a compilation of footage and media coverage of MJ’s arrest:


115 Comments leave one →
  1. mjjyo permalink
    May 17, 2012 3:02 pm

    Was Michael who has suffered, from first time to last time, by this harassment, by only this one that continued for 13 years started 1993 by BASHIR.
    There was all kinds possible of harassments to destroy a man named Michael JACKSON who was / IS ABLE TO RECEIVE THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE.
    For this, I want to and I must to say you BASHIR:

    To Mr. Bashir!
    Guests can go to hell?
    Please go to.
    Is the location that works best for you.
    Sneddon even when taken together?
    He is the best for you.
    Then Dan ABRAMS, Diane DIMOND and Nancy GRACE also,
    ARVIZOs certain.
    Chandler waiting.
    Yoshimi

  2. sanemjfan permalink
    February 14, 2012 5:28 pm

    I added two additional videos to the bottom of this post!

  3. sanemjfan permalink
    January 14, 2012 11:20 pm

    Guys, I added a video report from 2003 on the background of Tom Sneddon, and it includes an interview with Gary Dunlap, who Sneddon maliciously prosecuted prior to MJ’s charge. The video is at the very beginning of the post!

  4. CLARA permalink
    December 25, 2011 6:40 am

    thats a shame if it was mj as the prosecutor breaking all the rules to hurt somebody he wouldve gotten charge but becuase tom sneddon know how to twist and lie and work the system hes way he got away with breaking all those rules but mj was found not guilty even after all the lies tom was making up what a snake he is hes giong to have hes day on judgement day in front of god for trying to hurt mj.

  5. Suzy permalink
    December 5, 2011 12:02 am

    I didn’t know where to put it, so I’ll post it here. This is from MJJC:

    “T-Mez was just on Positively Michael live podcast and he was asked about Frank Cascio and 2005 trial. In short he confirmed everything Frank Cascio said about the 2005 trial.

    T-Mez said that Sneddon brought that conspiracy charge to stop Frank and other people that were there when Arvizo’s was there from testifying. T-Mez said that as a co-conspirator they were facing prison sentences so they had to get lawyers and be careful and try to protect themselves. T-Mez said that he told Michael and Frank to cease communications totally. T-Mez said that he talked with Frank’s lawyer regularly and Frank’s lawyer was cautious to protect his client. T-Mez said that this somehow created the perception that Frank wasn’t cooperating but T-Mez says Frank told him that he would testify for Michael and T-Mez says it was his decision to not call Frank to the stand. T-Mez also confirmed that Frank rejected immunity offered to him by Sneddon and he should be credited for that.”

  6. May 16, 2011 6:17 pm

    “Semoga Michael mendapatkan tempat yang terbaik disisi-Nya. Amiiien”

    Haris, you’ve sent us a comment and I’ve tried several languages in a Google translator and this is what it gave me in the Indonesian language:

    “Hopefully Michael is the best place to get his side. Amen”

    Yes, I also hope he is. In fact I am sure he is!

    Here is a link to the translator you can use next time to post your comment directly in English – just select your language, post the text and press ‘translate’. Guys, it is really very helpful!

    http://translate.google.com/#

  7. May 15, 2011 9:37 pm

    “Sneddon searched and seized items from Bradley Millers office at the same time as the November 18th 2003 search that pertained to attorney client privilege. He was on the site and actually broke in the door to Brad Millers office himself with a sledge hammer. He was in trouble because the prosecutor himself is not supposed to be on premises when a search is taking place”

    Lynette, this is impressive.

    “If Tom Sneddon had gotten Michael registered he would have had to move because like I said you have to know what borders his property.”

    Yes, Neverland was probably constantly on the mind of these people. I am personally very much intrigued who could have promised Neverland to Victor Gutierrez who boasted on TV he would own it one day? Though of course it could be another of Gutierrez’s hallucinations as usual.

    There seem to be too many crazy or half-crazy people around Michael Jackson – Evan Chandler who was also psychotic as he had bipolar disorder, Janet Arvizo a paranoid schizophrenic, a suspected NAMBLA member VG with his perverse mind and absolutely pathological lies.

    It may be a coincidence of course but the common feature of all the accusers is distortion of their mind – only the point is that their lies were made use of by completely sane people like Tom Sneddon, Diane Dimond, Maureen Orth, Nancy Grace, Larry Feldman and the like.

  8. May 15, 2011 9:17 pm

    “I think Sneddon bought into the millions of dollars payoffs business that people like V.G and heaven knows who else spread around. I believe he was looking for checks or large sums which could not be accounted for by normal means.”

    Dial, quite possible. And it is a paradox, but since Michael supported so many people by sending them checks for various reasons that Tom Sneddon could get the impression that he was paying all of them off.

  9. May 15, 2011 9:07 pm

    “If a paranoid schizophrenic accused you of this, would you accept any deal?”

    Schizophrenia is hereditary, so the boys’ lies may be stemming from them being disposed to this illness too.

    QUOTES:
    “Estimates of heritability vary because of the difficulty in separating the effects of genetics and the environment. The greatest risk for developing schizophrenia is having a first-degree relative with the disease.

    Late adolescence and early adulthood are peak periods for the onset of schizophrenia, critical years in a young adult’s social and vocational development. In 40% of men and 23% of women diagnosed with schizophrenia the condition manifested itself before the age of 19.

    The delusional content (the beliefs) of the person with paranoid schizophrenia is marked by grandiosity, or persecution, or both. Onset can be fairly rapid but may be difficult for others to recognize it for what it is. Anger, irritation or argumentative behavior may be the most prominent features, as is extreme jealousy.”

  10. shelly permalink
    May 15, 2011 12:18 am

    Yes, Teva it was,pre trial related and it’s what Lynande said.

  11. Teva permalink
    May 14, 2011 11:34 pm

    Those stories were writen in 2004, and the trial started in 2005, so this was something probably pretrial related. It sounds like Messereau was arguing “fruits from the poisonous tree”.

  12. May 14, 2011 11:33 pm

    Semoga Michael mendapatkan tempat yang terbaik disisi-Nya. Amiiien

  13. shelly permalink
    May 14, 2011 11:14 pm

    CBS/AP) Michael Jackson was not expected to attend Tuesday’s second session of a hearing on whether the prosecutor overstepped legal boundaries in his pursuit of the pop star.

    A day earlier, Jackson defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. took the offensive, questioning Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon for two hours over a November 2003 search of the office of a private investigator hired by Jackson’s former attorney.

    As CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, Mesereau repeatedly hammered the DA with basically the same question: “It just never dawned on you that Mr. Miller was a private investigator working for Mr. Geragos?”

    The exchanges were testy at times. At one point, Sneddon said he didn’t know how the defense wanted him to answer a question. “Truthfully, hopefully,” Mesereau replied.

    When Sneddon said he couldn’t give a yes or no answer, Judge Rodney Melville promptly warned him: “Mr. Sneddon, I’m going to ask you not to spar with the attorney.”

    Mesereau, arguing Sneddon violated Jackson’s attorney-client privilege by searching the investigator’s office, is seeking to have evidence gathered during that search excluded from his trial on child molestation charges.

    One key piece of evidence seized at the investigator’s office is a videotape of Jackson’s accusers praising him. The tape is key because it may support the conspiracy charge that Jackson tried to silence his alleged victim and the victim’s family, including allegedly extorting a videotaped testimonial from them.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/18/national/main636721.shtml

  14. shelly permalink
    May 14, 2011 11:13 pm

    I think she is talking about that

    http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2004-08-16-jackson-update_x.htm

    “LOS ANGELES — Singer Michael Jackson forced the prosecutor in his child-molestation case to the witness stand Monday, a rare legal turnabout and the latest skirmish in their 11-year-old feud.
    Jackson, 45, faces trial Jan. 31 on charges of lewd acts with a 13-year-old boy, administering alcohol and conspiring to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion. In a pretrial move to suppress videotapes that police seized in November, defense lawyer Thomas Mesereau Jr. peppered Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon with questions and suggested that the prosecutor had acted illegally. Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville granted Mesereau’s request to subpoena the prosecutor.”

  15. Teva permalink
    May 14, 2011 10:53 pm

    “All of that was partially resolved when Mesereau cross examined Sneddon in August until they found the tape.” Lynette

    In what trial did this take? Not the 2005?

  16. lynande51 permalink
    May 14, 2011 4:52 am

    Let me see if I can explain what happened a little bit before I write the article about Sneddon. Mesereau replaced Geragos in April 8 months before they went in on the last search which one reason was to measure rooms for a computer depiction of some of the rooms and buildings at Neverland. The other was for a buccal swab to match Michael to the underwear with the 2 blood spots on them. The interesting thing about The CAD of Neverland is that it was never built and never used in court. Sneddon searched and seized items from Bradley Millers office at the same time as the November 18th 2003 search that pertained to attorney client privilege. He was on the site and actually broke in the door to Brad Millers office himself with a sledge hammer. Bradley Miller worked for Mark Geragos. Janet Arvizo had denied that she knew that and so they went in there. The reason that Mesereau had to replace Geragos is because Sneddon had him as an unnamed co conspirator in the conspiracy charge. He could not represent Michael anymore because he was now a witness in the case and Michael had to replace him. In the transition between the 2 lawyers an audio tape went missing that Brad Miller had done with Janet Arvizo where she spoke glowingly of Michael. I think Sneddon wanted to blame Mesereau and Sanger for the missing tape leaving Michael once again without legal representation. Sneddon’s pretense was that Janet did not know that he worked for Geragos and yet in the very beginning Brad Miller clearly states that he worked for Geragos. All of that was partially resolved when Mesereau cross examined Sneddon in August until they found the tape. He was in trouble because the prosecutor himself is not supposed to be on premises when a search is taking place; they have the police and their own DA investigators for that. What happened is when the defense found the tape they turned it over to them and they of course thought the tape had been altered, it was not, and it was sent to an independent forensic lab for testing and found to be unaltered. The other thing that they did in late October of 2004 was search Evvi Tavasci’s home office. In that search they took computers and files, one file was clearly marked Mesereau when they found it. They should have left it there but they did not they took it with them again breaking the attorney client privilege. There was a hearing in August or September that Janet Arvizo testified in where she swore under oath that she did not know that Brad Miller worked for Mark Geragos. The tape when it was found proved that she had already perjured herself in the case.
    Now maybe a deal was talked about in the DA’s office but it was rejected by the defense. He might have had to offer it because he was also guilty of malicious prosecution for the things that he personally did. If Tom Sneddon had gotten Michael registered he would have had to move because like I said you have to know what borders his property. The 2 schools, one next to his property and one across the street would have made it impossible for Michael to stay at Neverland after he was a registered offender. As for going after Michaels finances I believe the same thing that what he really wanted was to find out if he had paid money to someone.

  17. Dialdancer permalink
    May 14, 2011 4:14 am

    Teva,

    The only good thing about Sneddon is after you become familiar with his mode of operation it is easy (sometime) to know what he would and would not do. The fact that there were no “Breaking News” stories concerning “suspicious” amounts of money given to any of the young men who repeatedly said Michael did not molest them and nor could anyone find a money trail from MJ to them off speaks loudly. Again, I am probably giving Sneddon benefit for a logical motive he did possess, but it is either that or he was nuts.

  18. Teva permalink
    May 14, 2011 2:36 am

    I have a theory about Sneddon collecting of as much of Michael’s financial information as possible using the kidnap and conspiracy charges. Besides being a major snoop and asshole, disrupting Michael’s business operations and daily living expenditures, I think “Sneddon bought into the millions of dollars payoffs business that people like V.G and heaven knows who else spread around. I believe he was looking for checks or large sums which could not be accounted for by normal means. Money leaves a trail for the giver and recipient. Although young men like Safechuck said they had not received any money from Michael you can bet there was a check of any accounts and analysis on purchases going back several years.” – Dialdancer

    I believe you have a point.

  19. Dialdancer permalink
    May 14, 2011 2:20 am

    I have a theory about Sneddon collecting of as much of Michael’s financial information as possible using the kidnap and conspiracy charges. Besides being a major snoop and asshole, disrupting Michael’s business operations and daily living expenditures, I think Sneddon bought into the millions of dollars payoffs business that people like V.G and heaven knows who else spread around. I believe he was looking for checks or large sums which could not be accounted for by normal means. Money leaves a trail for the giver and recipient. Although young men like Safechuck said they had not received any money from Michael you can bet there was a check of any accounts and analysis on purchases going back several years.

  20. Dialdancer permalink
    May 14, 2011 2:18 am

    “Additionally, prosecution sources told FOX News that there were some discussions with the Jackson team in recent weeks about Jackson receiving probation, registering as a sex offender, being monitored with his own children and staying away from others in exchange for no jail time.”

    I remember reading a secondhand story of a deal offered, but could not find the original article. If this information is true then this is why Michael replaced his lead attorneys with Mr. Mesereau for two reasons, (1) T. Mes would have not had private meetings with the DA and (2) he definitely would not have discussed this supposed deal with the Media.

  21. Teva permalink
    May 14, 2011 1:38 am

    “Additionally, prosecution sources told FOX News that there were some discussions with the Jackson team in recent weeks about Jackson receiving probation, registering as a sex offender, being monitored with his own children and staying away from others in exchange for no jail time.”

    Not drinking the Kool-aid. Not buying it. Sneddon was hell bent on sending Michael to prison. Changing laws, globe trotting, etc. The man was merciless and relentless. I can’t see him or Zonen offering Michael a plea deal, just like I can’t see Michael accepting one. The words don’t match the actions.

  22. shelly permalink
    May 14, 2011 12:17 am

    I found that article and it’s interesting

    “”Jackson’s defense team told FOX News that they believe Friday’s search stemmed from new information from the accuser’s mother, and that they might be looking for DNA. Investigators previously found the DNA of three other people on Jackson’s bed, rather than the accuser’s DNA, and the defense is suggesting it may be tied to this.

    Defense officials also suggested that the accuser’s mother is now “coming up with new information” after it was revealed this week that she had paranoid schizophrenia, and that this is her payback for that information leaking out to the press.

    But prosecution sources told FOX News that in the last week or two, at least one person close to Jackson is now talking to authorities and “providing valuable information.” FOX News has learned that in this same time period, authorities reached out to several people, including possible unindicted co-conspirators in the case, offering them deals if they cooperate.

    Additionally, prosecution sources told FOX News that there were some discussions with the Jackson team in recent weeks about Jackson receiving probation, registering as a sex offender, being monitored with his own children and staying away from others in exchange for no jail time.

    The sources said Jackson’s team was not receptive to this. One key member of Jackson’s defense team told FOX News: “If a paranoid schizophrenic accused you of this, would you accept any deal?”

    If Sneddon really believed that MJ was a serial child molestor, why did he discuss with the Jackson team about MJ not going to jail?

  23. Sheryl permalink
    May 13, 2011 1:42 am

    Great work! We’ll keep on keeping on. Change the meme!

  24. March 19, 2011 10:03 am

    “look how Tom Sneddon treated it when others were accused of p-lia (and these were real p-les BTW – unlike Michael). The article about 12 Catholic priests who molested young boys in Santa Barbara (at least 34 victims showed up by the time this article was written in November, 1993). Isn’t it interesting?”

    Suzy, it is very interesting indeed. It shows that Tom Sneddon, his team (and the media, by the way, too) were not after criminals at all – they were after Michael personally, and I bet that if they didn’t have a pretext of p-lia they would have invented something different.

    Dr. Wayne W. Dyer noticed this strange phenomenon too:

    “When he was out there in the Santa Barbara county at Neverland the prosecutor there had a real, real desire to do something, you know, to go after him. I think they have the statistics that they have 76 police cars in that county and they sent 74 of them out to his ranch to go through and look for evidence to support the accusations that had been made by a woman who had made a career out of going after celebrities and trying to make money. In the same county there are many of the priests that had been not only accused but had admitted to sexually molesting boys but they didn’t send any cars out for them.”

    The transcript of his interview is posted here:
    http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/those-who-really-knew-him-say-he-was-innocent/

  25. Suzy permalink
    March 18, 2011 8:12 pm

    For all who think Tom Sneddon didn’t have a vendetta against Michael, look how he treated it when others, and not Michael, were accused of p-lia (and these were real p-les BTW – unlike Michael). The article about 12 Catholic priests who molested young boys in Santa Barbara (at least 34 victims showed up by the time this article was written in November, 1993):

    “A message left after business hours Monday at District Attorney Thomas Sneddon’s office was not immediately returned. Lt. John Thayer, a police spokesman, said prosecutions of the priests were unlikely because of the statute of limitations, which is six years on child molestation cases in California.”

    http://www.skeptically.org/onreligion/id10.html

    Isn’t it interesting? If someone accuses Michael Jackson, he gives all the time and money to investigate him, he spends millions of taxpayer dollars and more than 10 years on the investigation – including traveling all around the world and set up websites to find “victims”. He even changes laws and as for statue of limitation: didn’t he change the law to expand the time frame in which Jordan could ask to open the case again?

    But if it’s others, he seemingly doesn’t care so much: he didn’t return the message immediately and then he just shrugged the whole case off saying prosecution of the priests is unlikely because of the statute of limitations.

  26. Dialdancer permalink
    February 26, 2011 8:16 am

    About Sneddon’s PR Firm. What do you need a PR firm for? It is to polish up your image right, to promote an idea? Well if the firm was under the same Gag order as everyone else and could not talk about anything, and there were no mini documentaries on Tom Sneddon family man or staunch church goer to correct his image as a posturing braggart and vindictive prosecutor then why have a PR firm????

  27. Dialdancer permalink
    February 26, 2011 8:06 am

    Lynette,

    Was the Barnes one of the families that file a complaint against Sneddon and several officers?

  28. hana permalink
    February 25, 2011 4:44 am

    There was an overwhelming amount of media coverage about the 365 nights in relation to how much time Michael Jackson was alleged to have allowed Brett Barnes to sleep in his room, wherever he was, during a world tour; implying that Jackson was shacking up with some kid for a year. But if you listen closely to testimony, Brett Barnes did NOT sleep in Jackson’s bed for ’365 straight days’. His time spent on tour with Jackson was during the second half of 92 and the last couple of months of 93, i.e. many months apart. His parents and
    sister were also on the second part of that tour. His mother testified that there were times when he would stay with her in their unit and there were times when he would stay with Jackson..So I’m not sure where his sister Karlee got this 365 days scenario from. She obviously got her calculations wrong, but unfortunately
    the media latched onto her statement and portrayed it as fact because it was considered “explosive”.

  29. shelly permalink
    February 24, 2011 9:54 pm

    Ok, thank you

  30. lynande51 permalink
    February 24, 2011 9:46 pm

    Let me look. I know they responded to that motion and a bunch of others at the same time.

  31. shelly permalink
    February 24, 2011 9:28 pm

    @lynande

    I know the document I posted doesn’t really speak about that interview but I was wondering if there is a defense document which spoke about it.

  32. lynande51 permalink
    February 24, 2011 9:03 pm

    In this document they aren’t really talking about Lizette Barne’s interview or statement. What they are trying to do is limit her testimony to not include the fact that Sneddon flew all the way to Australia to get another statement and question Brett about his relationship with Michael. He was saying that the Defense shouldn’t ask her about that because he was worried that he was going to look bad. Brett and his family were at Neverland when it was raided the first time in 1993. The Barnes’ including Brett all gave statements at the time to the police and denied any wrongdoing on the part of Michael. Brett and Wade even went on TV and publicly denied the allegations. They went on tour with him and returned to Australia and that is when Sneddon and the others went there to see if the Barnes’ would change their minds which they didn’t. My favorite part of Marie Barnes testimony is the part where she and her husband talked about Brett sleeping with Michael and they say it was because they didn’t want to impose on Michael. Why would it be an imposition if Michael had done the inviting as was always alleged by the Prosecution. It was like Tom Mesereau said that was their story and he never went about separating children from theri parents which is another one of their favorite mantras.By the way their travel expenses were covered by the tour Michael would not have actually paid for anyof it it was paid for by the sponser of the Dangerous tour, Pepsico.

  33. shelly permalink
    February 24, 2011 6:27 pm

    Does anyone has the 1994 interview of Lizette Barnes. I’d like to know what they are talking about in that document.

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/050405pltmotlimexcl1994.pdf

  34. February 24, 2011 4:59 pm

    A. Well, if I said I spent half the year overseas with him one year and half of the year overseas with him the other year, I think that would total about 365 days altogether.
    Q. Okay. So 365 nights he spent the night alone with your brother in his room?
    A. Yes.”
    This the date of the Dangerous world tour http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_World_Tour
    The european part started on the 27th of june 1992 and finished at the beginning of October, the south Amercan trip started on October the 8th and finished on November 11th.”

    Shelly, oh I see – so the European part lasted July, August, September and the beginning of October which all in all makes some 3 months or so (and not half a year!). And the south American trip last for one month only (and again not half a year!), though none of the Brett family including the mother, could say exactly how long it lasted (there were several versions – 2 or 3 months from the mother and even half a year as her daughter said).

    The girl was evidently so fascinated by the trip that her understanding of time was very much distorted.

    But if this is so it means we can close the subject of her brother Brett Barnes sleeping for a “whole year in Michael’s bed”? Especially since their mother says it was only “at times” and the only thing she discussed with her husband – who was travelling with them too! – was their concern that the boy was imposing himself on Jackson too much!

    Well, Shelly, thank you for this comparison – we need to remember it!

  35. shelly permalink
    February 24, 2011 1:04 pm

    I don’t know where to put that. It’s Marie Barnes testimony

    “19 Q. So for a couple months you traveled

    20 throughout South America?

    21 A. Uh-huh.

    22 Q. And your son was there as well the entire

    23 time?

    24 A. That’s correct. And my daughter and my

    25 husband.

    26 Q. Your daughter and your husband and you for

    27 the entire time?

    28 A. Yes. 9374

    1 Q. That was a couple months?

    2 A. I would say probably — it could be — could

    3 have been three months. I don’t remember.

    4 Q. Three months?

    5 A. Could have been.

    6 Q. Your husband was able to take three months

    7 off from work?

    8 A. Yes, because he had long service leaves.

    9 Q. He had what?

    10 A. Long — in Australia, after you work for,

    11 say, ten years, you’re entitled to long service

    12 leave, so you have three months every ten years.

    13 And he had two lots of long-service leave that he

    14 was able to take.

    15 Q. And that trip was paid for entirely by Mr.

    16 Jackson, was it not?

    17 A. That’s correct.

    18 Q. And is it true that during the entirety of

    19 that trip your son slept in Mr. Jackson’s room with

    20 Mr. Jackson?

    21 A. I wouldn’t say during the entirety.

    22 Q. Most of it?

    23 A. I would say at times.

    24 Q. At times?

    25 A. Uh-huh.

    26 Q. What does that mean? Once a week?

    27 A. Well, I can’t give you an exact number of

    28 times, because it happened quite a while. 9375

    1 Q. Your son was how old at that point, the time

    2 of the South America trip?

    3 A. 12, I would say.

    4 Q. I’m sorry?

    5 A. 12. I –

    6 Q. 12? 12 years old?

    7 Did your husband ever express any concerns

    8 to you about your son sleeping in the same bed with

    9 Mr. Jackson?

    10 A. No.

    11 Q. Did you ever discuss it with him at all?

    12 A. Yes. We talked — well, we didn’t see

    13 any — any reason — we talked about it. It wasn’t

    14 a discussion, as such, that — because I couldn’t

    15 make a decision and say, “Well, yes, it’s okay,” and

    16 not consult my husband, because he’s part of the

    17 family. So….

    18 Q. So at some point in time there was a

    19 discussion that you had with your husband about your

    20 son sleeping with Michael Jackson?

    21 A. A conversation that we decided whether we

    22 should — whether it was okay, because we didn’t

    23 want to impose on Mr. Jackson.

    24 Q. Was this the sole issue that you were

    25 dealing with was whether or not your son sleeping

    26 with him was an imposition for Mr. Jackson? That

    27 was the sole concern you had?

    28 A. Yes. 9376

    1 Q. How many conversations did you have with

    2 your husband about the question of where your son

    3 slept?

    4 A. I don’t remember.

    “A. He was Mr. Jackson’s head of security.

    2 Q. Okay. And in 1992, your son was how old?

    3 A. Ten. Oh, 10 going on 11 at that stage. Ten

    4 and a half.

    5 Q. So you had known Mr. Jackson about a year at

    6 that point?

    7 A. That’s correct.

    8 Q. What illness was it that you believed that

    9 you were responsible for?

    10 A. Well, from — from my recollection of this

    11 particular incident, we were on tour and — with Mr.

    12 Jackson on — in the European tour of the

    13 “Dangerous” tour –”

    It’s Karlee Barnes

    “A. Well, I’ve been to, like — well, in my

    23 first — in seventh grade, I spent half of the year

    24 over in Europe with him. And in the eighth grade I

    25 spent half of the year over in South America. And

    26 I’ve been to Chicago. And we’ve been to Las Vegas.

    27 So I’ve been, you know, lucky, very fortunate.

    28 When he came to Australia for his “History” 9404

    1 tour, he took us to South Australia and to Western

    2 Australia. So I’ve been on many, many trips with

    3 him.”

    “20 A. Well, as I said, it was about half the year

    21 I was in Europe when I was in the seventh grade, and

    22 about half of the year I was in South America in the

    23 seventh — in the eighth grade.

    24 Q. How old was your brother at that time?

    25 A. I was what, 13, 14. So he would have been

    26 about 11 or 12.

    27 Q. And virtually every night on that tour, Mr.

    28 Jackson slept with your brother Brett? 9413

    1 A. Yes.

    2 Q. How many nights would that have been,

    3 approximately?

    4 A. Let’s see, let’s divide 365 days into half.

    5 Q. Okay. Is that about it? About –

    6 A. Well, if I said I spent half the year

    7 overseas with him one year and half of the year

    8 overseas with him the other year, I think that would

    9 total about 365 days altogether.

    10 Q. Okay. So 365 nights he spent the night

    11 alone with your brother in his room?

    12 A. Yes.”

    This the date of the Dangerous world tour

    http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_World_Tour

    The european part stated on the 27th of june 1992 and finished at the beginning of October, the south Amercan trip started on October the 8th and finished on November 11th.

    The Australian trip of the History World Tour, started at the end of November and finished at the end of December.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIStory_World_Tour#1996.2F1997:_First_leg_.28Europe.2C_Africa.2C_Asia.2C_Australia_and_North_America.29

    That doesn’t equal a year.

  36. lynande51 permalink
    February 24, 2011 3:03 am

    Alison no none of it was allowed in court so it isn’t in the transcripts but it is in the 724 documents of pretrial and during trial pleading from the prosecution. Don’t worries I will show them to everyone but for now read this one carefully and you will see that they forgot to redact one of the “psychiatric medications”. I don’t think the fans would be able to file for abuse of power it would have to be a civil rights group.
    https://acrobat.com/#d=TJb-x5qX-ctAMH3vnq5A7w

  37. Alison permalink
    February 23, 2011 6:17 pm

    Lynette, are you thinking fans could file charges for the Abuse of Power?

  38. Alison permalink
    February 23, 2011 6:16 pm

    @ Lynande,
    “Arvizos medical records becaue they had evidence in them that Janet Arvizo is a diagnosed Paranoid Schizophrenic with antisocial personality disorder and she never took her medication. They filed a motion to present testimony from a battered wives syndrome expert in December 2004, 3 months before her testimony. They didn’t want the evidence brought in that Janet had actually been having an affair with someone at Neverland while she was going there and seeing or living with jay Jackson. They objected to the evidence that Gavin was sexually active prior to the time of the alleged crime”

    Lynette, how do you know these things? is it in the transcripts? esp about janet’s medical condition and gavin being sexually active.

    You know I’ve always wondered if it was Janet who battered her husband rather than that he battered her. she doesn’t behave as i would expect as it destroys your confidence.

    Thanks.

  39. shelly permalink
    February 23, 2011 6:33 am

    Thank you.

  40. lcpledwards permalink
    February 23, 2011 5:12 am

    @ Shelly
    Quantico is a city in Virginia that is home to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (the FBI).

  41. lynande51 permalink
    February 22, 2011 10:56 pm

    The one criminal charge that I was thinking of that might not have a statute of limitations on it is to prosecute them for Abuse of Power on the Federal level. I don’t know if it would qualify for sure but if you look up Abuse of Power it seems like it should. They did willfully and knowingly withhold pertinent discovery to the defense. The discovery that they withheld from the defense and the court was that Jordan was not going to testify. That and many other things they did like provide a defective witness list with misspellings and other things, withholding the fact that they intended to present the 1108 and 110b evidence in support of the current case until the last possible minute, means to me that they knew their case was faulty. The prosecution objected to subpoenas for Janet and Jay Jackson on their behalf like they were representing them not the people. They objected to the evidence of the Arvizos medical records becaue they had evidence in them that Janet Arvizo is a diagnosed Paranoid Schizophrenic with antisocial personality disorder and she never took her medication. They filed a motion to present testimony from a battered wives syndrome expert in December 2004, 3 months before her testimony. They didn’t want the evidence brought in that Janet had actually been having an affair with someone at Neverland while she was going there and seeing or living with jay Jackson. They objected to the evidence that Gavin was sexually active prior to the time of the alleged crime and they objected to Ed Bradley, Larry King and Prudence Brando. They wanted to bring back Blanca Francia and allow testimony of Charlie Michaels to rebut Wade Robsons testimony about being touched. The list goes on and on and on. They actually dissected the Bashir Tape as parts being entered as truth and other parts were to show that Michael lied. Like I said before their list of evidence was so twisted and it was absolute evidence of a non objective prosecution and it wasn’t just Sneddon it was every one of the prosecutors on the case.

  42. shelly permalink
    February 22, 2011 10:52 pm

    What is Quantico?

  43. Dialdancer permalink
    February 22, 2011 10:12 pm

    Helena,

    I was not talking about filing a complaint of Malicious Prosecution or any civil charges. I know only Michael could have done that. There were other charges, criminal charges he could have been brought up on.

  44. Dialdancer permalink
    February 22, 2011 10:07 pm

    Helena,

    I missed the part about Jordan being on the witness list. I’ve read about the ADA’s repeated visits to Quantico, the visit to Jordan, but missed something. Need to go back and read more.

    For me it is the fact that after all the investigations, grand juries, using the 93 information the trial vindicated Michael of the 93 allegations and no one in the Media saw fit to bring this to public attention.

    I cannot wait to see what you have found and put together.

  45. lynande51 permalink
    February 22, 2011 9:37 pm

    @Dialdancer. For Sneddon to have been charged with Malicious Prosecution Michael would have had to be the one to pursue those Charges. Like I said I have read nearly every pleading in this case and here is what I think. The Defense started asking for Discovery in January. The document that you showed was actually their second Motion to Compel Discovery the first one was in June it had the same list plus a few others. The 3rd Motion to Compel was in November I believe and the 4th on January 2nd 6 weeks before trial. In each one of them they asked for the results of the forensic testing. It was not produced to them until after January 2nd of 2005. In other words they had been withholding it for over a year while the press, specifically Diane Dimond, had a field day with it. Here is what the prosecution did; the judge said that Discovery was closing on December 10th of 2004, which is when they went just days before the end of Discovery to get the DNA swab and other things that they wanted. They still had not provided the Defense with their lab results. The second thing that they did was dump the Discovery from the 1993 case which amounted to about 22,000 pages of discovery on them when they filed a Motion to Allow the 1108 and 1101b evidence. From what I gathered in the defenses Motion to Recuse is that there was a fight, that’s right an actual fight, argument, between the Prosecution and the defense and it would seem primarily between Auchincloss and Sanger in which Auchincloss stated that Sneddon would testify “about everything that he knew about their client and the Defense doesn’t want to go there”. The Motion to Recuse was not granted and we got to have Sneddon anyway. The one thing I found that could be proof of Malicious Prosecution was not available or known to anyone until the release of Michael’s FBI files. Zonen and Auchincloss went to interview Jordan on September 26th -27th in New York and they were told by him that if they pursued him with subpoena he would take legal action against them so in other word they knew he would not be testifying. They did not tell the defense or the court and kept him on their witness list until well into the trial. It was probably done in an attempt to restrict or redirect the Defense in preparation of their cross examination of witnesses for the 1108 evidence. I do intend at some point to make a post showing what they did with links to the pleadings. We have been taken of track from time to time here so I will be finishing My Post about the DNA and the underwear tonight to post tomorrow.

  46. Dialdancer permalink
    February 22, 2011 8:37 pm

    David,

    Thank you. I do not care that Sneddon is a unscrupulously malicious braggart that let his prejudices, ego and big mouth which ultimately got him in trouble. I care that he and Dimond never met a truth they didn’t think sounded better as a lie or that they the legal pundits and every other Media twit that pretended they knew what ethical bahavior was used their position to continue a lie. I care that none of the writers happen to mention this particular information in their reporting of this trial.

    Please read http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/090304notmotcompeldisc.pdf (P. 6, Para 22-24) again and tell me what you see there.

  47. Suzy permalink
    February 22, 2011 9:57 am

    @ David

    Thanks for that article about Sneddon’s interview:

    “I got more important things going on in my life than to listen to a song by a guy everybody calls Jacko Wacko,” Sneddon said. “I have my life and I do my job, and anybody who thinks I’ve spent 10 years sitting here waiting to read [lyrics] from Michael Jackson just has not got a clue. Or anybody who thinks that I’m doing this for political reasons is totally poppycock because I’m not running for re-election. I’m retiring in three years. And I’ve been successful, I have a good career. I’m not worried about getting another notch on my belt.”

    What a liar! He says it’s not personal but he refers to Michael as the “guy everybody calls Jacko Wacko”. Oh yeah, that seems like totally professional behaviour devoid of any personal feelings. Of course, we all know he lies about not caring about Michael too. It’s well documented he’s been after him since 1993, and continously so.

    “Otherwise you just could bring in anybody off the street to say ‘Oh, this happened, this happened, I heard it third-hand hearsay — which is totally unfair.”

    Well, the prosecution basically did just this! And Sneddon changed laws to allow this! I mean all their bogus witnesses whom they called on the stand to claim they saw Michael molest children – without even asking these alleged victims first.

  48. lcpledwards permalink
    February 22, 2011 9:18 am

    Here is an article on the November 2003 interview with Sneddon and Dimond:

    http://news.findlaw.com/court_tv/s/20031121/21nov2003003553.html

  49. Dialdancer permalink
    February 22, 2011 8:44 am

    @ Marie Paul,

    Because the statue of limitation on most of what can be proven has expired. Believe me if there was anything at all, jay walking, looking the wrong way, anything I’d file a citizens complaint myself on the behalf of the U.S. Tax payers.

    @ Helena,

    For the past several weeks the same subject kept popping up even when I was looking for unrelated information, this would be a part of my search results or found in the search topic. That’s gotta mean something.

    I was reading from MJEOL when this topic came up again it has to do with Sneddon’s attempt to try Michael for the 93 allegation, using material and witnesses, the same witnesses that show up in 2005 to make his case. In fact he used seized material and (some) witnesses from 93 to get his indictment in 2004.

    In essence he tried Michael for both allegations, had no evidence, lousy Prosecution witnesses with little or no credibility and the Trial Jury like to two 93 Grand Juries gave him the same answer. NOT NO, BUT HELL NO…………

    So theoretically Tom Sneddon proved Michael was innocent in 1993.

    Sneddon Clandestinely Trying Jackson for 1993 Case?-Bullet #110
    http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/sneddon-clandestinely-trying-jackson-for-1993-case-bullet-110.html

    Prosecutors Used 1993 Investigation to Get Search Warrants – MB #196
    http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/prosecutors-used-1993-investigation-to-get-search-warrants-%C2%96-mb-196.html

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/090304notmotcompeldisc.pdf

  50. katie permalink
    January 7, 2011 12:03 am

    if only people knew. jordie chandler’s probably sitting in his mansion popping in one of his michael jackson cds right now. i wouldn’t be surprised if all those michael jackson obsessed reporters knew this aswell so just shut up to keep up the sharade.

  51. Marie Paul permalink
    January 6, 2011 2:00 am

    This is all very interesting, why on earth doesn’t Tom Sneddon get put on trial for what he’s done to Michael ? Surely its criminal ?

  52. Alison permalink
    November 4, 2010 2:54 am

    This topic on the grand jury is such an enlightening one – and so important. Like Jacksonaktak, I could never understand how the f*** this “case” ever made it into a court room for a trial.and it sure wouldn’t have if it was about anyone other than Michael Jackson. its now clear – it was nothing whatsoever to do with any “evidence” or any logical rationale but everything to do with sneddon’s vendetta and abuse of his power – for which as William Wagener says he should be prosecuted.
    The whole public perception of ‘there’s no smoke without fire’ thing rests surely on 2 things
    - the misunderstanding about the settlement
    and
    - the fact/belief the case supposedly had enough merit – evidence – to make it from grand jury to get to a trial. because people think prosecutors must be right – and honest!
    - oh yes, forgot, also because of plastic surgery!

  53. November 4, 2010 1:47 am

    @Helena

    “And this is the job to be done by us, I am afraid. The way Thomas Mesereau disproved everything Tom Sneddon said, so Michael’s supporters should disprove the nonsense said by despicable characters like DD, VG and Maureen Orth.”

    You are right. Only the fans can do this. Only the fans have the passion to do this.

  54. November 3, 2010 2:47 pm

    “The actual filed motion is very interesting”

    Yes, Olga, I have found it already and will probably make a post of it.

  55. November 3, 2010 2:35 pm

    “There is something that baffles me about myself, as much as I dislike Sneddon I can tolerate him more that Maureen Orth, Diane Dimond, Diane Sawyer, Sunny Hostin and Bill O’Reilly. Out of the list just to type Maureen Orth’s name made my mouth curled.”

    It isn’t baffling at all. Deep inside our minds we realize that Tom Sneddon was still doing his prosecutor’s work – even if the methods he employed were dirty and crooked and he was driven by a vendetta in his actions.

    But what is even more important is that Tom Sneddon did go out of his way to find everything there was to find about Michael and his ‘misbehavior’. So now the D.A.’s vindictiveness and zeal are very much handy to Michael’s supporters because if there was any dirt to find about Michael Tom Sneddon DID find it – or rather DIDN’T as the non-guilty verdict proves it.

    And the fact that he brought into the 2005 trial all about the 1993 case is also in Michael’s favor – it was a sort of a substitute for the trial which never took place at the time so that the non-guilty verdict passed in 2005 is actually covering all the cases simultaneously.

    In short if Tom Sneddon hadn’t been that thorough in his work we could still hear voices now saying that ‘something was overlooked’, but with a mad dog like him no one in his right mind can suspect him of having done a shoddy job.

    As to personalities like DD and Maureen Orth they don’t have a single excuse for what they did to Michael and none of their effort (unlike Tom Sneddon’s) can be used by us for exonerating Michael – with one exception though. If we prove that the things they told about him are actually lies, these same lies can be turned against them and label them as the scum of the earth until their dying day.

    Imagine Diane Dimond being drowned in all those ‘fake videotapes’, ‘love letters’ and ‘dirty underwear’ and her ‘best source’ actually turning out a pedophile (Victor Gutierrez) who attends the NAMBLA congresses, just imagine her covered with all that dirt until her last day like tar and feathers and you will understand what the worst scenario for her is.

    And this is the job to be done by us, I am afraid. The way Thomas Mesereau disproved everything Tom Sneddon said, so Michael’s supporters should disprove the nonsense said by despicable characters like DD, VG and Maureen Orth.

  56. Olga permalink
    November 3, 2010 2:19 pm

    Helena, you’re welcome. The actual filed motion is very interesting

  57. November 3, 2010 1:48 pm

    “Mesereau’s complaint says there is no other case in the history of California where there has been such an abuse of power.”

    Because of the need to talk about Larry Feldman I’m now reading the collection of LA Times articles Olga sent to me long time ago (thanks again, Olga and sorry it has taken so long!) some of which are very much eye-opening. Here is one about the unprecedented way Tom Sneddon abused his power:

    Jackson Defense Alleges Misconduct by Prosecutors
    CALIFORNIA
    July 08, 2004|Steve Chawkins, Times Staff Writer

    Santa Barbara County prosecutors bullied some grand jury witnesses and argued with others while allowing one to refer to Michael Jackson as “the devil,” the pop star’s attorneys contended in court papers released Wednesday.

    Only 47 pages of a 126-page motion to dismiss Jackson’s indictment because of alleged prosecutorial misconduct were released by Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville. Over protests by media groups, most of the document has been sealed, along with the response to it by the district attorney’s office.

    Even so, the portion made public offers a rare glimpse of the defense in a case in which dozens of search warrants, the grand jury’s 1,800-page transcript and details of the accusations against Jackson have remained secret.

    “It sounds as if the case will be acrimonious and personal and not pretty,” said Robert F. Landheer, a criminal defense attorney in Santa Barbara.

    Jackson was indicted in April for allegedly molesting a 12-year-old boy and allegedly taking part in a conspiracy involving child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion. He has pleaded not guilty.

    Led by Los Angeles attorney Thomas A. Mesereau, the defense team took on Dist. Atty. Tom Sneddon personally in its motion, which is to be argued in a hearing Friday. The defense cast him as arrogant and unprincipled, eager to convict Jackson at any cost. In the document, the defense questioned why Sneddon allegedly picked on certain witnesses.

    “The court will never know what caused this behavior,” the motion states in a footnote. “The fact that this is a career opportunity to indict a famous celebrity, the fact that Mr. Sneddon had been boastful in the media months earlier, the fact that Mr. Sneddon has been embarrassed by criticism in the media … the fact that some of the [grand jury] witnesses had also gone on television to criticize the investigation.”

    Such attacks are rare in legal filings and can backfire, experts said.

    “This appears written not solely for the edification of the judge but for a broader audience,” said Michael McMahon, a former longtime Santa Barbara public defender who now works in Ventura County. “If you beat a judge over the head with inferences, he can become protective of the attorney under attack. To speculate about an attorney’s motivations is open to question.”

    Although some of the rhetoric is unusual, the motion is not. Known as a “995 motion” after a section of the state’s penal code, it is a standard response to grand jury indictments and seldom succeeds in getting them dismissed, said Gerald Uelmen, a Santa Clara University law professor.

    In the Jackson 995 motion, about 80 pages that deal directly with the molestation charges and their investigation remain sealed. In a table of contents provided by defense attorneys, such topics are included in a section labeled “The So-Called Facts Presented to the Grand Jury.”

    In the portion of the document that was unsealed, defense attorneys lambasted Sneddon and his deputy prosecutors for an “abuse of power” that they said was unprecedented in state judicial history.

    They contended that the conspiracy charge against Jackson and others, who have not been publicly identified, was fabricated and that testimony about it before grand jurors was based on innuendo. They also alleged that prosecutors swamped grand jurors with irrelevant and inflammatory evidence “that poisoned the entire proceeding.”

    In particular, they pointed to two witnesses who testified on the first day of the grand jury’s meeting about a 1993 lawsuit against Jackson by a boy he allegedly molested. The defense attorneys maintained the 11-year-old lawsuit, which was subsequently settled, was off-limits for the grand jury and was raised by prosecutors to unfairly tarnish Jackson.

    The motion also took prosecutors to task for allegedly running roughshod over standard legal practice and asking questions that never would be allowed in court.

    The motion included dozens of purportedly argumentative exchanges, such as when a prosecutor at one point said, “OK. Now you didn’t answer my question. So I’m going to ask it again. We’ll just stay here till you answer it, OK. It’s a simple question. I’m going to get an answer.”

    Although grand juries are supposed to be impartial investigative bodies, legal experts have long observed that they are usually led to their conclusions by aggressive district attorneys.

    Even so, “It’s quite rare that an indictment could be dismissed for the misconduct of prosecutors or the way questions are presented,” said Uelmen, one of the “Dream Team” attorneys in the O.J. Simpson case.

    Although prosecutors in the Jackson case allegedly intimidated some witnesses, they allowed others to disparage him “with impassioned and prejudicial remarks,” according to the defense motion.

    A woman whose name was blotted out of the motion was told by a prosecutor that “perhaps the biggest and most vicious accusation is that you made all this up.”

    In response, according to the motion, “she stated that she didn’t want to take ‘the devil’s money.’
    “The prosecutor asked if she was ‘clear about that.’ She stated that Mr. Jackson is ‘the devil.’ ”

    http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jul/08/local/me-jackson8

  58. November 3, 2010 2:27 am

    There is something that baffles me about myself, as much as I dislike Sneddon I can tolerate him more that Maureen Orth, Diane Dimond, Diane Sawyer, Sunny Hostin and Bill O’Reilly. Out of the list just to type Maureen Orth’s name made my mouth curled.

  59. Alison permalink
    November 3, 2010 1:50 am

    Mesereau’s complaint says there is no other case in the history of California where there has been such an abuse of power. my question is – has there ever been any other case in the western world where police have stated the investigation of an individual is in suspension until its known if there are any ‘victims’ ? can anyone think of any example? i can’t but i don’t know much. can anyone ?

    sneddon just made things up to suit himself as he went along. what legislation was he following?

  60. November 2, 2010 4:47 pm

    “Since they were using that description and his genitalia like they would fingerprints Tom Sneddon fully expected that Michael wouldbe arrested. So why wasn’t he? Because his “fingerprints” didn’t match. If there had been a match to that description they would have arrested Michael on the spot.”

    ABSOLUTELY! So all further talk about a match or a mismatch is simply useless.

    “Was the search legal? Yes they were doing it to gather evidence of a criminal act.”

    Lynette, while rereading Lisa Campbell’s book “The King of Pop’s darkest hour” I came across the following statement which shows that even the search of Michael’s ranch on the basis of ‘what only one boy said’ was not considered legal enough. In these circumstances a strip search, and not just an ordinary strip search but an intimate examination of Michael and with no papers presented to his lawyers raises too many questions. See what Lisa Campbell is writing:

    “The boy’s claims were unsubstantiated, however, his accusations did prompt the Los Angeles police department to open an investigation on August 17, 1993, and to serve search warrants on Michael’s Neverland Valley Ranch and his condo in Century City, on August 21 and 22.

    Michael was not home at the time of the search, having already flown to Bangkok for the kick off of the tour. A locksmith accompanied the police officers during the search to help them gain entry to rooms which were locked and to which the household staff had no keys. Jackson’s camp cooperated with the search.

    Several boxes of photographs and videotapes were removed from the premises. These were erroneously referred to by some members of the media as evidence, when in fact the photos and videos showed nothing out of the ordinary, and didn’t incriminate Michael at all. A source from the police department told The Los Angeles Times, “There’s no medical evidence, no taped evidence … The search warrant didn’t result in anything that would support a criminal filing.”

    Immediately questions arose as to how the LAPD was able to obtain the search warrants for Michael’s homes based solely on the unsubstantiated claims of one boy. In requesting a search warrant, police are required to prove they have probable cause that a crime has been committed. In this case, they had no such thing.

    With no evidence to be found, investigators from the police department’s Sexually Exploited Child Unit, who were leading the investigation, then concentrated on interviewing other youngsters who are friends of Michael’s in an attempt to find someone who would corroborate the boy’s story. The thirteen year old boy gave authorities the names of four other boys he said he believed were also molested by Michael Jackson. These four, all said to be well known friends of Michael’s, included child actor Macaulay Culkin. Culkin was questioned by police and he stated there was never any inappropriate behavior by Michael Jackson. The other boys questioned by police also said there was never any improper conduct by Michael.”

  61. November 1, 2010 7:39 am

    @ Alison

    Great find! Now I understand how on Earth this case could get past the Grand Jury….

  62. Alison permalink
    November 1, 2010 3:04 am

    according to http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org criminal grand juries were brought into being in california in 2000 – sneddon’s work??

    there are 23 members and a vote of just 14 is required for an indictment.they just need to decide if there is a “strong suspicion” of a crime.
    “Normally felony cases are presented to a court of lesser jurisdiction and the judge determines if there is sufficent evidence to hold a trial. However under certain circumstances the District Attorney may ask the Criminal Grand Jury to hear special felony cases. The Criminal Grand Jury may hear cases involving prominent public figures IN ORDER TO PREVENT PREJUDICIAL PRETRIAL PUBLICITY, TO PROTECT AGAINST PUBLICITY BASED ON UNFOUNDED CHARGES ……..” – well!

    “Additionally, during criminal investigations, the District Attorney’s office may request the assistance of the Criminal Grand Jury to subpoena needed documents or records and to question reluctant witnesses under oath. This may be true of a witness who has refused to cooperate with law enforcement investigators because he does not want to get involved or because he is fearful of giving information except under the secret conditions of the Criminal Grand Jury hearing.”

    it also says that if an indictment is returned it is kept secret until after the suspect has been arrested – so it suggests that grand jury is used only PRIOR to an arrest, but wasn’t Michael arrested prior to the grand jury?!
    and it says that the only non grand jury members present are the deputy DA and the court reporter – so why was sneddon there?

    This sounds very much like sneddon got this type of jury established in 2000 to enable him to persecute Michael Jackson. is california the only state to have a criminal grand jury? because according to wiki, most grand juries don’t deal with criminal cases.

    But he clearly chose to ignore the reasons laid down for its existence.

    a site – www. abanet .org – says grand juries are drawn in the same way as ordinary juries, however they are NOT screened for biases and they are not instructed on law issues for making their decisions and that a judge is not normally present!.
    if the jury want answers to legal questions its the DA’s office that answers them!
    so it all sounds perfect for a prosecutor with an unsound case to get it through to trial. sneddon knew he could pull the wool over their eyes and there would be no legal challenge to anything he chose to tell them – and the grand jury system relies on the prosecutor’s honesty in presenting both sides to a case including anything that could be evidence for defence.
    all so secret, for all we know they could have been sneddon’s best mates or even people like evan chandler! people selected cos they didn’t like Michael.
    nothing about the prosecution of Michael is anything but corrupt, big time.

    Is there NO legal challenge fans can make about all this? no action at all that we can bring against them? when all the information and evidence has been collated that is.
    There is a civil grand jury that will hear complaints made by private citizens about public officials and about use of taxpayers money et.c could a complaint be made to them?tho i suppose that system is corrupt also – what about a federal complaint, is there a way to do that?

  63. lcpledwards permalink
    October 31, 2010 4:48 pm

    @ Alison
    Yes, the members of the Grand Jury are secret, as well as their meeting places. In 2004, Sneddon and Zonen went to great lengths to keep the grand jury proceedings a secret, and when I post Zonen’s transcript later this week, you’ll see exactly what I mean!

    Mesereau said that he spoke to some members of the 1994 grand jury, and they told him that they had SERIOUS problems with Sneddon’s case, and that’s why they would not indict MJ. Everyone of Sneddon’s witnesses was “tainted” with their desires to earn money from selling their stories to the tabloids after the scandal broke INSTEAD of immediately going to the police, or at least not trying to intervene and stop what they allegedly witnessed.

    In a few weeks I will post the transcript of the 2005 Harvard seminar, and you’ll see for yourself what he actually said!

  64. Alison permalink
    October 31, 2010 4:41 pm

    I was referring to the 2003 one.

  65. Alison permalink
    October 31, 2010 4:40 pm

    Are the members of the Grand Jury secret? and how many were there / do there have to be?
    it would be interesting to know exactly who was on the Grand Jury and what their connections to sneddon and other players might have been.
    How can we find that out?

  66. lynande51 permalink
    October 31, 2010 3:12 am

    Nope ATG quotes Sneddon on page 210 it is a footnote they don’t take credit for it themselves and then he moves on to talk about the NAACP, ( distactor). MJWML moves right along to how they stopped the photos and then agreed to have them taken at Dr. Kleins office with Dr. strick there and Michaels photographerand then goes off in a completely different direction about the camera capturing a pictue of Michaels eye and that he is really black under his make up.In BCWYL it is the complete first chapter with a rundown of Detective Russ Birchims statement or affidavit but no where does it say it was a match. I forgot to say something earlier too that is that of all the “evidence” they returned everything except the photos. Is this to make people think they were trying to build another case or to protect their lie?

  67. lcpledwards permalink
    October 31, 2010 2:24 am

    yes, I know Lisa G. In fact I know both of the authors of the MONEY article. How do you know her? How did you get her email address? We’ve been communicating, but I had to jump through hoops to get in touch with her because, for obvious reasons, she wants to stay anonymous.

    Actually, I thought that “Be Careful Who You Love”, “All That Glitters”, and Maureen Orth’s Vanity Fair articles all said that it matched? If they didn’t explicitly say it, then they certainly implied it. I can’t remember the exact quotes, but I’m sure they ALL said it matched.

  68. lynande51 permalink
    October 31, 2010 1:47 am

    David do you know Lisa G. one of the 2 authors of M.O.N.E.Y? She told me I was more right than I know when I wrote to her that IF there would have been a match he would have carted Michael off that very minute( probably would not have even let him dress is my guess). The other thing she said was that no one but Sneddon stuck his neck out to claim they were a match. The police only gave affidavits that there was a description and not in DD’s book, VG’s book or ATG say that they are a match have you ever noticed that ? They only insinuate it, again preparing the reader to ask that Loaded Question: “Well did it match”? “We don’t know but why did he settle the case”? See what I mean? The reason he stuck his neck out like that is that Lawyers are not penalized or punished for statements made to the court in the course of a trial, and that is who he made that statement or Declaration to, not the public at large. If you read his declaration he is very carefull with his wording about how he is basing this on what he was told and cannot be accountable for other people getting it wrong. Tricky lawyer aint he?

  69. lcpledwards permalink
    October 31, 2010 1:09 am

    @ Lynette
    That’s a good point! In fact, I talked about that issue in my article on MJ’s settlements where I stated how a District Attorney occupies 2 of the 3 sleaziest positions at once! A lawyer and a politician! (A used car salesman comes in 3rd!)

    I too believe he had political aspirations, as well as a financial motive, because he surely would have cashed in with book deals, film deals (he would have executive produced any “made for TV” movie about MJ’s downfall), and of course Oprah would have rolled out the red carpet for him!

    Ironically, he said that he turned down a book deal in 1994, and I’m sure it’s because he didn’t want to try to explain why his case fell apart!

  70. lynande51 permalink
    October 31, 2010 12:46 am

    In 2003 when he went in to Neverland it was unknown. The tape that shows him present at the raid ( actually the first one through the door) was not made public until after Michael’s death. Did he have a vendetta? Yes. Why? I believe it was larger political aspirations. A District Attorney is an elected official . If he wanted to advance in his career he would have to do something big to garner the political support that he needed. I think he wanted to be the Attorney General of California or maybe even the Govenor. An example of that would be Rudy Gulliani after the 2001 attacks. everyone thought he should run for a higher office because of the way he handled the terrorist attacks. He knew he wasn’t the personable kind of guy that would get himself elected by sheer charisma he needed a stepping stone, a boost up to get to that office. He needed Michael Jackson to make a name for himself.

  71. Olga permalink
    October 30, 2010 4:42 pm

    Lynette, also Michael’s longtime bodyguard Bill Bray was present during the strip search.

  72. Suzy permalink
    October 30, 2010 8:23 am

    Thanks for explaining, Lynette & Dialdancer!

    Why was Tom Sneddon at the execution of a search warrant? Does the District Attorney go with the police when they gather evidence? No He Does Not! It is never done that way it crosses legal lines about prosecution and evidence.

    He was there at the Neverland house search in 2003 as well…. And he didn’t have a vendetta, he didn’t take it personal. Yeah, right.

  73. lynande51 permalink
    October 30, 2010 4:45 am

    The people in attendance that day were. Michael Jackson. Johnnie Cochran, Howard Weitzman, Dr. Richard Strick, Dr. David Forcast, (Michael’s Doctor from the Dangerous tour) Dr. Arnie Klein, and Michael’s personal photographer Louis Swayne. From Santa Barbara, District Attorney Tom Sneddon, SBPD, Detective Russ Birchim and Photographer Gary Spiegel and from LAPD Detective Sicard. Everyone left the room but Dr. Strick, Dr.Klein the Photographers and Detective Russ Birchim when they proceeded with the search. Michael “threw a tantrum” according to Sneddon and would not allow anyone else in the room. They started to take photos of Michael starting with his upper torso and proceeded to his lower torso and genitalia. Dr. Strick and Russ Birchim had the description with them.
    The question of whether or not there was a match was answered at the time of the photos if only someone had shown some good old common sense. Was the search legal? Yes they were doing it to gather evidence of a criminal act. That evidence was a description given to them of Michael Jackson’s genitals because the accuser said they had unique markings. It would have been the same if he had had a tattoo. They had no other physical evidence to back up the allegations and they were using the description like they would use fingerprints or DNA evidence to confirm what the boy said he saw.
    The other question would be: Why was Tom Sneddon at the execution of a search warrant? Does the District Attorney go with the police when they gather evidence? No He Does Not! It is never done that way it crosses legal lines about prosecution and evidence. We know that because he actually had to go through a hearing in 2005 for going to Bradley Miller’s office when they searched it. Sneddon left the room that day and waited in another room. Dr. Strick was there to confirm the description for the LAPD. When the description was read they had the Form of Michael’s genitalia included, the form being intact or circumcised.
    Tom Sneddon wanted to make a name for himself that is why he went there. He wanted to be on the spot when they put handcuffs on Michael Jackson and took him away to jail, that could have been the only reason he was there. That was the beginning of the vendetta.
    He went away that day and Michael Jackson got on TV and told the world what he had to endure during that strip search. Since they were using that description and his genitalia like they would fingerprints Tom Sneddon fully expected that Michael wouldbe arrested. So why wasn’t he? Because his “fingerprints” didn’t match. If there had been a match to that description they would have arrested Michael on the spot. He was not he went on TV that night and the world should have realized why he was able to do that. Why didn’t anyone realize what had happened? I don’t know. Probably because Hard Copy was leading the pack when it came to reporting the case and the one that was at the forefront of Hard copy on the Michael Jackson story was our darling Diane Dimond.

  74. Dialdancer permalink
    October 30, 2010 1:43 am

    Don’t know what happened on my last post. This belongs on the bottom:

    Chief Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman Los Angeles 1992-present
    (This case did originate in Los Angeles County)

    Persons in the room.
    Michael and lawyers
    Sergeant Spiegel Body Search Photograph
    Dr Stick Court appointed doctor
    Detective Russ Birchim SB PD one with search warrant
    Arnold Klein Michael’s doctor
    Louis Swayne Michael’s photograph

  75. Dialdancer permalink
    October 30, 2010 1:38 am

    Chief Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman Los Angeles 1992-present
    (This case did originate in Los Angeles County)

    Persons in the room.
    Michael and lawyers
    Sergeant Spiegel Body Search Photograph
    Dr Stick Court appointed doctorIn reference to the body search warrant I think the first question is does the damn thing exist and who signed it? I have serious reservations concerning its’ physical existence. Why was it not plastered all over the internet as was Jordan’s so called drawing and Declaration, the supposed Settlement and Grand Jury Testimonies?

    In the telling of what went on in the room Michael has 2 attorneys Weitzman who allowed himself to be buffaloed into not verifying it or the affidavit and Cochran who is just mentioned as being there. Sneddon broadcast he was requesting it, but there is no reference to which judge or magistrate authorized and signed it. In 2003-2004 the arrest and search warrants were signed by SB Court Judge Adams. No books, no news articles or video has ever said who put their name to it.

    I have back tracked the court documents. There are written references to the photos, Jordan’s Declaration and Det Linden, but not any written reference from or about Linden’s Declaration or the search warrant. Even legal articles do not give a name.

    There is only one other I know to address this to, but he is busy on another case and may feel that it is inopportune timing or the question is a breach of a former client’s privilege.

    The only time the DA’s Office did not leak/hid confidential information was when it was detrimental to their case.

    Detective Russ Birchim SB PD one with search warrant
    Arnold Klein Michael’s doctor
    Louis Swayne Michael’s photograph

  76. Olga permalink
    October 29, 2010 10:28 pm

    There is more from William Wagner on February 19 2010

    and there is this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5Ig_vL9aSE

    where he talks about interviewing Eleanor Cook and about Dimond’s ridiculus reactions. This is from October 8 2010 on Blog Talk Radio and the full show can be found here:

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/a-place-in-your-heart

  77. visitor permalink
    October 29, 2010 8:55 pm

    Thanx so much for the informations.So from what i understand, lots of things surrounding this streap search were illegal. Sneddon,again,broke or bended some laws and no one has talked about that.The media have never mentioned it, no one has ever examined the legal basis of the strip search. They just let it go like so many other things.

  78. October 29, 2010 4:39 pm

    “Can somebody tell me if there is an article or an analysis about the legal basis of Michael’s strip search?”

    While Lynette is on the way let me tell you what I found when I was looking into that problem:

    1) firstly, what Michael was subjected to is not an ordinary strip search – it was an intimate examination (with the penis and anus areas examined).

    2) this type of examination is allowed in hospitals (on condition the patient agrees to it) and it is also carried on convicted criminals when they enter prison.

    3) for anyone who is only a suspect in a case the procedure is illegal, though there are numerous cases when the law is broken, both in the US and in other countries.

    4) Tom Sneddon somehow managed to obtain a strip search warrant from the judge to carry it out based on the affidavit written by his colleague Deborah Linden which she made after conducting an interview with Jordan Chandler. No traces of this affidavit are found in the press now (I’ve managed to find only an indirect reflection of that story and reported it in the ‘Smoking Gun Missing article’ post).

    5) Jordan gave an interview but not an official deposition which is carried out only in the presence of both parties (lawyers for the accuser and the accused). An official deposition enables the lawyer for the defence to ask the witness questions. A deposition also fixes the witness’s words in a question/answer form and it is surely not a descriptive text made by a lawyer (the way it was done with the so-called ‘Jordan’s declaration’ though it looks as if it was written by Jordan).

    6) the strip search was illegal not only because it went well beyond the usual strip search limits – it was conducted in spite of the fact that there was no physical evidence testifying to a ‘sex crime’. It was reported in the Linden affidavit that Jordan gave a description which the photos were supposed to confirm – however, when the photos were made they were in so much contrast with Jordan’s words that Larry Feldman demanded to pass their copy to the accuser, conduct a new strip search or bar the photos from examination at the civil trial if his demand was not met.

    7) the second reason why it was illegal was because only one ‘witness’ said something which was not corroborated by anyone else. Similarly, if your neighbor tells stories about you (and even gives a fictional description of your genitalia) it won’t be enough for the police to conduct an intimate strip search of you just because your neighbor said so. There should be either physical evidence or valid reports from other people.

    As far as I know Michael’s lawyers considered the procedure illegal. Tom Sneddon argued in reply that it was not a full strip search as Michael was not showing the whole of his body and was allowed to wear a gown.

  79. lynande51 permalink
    October 29, 2010 3:54 pm

    I will tell you about it when I get home from work.

  80. visitor permalink
    October 29, 2010 2:43 pm

    Hello.Can somebody tell me if there is an article or an analysis about the legal basis of Michael’s strip search? I was reading a post in an other blog and it just hit me.I can not understand the legal basis of the strip search. I have never heard about another person being strip searched and especially a famous one. I can not understand how Michael lawyers didn’t try to stop the process.If there was another public person, they would have fought with all their power to try to stop this kind of degrading act. Has anyone tried to analyze or explain the strip search? Is there a documentary,a show or an article where legal people try to explain that part of Michaels life?

  81. lynande51 permalink
    October 29, 2010 2:25 pm

    I have all of the Santa Barbara County District Attorneys Office Press Releases from the 2003-2005 investigation and the original Joint Statement of Declination to Prosecute saved. Before they moved all of their documents pertaining to the Michael Jackson case I went in and got them all.It was kind of funny because as soon as I was finished they moved them to a purchase only site. There must have been quite a few of us downloading them and they wanted to make money on them.

  82. Dialdancer permalink
    October 29, 2010 5:31 am

    Santa Barbara Press release posted within the above article has been removed from the internet. http://www.countyofsb.org/ceo/press_release.aspx?folder=2010

    Here is the current link: http://betshort.com/sneddonrelease.pdf

  83. lynande51 permalink
    September 10, 2010 4:36 am

    I have the same article.

  84. Dialdancer permalink
    September 10, 2010 3:10 am

    Just a little something I found concerning that law Sneddon had past to compel victims of sexual assualt.

    “University law professor Gerald F. Uelmen is the bar’s go-to scholar on issues of California law. “This law I keep hearing about in the media doesn’t exist,” he said. “The Santa Barbara D.A. misspoke and completely blew it. … He was right that, since 1993, there have been a lot of changes in the California statutes that make it easier to prosecute child-abuse cases.”

    “What’s a lot more interesting is how the media picks up these things and then feeds off each other’s misinformation so that it becomes impossible to put one of these pseudo-facts to rest.”

    Original Source: site2.mjeol.com/mj-news/is-tom-sneddon-incompetent.html

    http://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/03/entertainment/et-rutten3/3

  85. lcpledwards permalink
    August 27, 2010 9:37 am

    In case you guys haven’t seen it yet, here is Sneddon’s entire 2003 press conference! Watch and see how unprofessional he is!

    I’m currently working on a new article detailing Sneddon’s MALICIOUS prosecution of MJ, and I will chronicle all of the prosecutorial misconduct that he was engaged in. I will include an analysis of this press conference, so stay tuned!

    http://mjtruthnow.com/2009/11/the-prosecution/

  86. Dialdancer permalink
    August 10, 2010 6:08 am

    I find myself reading as I download files. I am currently at Jan 14, 2004.

    Michael has filed his Opposition for Maria and David Ventura’s Motion to Quash their bank records subpoena. They were hiding $152,000 of Janet’s J.C. Penny settlement from Michael in order to appear needing his help and participating in welfare fraud, and money laundering. From what I’ve already seen the DA’s case was falling a part, his evidence weak, non-existent, his victim/witnesses really lousy, why did he continue this thing?

    Were these con-artists selected by someone or did they just observe the Chandlers pull of the perfect scam and when opportunity presented itself they went for it?

  87. Daildancer permalink
    August 3, 2010 4:38 am

    As far as the family I believe they may know more than can be said. Regardless to their public appearances. I often remind myself that they are lied upon just as much as Michael was. Although there are a couple I cannot warm up to. Let me ask you a question. If Michael had still been a Media darling when Janet’s wardrobe malfunction had happened, how do you think it would have been played? I bet there would not have been the crowds with the torches or Timberlake’s most ungentlemanly throwing her to the wolves. She got slammed because of Michael’s perceived bad conduct image.

    Janet is a major entertainer in her own right. She has a career to maintain, obligations, employees and bills to pay, and people to financially support. I will agree about Leno, but you will go where they wish to have you on or you don’t go at all. Do you think Michael wanted a Sony Rep working on TII with him? If Michael could forgive LaToya, Janet going on Leno is nothing.

  88. Dialdancer permalink
    July 29, 2010 7:01 am

    What another attorney had to say about Sneddon’s conduct.

    http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20040504_spilbor.html
    http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20040720_spilbor.html

    Does anyone know which Judge signed the Search Warrant for the bodily search?

  89. ares permalink
    July 26, 2010 8:57 pm

    @ Susan
    So basically what some people say that his family is not so much concerned in vindicating him is true. I agree with you. I would do the same thing if i had a family membered ridiculed while he/she was facing the most difficult hours of his/her life. Oh don’t mention Oprah… I feel that that woman has a deep deep hatred toward MJ and i can not understan why. I saw the “tribute” that she did about Michael and her face was emotionless. I personally thought that it was a tribute to herself not Michael.

  90. Susan permalink
    July 26, 2010 6:34 pm

    Hi Ares:

    You are absolutely right – Janet Jackson did go on Jay Leno’s show and also Oprah’s – another hypocrite. It’s only speculation on my part, but I think Janet is thinking about her career and how she must do certain public appearances to promote her movie “Why Did I Get Married, 2″, her book or whatever else she is planning for herself. It’s just the way it is in showbiz and that is her prerogative.

    Again, speaking for myself only – if Michael was my brother, I would not do their pitiful programs, but if I did, it would be for one purpose only – to publicly call them on their shameful behaviour and humiliate them beyond belief, then just walk off their lousy shows. But that’s just me.

  91. ares permalink
    July 26, 2010 2:15 pm

    But didn’t Michael’s sister go to his show ??? You have a guy that has trashed your brother .Why go to his show ???

  92. Suzy permalink
    July 26, 2010 1:40 pm

    And that despite of knowing too well that the Arvizos were money grabbers.

  93. Susan permalink
    July 26, 2010 1:26 pm

    One malicious thing Jay Leno did during Michael’s trial was he wanted to keep making jokes at Michael’s expense, you know, reinforcing in the public’s mind that he was guilty – and since he was not allowed to talk about the case personally as he was a witness, he invited people like Dennis Miller, Roseanne Barr, Carrot Top, Brad Garrett on his show to spew more filthy jokes about Michael, while he stood beside them clappping and egging them on. It shows you what a classless piece of crap Leno truly is, as well as those who took part. I have zero respect for all of them and can only hope that they get what they deserve someday. So, in effect, Jay Leno, as part of the media machine, kept the negative stereotype of Michael in his monologue every night, just for cheap laughs, during Michael’s trial. Leno = ugly human being.

  94. ares permalink
    July 26, 2010 11:33 am

    @ Dialdancer
    Can you please tell me what do you mean by that. Jay Leno used his show to defame Michael? I don’t understand…

  95. Dialdancer permalink
    July 26, 2010 2:07 am

    Opps. Corrected sentence.

    Leno publicly speculates there are 14,000 pieces of evidence in the DA’s possession. Now where would he come up with that?

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052305motlmtleno.pdf

  96. Dialdancer permalink
    July 26, 2010 2:05 am

    What I am finding interesting is Mainstream Media used Jay Leno much like Sneddon used Dimond. Jay Leno is allow to not adhere to the Gag Order, but the Michael must or be granted “special permission” to say he is innocent in public. Leno’s application to the Court that the Gag Order does not apply to him is represented by the same attorneys who represented the major networks and USA Today’s continuous requests for immediately release or access to trial documents, jury questions and ballots, and anything else they could get away with. It was of course for the good of the public.

    Leno publicly speculate are is 14,000 pieces of evidence in the DA’s possession. Now where would he come up with that?

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052305motlmtleno.pdf

  97. Suzy permalink
    July 21, 2010 6:50 pm

    Susan, Visitor!

    Thank you!

  98. Susan permalink
    July 21, 2010 5:44 pm

    Hi again Suzy:

    When I tried the link I posted, it opened to a lot of legal stuff I had never seen before, not the article I wanted. So try this link, then scroll down to “Jonna In the News” and choose “The Michael Jackson Case”. Hopefully this works.

    http://www.jonnaspilbor.com/wheres_jonna.html.

  99. visitor permalink
    July 21, 2010 5:41 pm

    There is an old saying “you can indict a ham sandwich in a grand jury”. And it’s right. There is no judge and no cross examination. The prosecution is obligated to present exonorating evidence as well but jerk Sneddon didn’t do it of course. He also tampered the witnesses and ignored the juror’s questions. He was making remarks and was giving his opinion!!!!!!!!! Plus he tried to plant the fingerprints (FELONY) on the magazine and he ended up being humiliated inside the courtroom in the trial when he was caught up and his sheriff admitted it. He went to a grand jury to act like an asshole and get the indictment. If he didn’t have this illegal behavior in tyhe grand jury there would be no trial at all. DA’s have been fired doing less that Sneddon did. I wonder who was protecting that sociopath.

  100. Susan permalink
    July 21, 2010 5:27 pm

    Hi Suzy:

    From what I read about the difference between a Preliminary Hearing and a Grand Jury Indictment, it seems that with a Preliminary Hearing the judge will hear evidence from both the prosecution (his reason for the charge) and the defence (his reason for why their is not enough evidence for the charge). With the Grand Jury Indictment, only the prosecution gets to present their side, without hearing anything from the defence of the party charged. When you commence a criminal action, you file either a “complaint” or obtain a Grand Jury Indictment. It seems originally, Sneddon had filed a “complaint” and with that Michael would have been entitled to a Preliminary Hearing, but Sneddon, snake that he is, switched it to a Grand Jury Indictment, and once he did that, Michael was no longer entitled to a Preliminary Hearing. What he did was legal but unfair, but let’s remember, we’re talking about Sneddon here, and sneaky is just one of his many character traits. I am going to post the link from which I found the above information and hope it works (I’m new at this).
    http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/commentary/20050504_spilbor.html

  101. Suzy permalink
    July 21, 2010 4:10 pm

    I’m writing a post on Tom Sneddon for my blog. While collecting information I came across this: “Sneddon took his case to a grand jury in order to avoid a public preliminary hearing. This is unfair to the Defendant.”

    Can somebody explain to me what’s the difference and why one is unfair to the Defendant?

  102. Suzy permalink
    July 19, 2010 10:49 am

    @ David

    I am just speculating, of course, but I think maybe the training by Rothman and the Sodium Amytal are not mutually exclusive. What if Rothman and Evan were trying to train Jordie before and told him the things he needed to say, but he decided not to go along with the plan? And that’s when Plan B – the SA – came into the picture?

    On the other hand, I can also see him knowingly lie. How could Evan get him lie knowingly? Well, there are several ways, one is to say that MJ will get in trouble if Jordie says nothing happened. Was it you who brought us that quote from All that Glitters that indicated this is exactly what happened? Evan lied to Jordie and told him to say MJ molested him, OTHERWISE he will get MJ into trouble! So when Jordie first lied he might have thought he was protecting MJ with it and get Evan off his back by doing what he wanted him to do. And maybe by the time he realized it’s the lies those will get MJ in trouble, there was no way back. Then Evan might have told him: “Son, we are in it together, you lied, remember? And you don’t want your father go to jail for your lies, do you?”

    Like I said it’s only speculation, but I can see something like this happening.

  103. July 19, 2010 10:09 am

    Tom Sneddon did have a hand in the Arvizo’s allegations. In fact, according to Frank Tyson and Vinnie Amen (another uncharged co-conspirator, there was a business card from Tom Sneddon slipped under the door of the Arvizos’ apartment on February 16, 2003 when they returned the family back to their East LA home. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117846,00.html

    Plus, the SB Sheriffs Department, were in contact with the Arvizos in Feb. 20 2003 during the alleged kidnapping and abuse.

    “CJ” Executive Producer Harvey Levin reports that the three social workers returned to their office, only to get an unusual phone call at 3:00 p.m. the same day. According to Levin’s sources, a lieutenant from the Santa Barbara County Sheriffs Department called and said, “Do not interview the boy or his family.” According to the source, the social workers were puzzled. They had “never gotten a request like that before.”

  104. July 19, 2010 9:29 am

    “So Geraldine Hughs thinks the whole thing was a set-up by Tom Sneddon! Interesting. It’s also interesting how they eliminated Frank Cascio (he was the friend of Michael’s who slept in the room with them) as a potential witness”.

    Suzy, I am also beginning to think that it was a set up by Tom Sneddon et al. This research of ours is getting really serious.

  105. lynande51 permalink
    July 18, 2010 1:30 pm

    Here is the link to a copy of the original article from Roger Friedman who covered that trial for Fox News. In it you will here just when it was that the whole story was put together.
    http://buzz.hollywoodreporter.com/2009/12/23/fbi-michael-jackson-computers-no-evidence/

  106. David permalink
    July 18, 2010 9:53 am

    @ Suzy

    You made some valid points, and the only people who really know if sodium amytal was used are Jordie, Dr. Torbiner, Rothman, and whoever else was involved in their extortion plot.

    The reason I think it was used is because of the dubious circumstances under which Jordie admitted to being molested. Everyone who has ever written about this case has stated that Jordie didn’t admit to being molested until his dental procedure was over with. (Well, actually, Maureen Orth was the ONLY person to omit this crucial piece of information in her Jan. 1994 Vanity Fair report “Nightmare at Neverland”.) Jordie admitted to it in his interview, and Evan wrote it in his dairies which were given to Diane Dimond. And if Evan and Dr. Torbiner really did drug MJ with Toradol like they claimed they did, then that makes it more probable that they drugged Jordie.

    But there are so many lies written in “ATG” that it’s hard to separate fact from fiction. And perhaps Evan really did get Jordie to lie somehow, but to me that doesn’t seem probable because Jordie was too infatuated with MJ. But then again, Gavin Arvizo was infatuated with MJ until they were kicked out of Neverland. I don’t know what to believe, all I know is that the description didn’t match, Jordie emancipated himself, Evan sued Sony to record an album, Jordie refused to testify, Evan tried to kill Jordie, and Evan killed himself, so that’s all that matters! But I’m glad that I was able to find that 60 Minutes report about implanted memories, so that story proves that the sodium amytal theory isn’t as far fetched as doubters will say it is.

    As for Sneddon meeting with Janet Arvizo, I know they met in Sept. 03 to discuss getting money from California’s victims’ fund. I didn’t know he met her in Feb. as well, but it was probably AFTER the documentary had aired, and before they moved into Neverland to avoid the paparazzi. Azja Pryor (Chris Tucker’s ex-girlfriend) said in an interview that Gavin and Star asked to sleep in MJ’s bedroom while he was away, which she thought was NOT consistent with a molestation victim, because if he had been molested in MJ’s bedroom then why would he want to sleep there again?

    BTW, here is an interview she did with Bill O’Reilly in February 2004. O’Reilly acted like the typical MJ hater, with his “guilty till proven innocent’ mentality. He uses the illogical argument that MJ may have paid “hush money” because the description matched, but one thing that Geraldine didn’t say (that I would definitely had said) is that if MJ was truly guilty, he would have settled the case in August 1993, or most certainly as soon as he knew he had to be stripped searched! He went through with the strip search BECAUSE he was innocent!

    Also, it’s ironic that he tried to make it seem like the settlement was a sign of guilt, when later that year he settled a sexual harassment lawsuit from a female employee! That’s karma for you!

    Geraldine did the best she could, but the case is too complex to be explained in 5 minutes, which is about how long this interview probably lasted. He also forced Aphrodite Jones to do a short interview where he interrupted her half the time!

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110184,00.html

  107. Suzy permalink
    July 18, 2010 8:20 am

    I’d like to ask what everybody thinks about Geraldine Hughes? I know our David thinks the Sodium Amytal story is a very important element of the Chandler case, but Geraldine doubts it ever happened. Here is her interview with the Reflecion o the Dance website: http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/Interview-with-Geraldine-Hughes.html

    In her opinion it was a fabrication of the Chandlers to make it seem as if Jordan came up with the allegations spontaneously. But she thinks he was trained to say everything he said, by non other than Barry Rothman.

    To me it doesn’t make a big difference whether Sodium Amytal was used on Jordan or not. It’s only important in determining whether he knowingly lied or he was hypnotized into thinking he was molested. To be honest, I can imagine he knowingly lied. Especially when you look at his testimony and see how detached and emotionless he seems about his claims. Someone who believes he was molested would show a bit more emotion, in my opinion (even if he wasn’t really molested – but what matters is what he believes to be true). Also didn’t Pellicano say Jordan once told him his father was only after money?

    I don’t know how Evan got Jordan go with him, but there are thousands of ways to manipulate a child into lying for you. So I can see it happening no matter how much of a fan of MJ he was before. Blood is thicker than water at the end of the day.

    Hughes also makes interesting claims about the 2005 case. Here it is:

    “February was the month that the investigator Sneddon met with the Mom and found out that at that point, the kids hadn’t slept with Michael in his room. They went back to the ranch. They had to go back a third time just to say “Oh, we want to sleep with you now. We want to sleep in your bed.” That was planned. That was calculated. That was in February when the investigator talked to them and they found out that, as of that time, they hadn’t slept in Michael’s room or in his bed. So they went back. That was their third trip to the ranch.

    DK: Sneddon talked to Janet Arvizo ahead of time, and then the kids started sleeping in his room?

    GH: The whole conspiracy, all of the conspiracy theories are in my second book. What happened was, the investigator, after the airing of that documentary, the investigator Sneddon, who has been after Michael forever, trying to prove him a child molester. He went and personally talked with Janet Arvizo, they talked in a parking lot, in a car, and that’s not proper for a prosecutor to turn into an investigator. Because now, you’re supposed to be a witness, and you’re not supposed to be able to witness as a prosector. At that point, when he went and met with Janet, he turned into a witness. So that move on his part was very improper and so it’s very suspicious to a lot of people as to him having a hand in this in the very beginning. Considering that when he talked with her initially, they had been to the ranch several times. A lot of the times they were there, Michael wasn’t there.

    He found out that they had not slept in his room, so they went back the third time, their only reason for going back was to accomplish the goal of sleeping in his room and they bugged him like “Michael, we want to sleep in your room, in your bed. Oh, we want to sleep with you Michael,” you know.

    Galvin Arvizo stated in the Martin Bashir documentary that he did in fact sleep in Michael Jackson’s bed, and that Michael Jackson slept on the floor with his body guard. Tom Sneddon met privately with Janet Arvizo in the parking lot and after said meeting changed her allegation that Michael Jackson was exploiting her children, to Michael Jackson had molested her children.

    Michael was so cautious. Michael has been cautious with letting kids sleep in his room. As a matter of fact, there has been no children that has slept in his room or his bed since ’93. Everybody seemed to think that’s something he’d been doing. No, he hasn’t. And he hired, he had an employee that he had hired, and this guy’s only job was, when children was at Michael’s house, was to supervise and to be a supervisor and keep an eye on the kids. So when they came back wanting to sleep in his room and in his bed, Michael told them, “Well, I’ll let you sleep in my bed, but I’m going to sleep on the floor,” and him and his supervisor, they bedded up on the floor and let the kids sleep in his bed. Those kids never slept with Michael, ever, never, and when they finally did get an opportunity to sleep in his room and in his bed, Michael, along with his hired supervisor, was on the floor. He had somebody there, witnessing, and let me tell you what the prosecutor did. This was one of the guys that he labeled an unnamed, you remember there were about 3 or 4 people that were unnamed. What he did, it was like a threat. “If you come forward, if you do anything, we’re going to prosecute you too.” That’s what it was. It was to keep them out of the limelight, out of the media. To keep them from saying anything because you’re a potential perpetrator here, so you can’t say nothing to nobody. But he was really one of the best witnesses that Michael had.”

    So she thinks the whole thing was a set-up by Tom Sneddon! Interesting. It’s also interesting how they eliminated Frank Cascio (he was the friend of Michael’s who slept in the room with them) as a potential witness.

  108. Suzy permalink
    June 29, 2010 7:32 pm

    Thing is that they NEEDED to bring in the conspiracy charge otherwise the molestation charge would not have made any sense either! (Not that it did much sense with the conspiracy charge, but it was even weaker without it.)

  109. David permalink
    June 29, 2010 4:51 pm

    Here’s an article from June 2005 about Sneddon, where he discusses the trial. One thing that jumped out at me is the fact that former Sheriff Jim Thomas said that the prosecution had regrets about putting Janet Arvizo on the stand, and that they wouldn’t charge MJ with conspiracy if they had to do it again. Below is an excerpt from the article:

    (And then, of course, there was the accuser’s mother. She was particularly important to the case because she provided much of the evidence for the conspiracy charge, in which Jackson was accused of imprisoning the accuser and his family and trying to ship them off to Brazil. Some legal analysts suggested during the trial that the conspiracy charge was distracting and weak, and the prosecution should never have pursued it.

    Thomas says he believes the prosecution wondered the same thing.

    “I think they still debate that among themselves,” he says. “If they had to do it again, I think the consensus would probably be stick to the molestation,” and skip the conspiracy.)

    Think about this: if they truly believed that the Arvizos were held hostage, then why do they subsequently have to second guess the conspiracy charge? I’ll tell you why: it’s because they DID NOT believe that it happened! Remember, it wasn’t until MJ was INDICTED that they brought up the conspiracy charge. If there was ANY truth to it, he would have been charged with it when he was ARRESTED in November 2003 after 5 months of being “investigated”.

    According to Gavin’s first story, MJ molested them BEFORE the rebuttal video was shot, and then the video was supposed to cover it up. But when Sneddon found out about MJ’s alibis after his arrest, Gavin’s story and dates changed! In his “revised” story, they were kidnapped & held hostage at Neverland against their will, then they shot the rebuttal to deny a molestation that never happened, and then after all of that MJ started molesting them! And remember, the dates of molestation changed from Feb. & March 2003, to ONLY March 2003!

    Sneddon concocted the conspiracy charge in order to justify why the family was at Neverland for so long after Gavin started being molested, and the Arvizo’s subsequently went along with it. I don’t believe it was their idea to say they were “held hostage”.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401676.html

  110. Susan permalink
    June 29, 2010 2:42 pm

    What is so outrageous to me is that people are not more outraged!

    The fact that Sneddon and his accomplices targeted an innocent man, going well beyond normal investigative practices simply to “get” Michael Jackson speaks of corruption on the highest level. And nobody seems to care. I care and I know you, VindicateMJ, and your readers do too. Sneddon’s pursuit was pathological. Had this been anyone but Michael Jackson would he have been so determined? There must be some way this man can be held accountable. People need to know the truth.

    Appreciate all your research and that of your readers.

  111. Suzy permalink
    June 29, 2010 11:59 am

    I wonder what Sneddon REALLY believes. I think he does believe MJ was a pedophile simply because he thinks with all his “weirdness” he must be. Typical narrow-minded person just like his buddy, Diane Dimond. And he let his prejudice get in the way of objectivity – to the point of even lying and a falsifying evidence. Because he thought MJ was guilty, he probably felt that justified. But that is not professional behaviour. Whether you like someone or not, you have to be fair and rely on facts and not what YOU WANT to achieve in a case.

  112. David permalink
    June 29, 2010 2:07 am

    Another thing you may want to mention about Sneddon and his malicious prosecution is the fact that they tried to ask the Judge to bar the public from the courtroom when Gavin gave his testimony during the trial.

    The California Penal Code has ruled that if an accuser is 16 or younger, the judge can decide to bar the public from the courtroom during his testimony, because it could be too embarrassing and traumatic for the accuser to testify in front of everyone.

    But what’s ironic about that request is that Gavin testified in front of everyone during his depositions and grand jury proceeding, so why would he have problems testifying in the trial? Judge Melville thus ruled that the public could remain in the courtroom during his Gavin’s testimony.

    I’m glad that Melville put MJ’s constitutional right to confront his accuser in court ABOVE Gavin’s so-called right to privacy. I think Sneddon made this request so that Gavin WOULDN’T HAVE TO BE CROSS EXAMINED!!! It was a pathetic attempt by the prosecution to play games, and to gamble and hope that the judge ruled in their favor, but they lost.

    It shows how much confidence Sneddon had in Gavin’s testimony!! The article below talks about this in more detail:

    http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/commentary/20050202_spilbor.html

  113. June 29, 2010 12:14 am

    What’s this man doing in his retirement-biting the heads off chickens!!
    Considering the timeline both accusations has anyone investigated forces that were anti-Michael being behind them? I mean like Sony, other companies/people wanting his catalog? Just an example-there are many evil forces in the industry.
    I’ve never read of an investigation being done, but certainly have read suggestions that it should be done. SB

Trackbacks

  1. You Don’t Have To Be a “Crazy, Rabid Fan” To Know That Michael Jackson Was INNOCENT!! « Vindicating Michael
  2. Fact Checking the “Michael Jackson Facts Info” HATER’S website, Part 3 « Vindicating Michael

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 981 other followers

%d bloggers like this: