Skip to content

He was NOT circumcised

November 21, 2009

Why would Jordan Chandler repeatedly refuse to testify in court – both in 1993 and 2005?  Why would he change his whereabouts THREE times since the 2005 case began and avoid speaking at the trial at all costs?

The reason why Jordan’s evidence could not have stood ground in court was that there was one MAJOR CONTRADICTION between his words and the actual fact. This major inconsistency was found during Michael’s 25-minute strip search which proved Jordan had been wrong in his description of Michael’s genitalia.

According to Randy Taraborrelli,

  • “All eyes peered at him to see if he was circumcised, as Jordy had claimed. HE WASN’T.”

The stories told in newspapers at the time make your hair stand on end at the horror and humiliation Michael had to go through. The prosecutors made Michael quit the rehabilitation course in the UK (thus almost nullifying the result of his anti-drug therapy) and summoned him back to the country. And though the media was hissing that Michael was “hiding away from justice” he proved all the sceptics wrong by returning home on December 10, 1993.

The strip search was held just before Christmas (on December 20, 1993) and was so horrifying a procedure that reading about it is quite an ordeal in itself.  I wonder how he could survive it at all…

Considering that Michael was not arrested then and there after the strip search how could anyone ever believe such an outrageous lie? There has NEVER any evidence to substantiate Jordan Chandler’s claim. The fact that he was not arrested and no charges were ever brought against him even after a 13 months investigation proves that the description did NOT match. A member of the grand jury in 1994 even said to CNN:

  • “NO damaging evidence was heard.”

On January 27, 1994 (two days after the settlement with the Chandlers) the result of the strip search was reported in a tiny piece of news saying that the accuser’s description given to the police was not accurate. Reuters said it was no match:

  • “Photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct.”

This information however went virtually unnoticed. It was mentioned by three major media outlets and that’s it. In fact everyone was so thrilled with the news of the financial settlement with the alleged ‘victim’ that no one really noticed that there was actually NOTHING TO PAY FOR.

25 Comments leave one →
  1. July 26, 2011 5:45 am

    @ Anna,

    Sorry I forgot about my comment and your request for more information.

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

    Like

  2. Anna permalink
    April 2, 2011 4:53 am

    @Dialdancer

    Yeah, see if you can find something official on that Dialdancer. It would definitely prove even more Sneddon’s vendetta against Michael and that pursuing the 2003-2005 case had more to do with punishing Michael for what he believed he was guilty of in 1993.

    Like

  3. Dialdancer permalink
    April 2, 2011 4:50 am

    “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.””

    If that is the case then why did they still have those damned photos TEN YEARS later? What is the legal precedence that allowed them to hold on to photos that long?

    There is something about the six years statue of limitation on child molestation cases in California that pricks at my subconscious. It has to do with the 93 attorneys advising a delay to Michael which of course was denied by the judge, but I don’t know why that strategy feels so wrong. Why would the attorneys expect anyone to go along with that?

    Like

  4. Dialdancer permalink
    April 2, 2011 4:19 am

    @ Lynette,

    “He had Mark Geragos for his first attorney and he has made a reputation for himself for “pleading out” or plea bargaining a case. Sneddon and Geragos met 2-3 times prior to the official charges in 2004 in preparation for the official charges. This is where I am certain that Sneddon offered a lesser charge with the promise of probation but wanted Michael to have to be registered as a sex offender”

    Well…. heck, I received an email asking about this in connection with Neverland’s actual worth. I told my friend basically the same thing, but I think either Geragos did not mention the Sex Offenders Registry to Michael, he may have been informed of that by Oxman or Sanger, he was also informed that Allred/Libermann would immediate petition for the removal of his children from him. Or MJ felt he could not longer trust his attorney to do his best if he would bring him such a deal. I am currently looking for a video interview or article that may make this offer of a deal by Sneddon a fact rather than theory. It could also explain why there was firing and hiring in the Defense camp and Michael’s late night calls seeking reassurance of lawyer loyalty from Mesereau.

    It is an interesting thought, it would explain why there was no DNA collected at his arrest, why no case was prepared. Sneddon due to his own perceptions of MJ’s in 93 underestimated him, believed he’d take the deal rather than face the threat of prison.

    Like

  5. March 23, 2011 11:54 am

    “What does all of this have to do with allegations of child molestation? It’s simple, if you know what borders Neverland. To the south of Neverland is Midland College Prep school (a boys boarding school) and an elementary school is across Figaroa Mountain Road. A registered sex offender can’t live within a certain number of feet from a school in California and Michael would have become a registered sex offender even if he would have been found guilty of just showing those boys “girlie magazines”.”

    Lynette, it is a most insightful comment! This information should be spread further, so I added it as an update to another of your posts connected with Tom Sneddon – https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/no-evidence-of-evidence/

    It would be a good idea by the way to copy the article from the link you’ve provided telling us of numerous cases of Tom Sneddon abusing power – http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/contributors/sneddon_allegations_michael_jackson.htm

    In the comments the author of the article, K. C. Arceneaux (2004), made some interesting conclusions and referred to his sources as this was demanded of him by some of his readers:

    “I am of the opinion that the Jackson case is at heart a civil rights issue, and could prove to be a vanguard case for years to come. Our constitutional freedoms depend on the impartiality of the law, and whether or not a crime has been committed, rather than personal opinions about the accused. I am also of the opinion that there is enough history to civil rights abuse cases in Santa Barbara County, in addition to those detailed in the article, that the issue should be raised as to whether or not the DA should be removed from the case”.

    “A Google search will confirm the Beeghly information, as in: http://www.ucsbdailynexus.com/news/2002/3813.html

    The source for the Dunlap interview is given. It exists in audio and transcript forms. The information is backed up by court documents, obtainable by request through Santa Barbara County. There are also numerous newspaper articles (Santa Barbara News Press, and others) that report on the Dunlap case.

    Other cases are Cruz, MacKenzie, Richardson (separate cases), vs County of Santa Barbara. Sundaram’s case was heard in Federal Court, in Los Angeles.”

    “… The point here is civil rights. It doesn’t matter if a person is a biker, a gang member, Hispanic, black, white or other, or if he is Michael Jackson. The law should be applied fairly to everyone. Sundaram was charged but never convicted. The biker’s were charged but not convicted. Cruz was convicted and encarcerated, but the fact is, a court judged that he did not commit the murder. The question is equal application of the law for everyone. If that does not happen, then no one is safe.”

    Like

  6. Suzy permalink
    March 23, 2011 11:37 am

    @ Helena

    P.S. We should probably ask Brett Barnes if he remembers the way the police interviewed him in 1993.

    We can ask him and I’d be interested in what he has to say, but we already know the police is lying in this article since Mesereau presented the interview they did with Jason Francia while Francia was on the stand. It’s there that they were lying to him about other boys (such as Macaulay Culkin and Corey Feldman) having been molested by Michael, they were pressuring him to come up with something, to which Jason was like “I don’t remember it happening but I’m working on it” (I’m paraphrasing).

    Mary A. Fischer was spot on in her article and Brett Fields is spot on in this article about the police’s tactics in questioning boys. It’s proven by the documents Meserau presented in court. Even so, only Jason Francia fell for it of all the boys the police questioned – “incidentally” the same boy whose mother accepted money from tabloids for her claims…

    Like

  7. March 23, 2011 9:08 am

    “it’s interesting to see the stark contrast in how Sneddon and the Santa Barbara police treated the MJ case and how they treated this case which most probably involved REAL p-les (the church carried out their own investigation and they admitted it)! They just shrug it off saying prosecution is unlikely because of the statue of limitations…in MJ’s case Sneddon changed the law to expand the statue of limitations and for 12 years turned every stone to somehow convict him. Meanwhile he just shrugs off a case that involved at least 34 victims and basically does nothing about that one citing the statue of limitations…..This makes me think it was about something else than Sneddon thinking MJ was a CM. Frankly, racism and jealousy are the only other things I can think of.”

    Suzy, you’ve mentioned only Sneddon’s inexplicable zeal in persecuting Michael, but how can we explain the media’s unprecedented effort in doing the same? Or Larry Feldman leaking Jordan Chandler’s 1993 declaration on the day of Bashir’s documentary going on air in 2003 though it was his obligation to observe the interests of his client – Jordan Chandler? Or him taking Arvizo’s case personally to Sneddon after the DFCS refused to accept it, though he himself even didn’t believe it as he admitted to Larry King later?

    All this fits very well into the phrase I remember someone saying at the very beginning of this nightmare: “This guy should be stopped”. It seems that this was the idea behind their joint efforts in Michael’s harassment and their common understanding that “he should be stopped”. How they were going to stop him didn’t really matter – everything was good enough as the end justified the means.

    To me this phrase means not only Michael’s care for children – but his success, musical career and influence of his ideas on the public in general.

    Like

  8. March 23, 2011 8:38 am

    “He and his officers harassed Jason Francia, Brett Barnes, Wade Robson, and other kids into making false claims, and they leaked critical info to the media in order to hurt him in the court of public opinion”.

    Guys, I see that I’m hopelessly behind you and need a lot of catching up to do.

    Since I’ve started with the earliest comments, here is some proof for what David said about the police harassing children into making false claims against Michael. Bert Fields, Michael’s defense attorney (before Johnnie Cochran) sent a letter of complaint about it to the police. Larry Feldman naturally used this opportunity to spread his lies about Michael in the press. He accused Michael’s side with “trying the case in the press” while it was actually him who was doing it on a full scale:

    Jackson’s Lawyers Attack LAPD Investigation
    November 17, 1993|JIM NEWTON, TIMES STAFF WRITER

    “In response to mounting legal pressure, lawyers for Michael Jackson have accused police officers of telling outrageous lies and of using “any device to generate potential evidence” against the entertainer, who is accused of sexually molesting a 13-year-old boy.
    “I am advised that your officers have told frightened youngsters outrageous lies, such as, ‘We have nude photos of you’ in order to push them into making accusations against Mr. Jackson,” lawyer Bertram Fields wrote in an Oct. 28 letter to Police Chief Willie L. Williams. “There are, of course, no such photos of these youngsters, and they have no truthful accusations to make. But your officers appear ready to employ any device to generate potential evidence against Mr. Jackson.”

    Fields added that “these tactics are not merely inappropriate, they are disgraceful.”

    Fields’ accusations–the latest leveled by the Jackson camp against the entertainer’s adversaries–are attached to a motion in the boy’s lawsuit against Jackson and were obtained Tuesday by The Times. They were dismissed by the president of the Los Angeles Police Commission and derided by the lawyer for the boy whom Jackson allegedly molested.

    The lawyer, Larry R. Feldman, said that even if the accusations were true, they would have no bearing on the boy’s lawsuit against Jackson because the suit does not involve the LAPD or its officers.

    “Attaching this letter to this motion is further evidence that they intend to try this case in the press, not in the courtroom,” Feldman said. “This letter has nothing to do with a stay, nothing to do with the depositions. It has nothing to do with the civil case at all.”

    Gary Greenebaum, president of the Police Commission, had no comment on the civil suit, but he said Fields’ accusations about the conduct of the LAPD are unfounded.

    “My sense of the investigation by the LAPD is that it has been very, very thorough, very, very careful and very, very cautious,” said Greenebaum, who received a copy of Fields’ letter. “I’ve felt very good about the way the department has handled it.”

    Cmdr. David J. Gascon, an LAPD spokesman, declined to comment. Howard Weitzman, Jackson’s criminal attorney, echoed the allegations made by Fields. “Investigating officers have misrepresented the state of the evidence in an attempt to trick people into saying things that are untrue,” Weitzman said.

    In a brief completed by Feldman on Tuesday, he argued that the judge presiding over the boy’s lawsuit should reject Jackson’s efforts to delay the case. [Bert Fields was trying to delay the civil case and insisted on criminal proceedings going first!]

    Attorneys for Jackson have said the case should be put on hold until the criminal investigation is concluded or postponed for six years, when the statute of limitations for the crime of child molestation would expire. [BS]

    Legal analysts give that suggestion little weight, especially because Jackson is seeking to block lawyers for the boy from interviewing witnesses in the case. [I think they imply Michael because all the others were interviewed. However the article doesn’t mention that the Chandlers were never deposed because they didn’t want to be cross-examined by Michael’s lawyers].

    Although Jackson could refuse to answer questions by exercising his constitutional right not to be forced to incriminate himself, legal experts say it would be highly unusual for a judge to agree to block lawyers from interviewing other witnesses.
    Feldman has also argued that the boy has a right to proceed with the suit so he can put the case behind him. As part of the document he submitted Tuesday, Feldman included a statement from the boy’s therapist, who states that a long delay could hurt the boy’s chances for recovery. [This was one of those soap opera arguments that enabled Feldman to place the civil suit before a criminal trial].

    “I believe that it would be extremely harmful to the emotional health and well-being of my patient if there is a delay in the legal proceedings in this case,” psychotherapist Nancy Cotterman-Garcia said in a declaration dated Nov. 11. “I further believe that a significant postponement of the court proceedings, such as the six-year delay requested by the defendant, will cause severe emotional distress to this child and interfere with his chances for recovery.”

    In his brief, Feldman added that a long delay in the civil case would make it much more difficult to gather evidence [Isn’t evidence gathered under criminal proceedings too and absolutely for free for the “victim” – so why pay Larry Feldman for gathering evidence instead?]

    “Many of the witnesses are not residents of the United States,” he wrote. “It will be difficult, if not impossible, to locate them six years hence. Some may die, some may forget, or at the very least, their memories will have faded.”[No one would have waited for 6 years if the civil suit had been put off until the criminal proceedings were over! Larry Feldman is just playing with words to distort the whole picture!]

    Along with legal arguments, attorneys for both sides traded accusations about who has most aggressively courted media attention in the case.

    According to Jackson’s lawyers, Feldman “has deliberately sought out publicity as frequently as he possibly could, fueling the publicity fire at every opportunity, conducting a press conference about the case, offering to go on television talk shows to discuss it and even inviting the media to hearings.” [RIGHT!]

    For his part, Feldman notes that Jackson’s lawyers called a news conference Monday–an elegant affair at a Century City hotel that was attended by more than 100 journalists from around the world–and used it to repeat the charges that his client’s father tried to extort $20 million from Jackson. Feldman calls that charge a “slanderous allegation.”

    “The (boy), unlike defendant Michael Jackson, does not crave publicity,” Feldman wrote. He “has no experience grabbing his crotch on stage, has no experience dealing with the media and has been made an unwilling object of publicity.”

    The stream of news conferences by Jackson’s camp has subjected the boy to a “constant barrage of false and demeaning publicity while (the boy) is deprived of any opportunity to have the truth of his allegations determined by a court and jury,” Feldman added. [ He says it in such a way as if the Chandlers ever wanted to go to a criminal court! Remember how the same Larry Feldman spoke of a possibility of the criminal proceedings going first – in Ray Chandler’s book – and that Evan was horrified to hear that?]

    The testy exchange of documents between lawyers in the case came days after Jackson abruptly halted his world tour and dropped out of public view. Jackson released an audiotape in which he said the pain of recent scalp surgery combined with the pressure of the child molestation allegations had caused him to develop an addiction to painkillers.

    Jackson’s lawyers say the entertainer, who has not been heard from since last week, is seeking treatment at an undisclosed facility outside the country.
    *
    The documents obtained Tuesday include a sworn deposition from Jackson’s personal physician, David Forecast, backing up the statement that Jackson is under treatment for drug addiction.

    “I am now participating, with other medical doctors, in treating Mr. Jackson for present addiction to prescription painkillers,” Forecast states. “This treatment is being administered by specialists in the field at a location which we have deliberately not disclosed, since the likely massive incursions by the media if the location were known would frustrate Mr. Jackson’s cure.”
    Forecast’s declaration was executed in London, but he states that “I do not mean to indicate to the court that this is where Mr. Jackson is being treated.”

    During Jackson’s world tour, which began last summer, Forecast was periodically called to aid the entertainer. Shortly after the tour began, for instance, Forecast rushed to Singapore after Jackson collapsed backstage.

    Forecast said then that Jackson was suffering from migraine headaches. No mention was made of the singer’s use of painkillers until after the tour was halted last week in Mexico City”.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-17/local/me-57719_1_michael-jackson

    P.S. We should probably ask Brett Barnes if he remembers the way the police interviewed him in 1993.

    Like

  9. Dialdancer permalink
    March 21, 2011 7:03 am

    This is one of the best and more factual Wikipedia articles on the 93, 03 allegations and the persons involved I’ve seen.

    Initially anyone could edit or add information to any subject without verifying the information.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson

    Like

  10. lynande51 permalink
    March 21, 2011 2:01 am

    Yes it was about Money and Power the two most powerful corruptors and aphrodisiacs in the world. Let’s not forget that Ray Chandler lived in Santa Barbara and attended the law school located there and Sneddon was a teacher at that law school. In 1993 he was a contractor doing construction. Was he also a member of The Chamber of Commerce?

    Like

  11. March 21, 2011 1:45 am

    That’s really interesting Lynande.

    What was it Evan says on the tapes about there being a big plan that’s out of his hands?

    Remember how back then he also wanted to get a hold of Michael’s finances? In order to exceed the $20 million, but could’ve been for other reasons too.

    And then in the 2005 trial as has been posted here there were many lies about how dire MJ’s finances were…

    Like

  12. lynande51 permalink
    March 21, 2011 1:30 am

    After reading many of the pleadings and the witness list for the defense and prosecution I can say without hesitation that the 2005 trial was nothing short of an abuse of power. Sneddon continues to say that he believed in the Arvizos and his case simply because to do differently would be admitting that he knowingly prosecuted an innocent man. He did it for political gain and no other reason. He said that he was going to retire in 2006 and not run for DA again. He never said what his retirement plans were. He saw a prosecution of a high profile case as a stepping stone to a higher office. Remember that we have had many politicians that have been over 65 when they were elected to another office.
    In the early 1990’s Sneddon was friends with a man named Brooks Firestone. He was a California State Assemblyman. Brooks Firestone also owned a vineyard and winery. It was “rumored “that he had originally wanted to buy Sycamore Valley Ranch later to become Neverland Valley ranch but was out bid by Michael Jackson. Now all that seems inconsequential until you find out that the largest industry in California is not entertainment but agriculture specifically Grapes for wine. He lost a lot of potential income when he lost out on the ranch.
    Now on the witness list for the defense is a dentist by the name of Thambiah Sundaram who said he had overheard a conversation at a local Chamber Of Commerce meeting amongst some people that included Sneddon and Firestone. At this meeting he overheard them discussing the” Michael Jackson problem”.
    What does all of this have to do with allegations of child molestation? It’s simple, if you know what borders Neverland. To the south of Neverland is Midland College Prep school (a boys boarding school) and an elementary school is across Figaroa Mountain Road. A registered sex offender can’t live within a certain number of feet from a school in California and Michael would have become a registered sex offender even if he would have been found guilty of just showing those boys “girlie magazines”.
    I think that Sneddon thought Michael would not take this to trial. He had Mark Geragos for his first attorney and he has made a reputation for himself for “pleading out” or plea bargaining a case. Sneddon and Geragos met 2-3 times prior to the official charges in 2004 in preparation for the official charges. This is where I am certain that Sneddon offered a lesser charge with the promise of probation but wanted Michael to have to be registered as a sex offender ( you can become a registered sex offender if you are caught streaking when you are over the age of 18 with minors present). If he would have done that Michael would have had to give up Neverland, Sneddon would have had powerful political backing and Brooks Firestone would have had his property.
    However when Michael refused to do this Sneddon got mad and had no choice but to prosecute him because he had made such a public spectacle of the charges. When Michael was found not guilty after everything they went through and the cost of the trial (odd how they held 3 million in bail against Neverland which is coincidentally the cost of the trial) how could he or the rest of the DA office change their minds and admit to what they did. They would be held criminally responsible.
    http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/contributors/sneddon_allegations_michael_jackson.htm

    Like

  13. March 20, 2011 8:43 pm

    lynande51 permalink
    March 20, 2011 2:16 am

    The interesting part about the news from Reuters is that in th eentire world only 3 publications printed it. It was found in USA Today, The Orlando Sentinal and The Guardian in Scotland. They buried in the papers and never broadcast it so the media had control of the story to spin it anyway they wanted. If Michael had matched at the time he would have been arrested on the spot because that would have been their smoking gun.

    This is what Lisa Marie said happened on Prime Time.

    On top of those priests, he was also given a name of a real molester by Corey Feldman and he and all the other police ignored it.

    Just like with all the other hater’s obsession with MJ and kids, I do not believe their real concern was that he was a ped-le and never ever was his concern about the children.

    Like

  14. justice permalink
    March 20, 2011 6:48 pm

    Sneedon knew Michael was innocent. He wanted Michael out of Santa Barbara,,,,he said so.
    It was pure hatred, jealousy, and envy.

    Like

  15. Teva permalink
    March 20, 2011 4:58 pm

    @David & Shelly,

    Actually Sneddon’s law change that a criminal trial must precede a civil trial on the grouds of CM worked in MJ’s favour. Imagine if that law had not changed and Michael had to be cross examined by Larry Feldman in a civil trial, or again be forced to settle to avoid being deposed, and tipping his defense stretegy to Sneddon & Zonen. Sneddon unwittingly did him a favour.

    Like

  16. Teva permalink
    March 20, 2011 4:39 pm

    @David

    I NEVER said I believed Sneddon had a pure heart and was objective in his investigation. What I said was I 100% believed that he thought MJ was guilty. Sneddon started on the premise that Michael was a P and went from there. You and I both know that Pedophiles are the underbelly of society, and if something bad happens to one it is justifiable because they had it coming. I am merely suggesting Sneddon justified his actions because of this universal believe. Yes, he had every right to investigate MJ that is his job, but he went overboard, the consistent Neverland raids, the Bradley Miller debacle, changing the law, the trips to Manila, Australia, etc those THOSE WERE GRAVY. He didn’t have to do all that but he did. Do you honestly believe that Sneddon thought MJ was innocent? The man had Michael Jackson in his cross hairs for a decade. Frankly the feelings between Michael Jackson and Thomas Sneddon were mutual. Sneddon was too emotionally attached to Michael to see straight, if he had the 2005 trial never would have taken place.

    Michael Jackson had a strange effect on people, he had the ability to make people obsessed. 12 fans killed themselves the day he died, and many are still here trying to fight for justice. Sneddon, Dimond, Orth, Grace and ilk could not get enough – they are opposite sides of the same coin. LMP said in her interview with O that Michael was like a drug to her – that’s powerful and scary. Sneddon was under the influence on the same drug.

    Like

  17. March 20, 2011 12:01 pm

    Lynette, the news about the wrong description that Jordan gave were reported repeatedly in other countries.

    Like

  18. shelly permalink
    March 20, 2011 10:47 am

    @lcpledwards,

    I am not saying that Sneddon was objective. What you forget is the kind of questioning they did with Robson, Francia, Feldman was something seen as normal in a child molestation case. Charles Thomson, in one of the post he made here, gave the title of a book about people wrongly accused of child molestation and you really should read it. I don’t remember the exact title, but I start reading it a few months ago and there were lots of crazy stuff that was done at that time. All the DAs who worked on those cases, they all strongly believe they were doing the right thing.

    You should also read the Outreau case, which is probably one of the most shameful episode of the french justice system.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outreau_trial#The_first_trial

    “Seven other people were acquitted, despite Delay-Badaoui telling the court in May that she had falsely accused 13 of those on trial – all except the two couples – of involvement in a paedophilia ring. ”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3852673.stm

    “Last year’s trial was thrown into disarray when one of the four – Myriam Delay – exonerated 13 other defendants, but later went back on her testimony.

    Seven defendants were cleared then.

    The trial damaged many lives. All the accused spent years in preventive detention and were barred from seeing their own children.

    One suspect committed suicide while in detention.

    Much of the evidence given by children during the trial was found to be inconsistent, and a number of experts were discredited. ”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4490088.stm

    Like

  19. Suzy permalink
    March 20, 2011 7:06 am

    I don’t know what to think about Sneddon’s motives. What David said is all true. He had no evidence and everything was pointing to extortion in both cases, but could he still think MJ was a CM? People sometimes have irrational beliefs and even if nothing supports their case they are deeply convinced of it based on prejudice. I think Sneddon could have been in this state of mind. The fact he celebrated after the trial (and before the jury made their judgment) shows the depth of his delusion. If, after this trial, he was sure he was winning I don’t know where he lived. When it came to MJ he seems to have lost all ability to think rationally.

    I posted this article in another thread the other day. It’s about 12 Catholic priests molesting young boys at the end of the 80s. It’s interesting for us because it happened in Santa Barbara and Sneddon’s name is mentioned in this article that was written in November, 1993 (so during the first allegations against Michael):

    “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

    That’s all it says about Sneddon and law enforcement in this article, but it’s interesting to see the stark contrast in how Sneddon and the Santa Barbara police treated the MJ case and how they treated this one, which most probably involved REAL p-les (I can say this because the church carried out their own investigation and they admitted it)! They just shrug it off saying prosecution is unlikely because of the statue of limitations. Remember how in MJ’s case Sneddon changed the law to expand the statue of limitations and for 12 years turned every stone to somehow convict him. Meanwhile he just shrugs off a case that involved at least 34 victims and basically does nothing about that one citing the statue of limitations…..

    So this makes me think it was about something else than Sneddon thinking MJ was a CM. Frankly, racism and jealousy are the only other things I can think of.

    Like

  20. lcpledwards permalink
    March 20, 2011 5:21 am

    @ Teva & Shelley
    I don’t believe that Sneddon had an honest and pure heart when he investigated and prosecuted MJ. I think he wanted a conviction, and not merely justice, and HIS ACTIONS PROVE THAT!

    For example, if he wasn’t prejudiced, and was actually objective in his investigation, then he would have properly investigated MJ’s extortion claims, and he would have had serious doubts about Evan Chandler’s actions, and his timeline (e.g. taking Jordan to see a psychiatrist when he lost custody of him, instead of taking him straight to the cops in July 1993). He also would have done a complete 180 turnaround after Jordan’s description proved to be a colossal mismatch, but instead he stubbornly continued to try to create a case out of thin air, and he used the same ad hominen techniques to try to prejudice the 1994 grand jurors into thinking MJ was guilty by asking certain witnesses if they thought MJ was a homosexual (I’ll discuss this in a future post).

    He and his officers harassed Jason Francia, Brett Barnes, Wade Robson, and other kids into making false claims, and they leaked critical info to the media in order to hurt him in the court of public opinion. He flew to other countries trying to find other “victims” (including Canada!), and instead of clearing MJ after the 2 grand juries refused to indict him, he left the case open and said that all he needed was another “victim” to come forward. He lied and said that Jordan’s description matched, when he knows damn well that it didn’t!

    I can name a lot of things that he did in the 2005 trial, but what stands out the most is the fact that he changed the dates after MJ’s alibi was revealed. (Read this post for more info: http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/changing-charges+changing-timeline=desperate-da-bullet-135.html) That should in and of itself prove that Sneddon was desperate for a trial and conviction, and let his prejudice influence his judgement. Also, he never impeached his own witnesses when they were caught lying! Instead, he made excuses for them!

    With all of the research that we’ve done on Sneddon on this site, I’m surprised that you would suggest that Sneddon may have been objective! If he was objective, it was ONLY in the very beginning of the 1993 case, but even still he should have looked at the totality of the evidence, and adequately looked into the extortion claims. Even though he couldn’t “relate” to MJ’s lifestyle and eccentricities, that doesn’t excuse his malicious PERSECUTION, not prosecution, of MJ! There was no reason for him to “thnk” that MJ was guilty, because there was a boatload of exculpatory evidence that proved otherwise!

    Watch the interview below and ask yourself of Sneddon was motivated by a desire to seek justice, or seek a conviction:

    And please go back and reread this post to see a compilation of Sneddon’s tactics: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/tom-sneddon-their-best-man-did-his-best-job-and-found-nothing-so-new-witnesses-are-required-not-to-disturb/

    Like

  21. Teva permalink
    March 20, 2011 5:05 am

    @Shelly,

    When you are a hammer everything looks like a nail.

    Like

  22. shelly permalink
    March 20, 2011 4:26 am

    I agree with you Teva. I think, he truly believe that MJ was guilty.

    Like

  23. Teva permalink
    March 20, 2011 4:03 am

    Is everyone here of the opinion that Sneddon & gang believed that Michael did not Mo..st anyone, and they were just putting on a show? I don’t believe that. I believed they 100% thought MJ was a CM and they used that to justified whatever they did, same as the media. IMO the media was a little different, but worst than Sneddon, they wanted him to have molested someone(s) so that they could have victims to interview, and all the spinoffs. Sneddon is a hard nose prosecutor in his world he is not going to see a Peter Pan only a pedophile. Firstly I think he went after Michael because he thought he was guilty, and secondly everything else he did after that was just gravy.

    Like

  24. lynande51 permalink
    March 20, 2011 2:16 am

    The interesting part about the news from Reuters is that in th eentire world only 3 publications printed it. It was found in USA Today, The Orlando Sentinal and The Guardian in Scotland. They buried in the papers and never broadcast it so the media had control of the story to spin it anyway they wanted. If Michael had matched at the time he would have been arrested on the spot because that would have been their smoking gun.

    Like

  25. Dialdancer permalink
    March 20, 2011 12:49 am

    I started reading from Vindicating Michael in the Mar-Apr 2010 time frame. I swear I’ve read each and every article from here at least 4 times. Today I read this very simple explanation and the picture of the trial and the Chander men reluctance to testify became crystal clear. The realization of what could have happen locked in my mind.

    This is more important than any witness. Jordan could do like Gavin and claim he was embarrassed so he lied, but this…….having to take the witness stand and explain how it was he was not aware Michael wasm’t circumcised would have been cataclysmic for so many people.

    Sneddon & Gang had to know this, they no more wanted Jordan testifying than they wanted their soiled undies put on public display. Unless Sneddon was truly insane or butt stupid he had to have known what any Defense Attorney would do.

    I have posted my thoughts about this article on several MJ sites and will on more.

    Thank You Helena

    Like

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

%d bloggers like this: