Still hesitating? And What If a Sneddon Comes After You?
Regarding William Wagener’s today’s affidavit about Sneddon’s criminal misconduct reader SMJ has left the following comment which was quite an eye-opener to me:
That’s an odd reaction from hardcore fans…but I’ll have to admit that I’ve been getting the same sort of thing from a couple of people…I think after the zoo that occurred the last years of MJ’s life, some fans feel like it’s a hopeless cause to pursue justice if the media had already conspired and dented public opinion. A lot of times people don’t look at little victories, and expect things to either turn around in an instant, or not happen at all. I don’t think a lot of them consider how integral Sneddon and his cronies were to forming and feeding that zoo, and how long it will take to set things right (maybe more than a decade).
To put Sneddon into jail would be, really, a very public and well deserved victory and act of justice. Maybe fans think that if this doesn’t succeed, society will NEVER give truth a chance, and they’re ashamed to take part in what they consider a “risk”. That’s what I’m getting from some hesitant people, at least. But it’s odd that they won’t even give an anonymous signature on a petition, even if they don’t want to send out letters. What’re they afraid of? Onslaught? How can you win if you don’t even try?
So some people are hesitating? And do not take action in support of William Wagener because they are afraid that the society will not give the truth a chance? And they even speak of some “risk”?
And who is the society I wonder? Aren’t these very people who are hesitating now part and parcel of the society and isn’t it their opinion which forms public opinion in the long run? Why do they think that their opinion does not matter? And where is the sense of responsibility of these people?
And what risk are they talking of? Do they risk their lives, health and freedom like some of our people do when they protest against the unlawful acts of our authorities? Do they risk to be detained for weeks or months for a mere showing up at a protest rally or be fined for thousands of dollars for a word of truth told in public which our authorities call “slander” for some reason?
If Americans doubt the effectiveness of protesting against one Sneddon what chances do we, Russians have in protesting thousands of our Sneddons then? Does your hesitation mean to convey to us that if you cannot cope with one Sneddon we have zero chances in fighting ours? What a disheartening example you are giving us!
Why are you beaten even before you try?
Oh, you are not supportive of William Wagener’s move because you are still not sure that Sneddon committed any unlawful acts? Then please read the analysis of a Findlaw columnist who – a year before the trial started – already saw that Sneddon’s behavior was an affront to the legislation system and an insult to human sense and dignity.
The article is headlined Evidence of Prosecution Bias in the Kobe Bryant and Michael Jackson Cases. Why It’s Troubling, and What Role It May Play at Trial, but for the sake of brevity I will omit the Kobe Bryant part and shorten it:
Evidence of Prosecution Bias in the Kobe Bryant and Michael Jackson Cases
Why It’s Troubling, and What Role It May Play at Trial
Friday, Jan. 02, 2004
Under legal ethics rules, defense lawyers have an ethical duty to “zealously” represent their clients. Many interpret that duty — properly, I think — to require them to go to the very limits of the law, though not beyond them, in their clients’ defense. But prosecutors have a very different duty: To ensure that justice is done. That means not only making sure there is strong evidence against the defendant before indicting him, but also making sure that he receives a fair trial.
Defense lawyers often get a hard time for pushing limits. They file motions that only have a slim chance of winning, and they raise defenses that may seem improbable at best. [ ] But when prosecutors are the ones who push limits in order to win their cases, it’s far more disturbing.
Recently, two prosecutors’ offices — in the Kobe Bryant, and Michael Jackson cases, respectively– flouted their duty to justice by exhibiting bias against the defendants they are prosecuting. Proof of this bias should be admitted during Bryant’s and Jackson’s trials, so the juries hearing their cases are aware that those with control of crucial evidence in the cases may not have been fair-minded toward the defendants.
… The duty of everyone in a prosecutor’s office is to seek justice through a fair trial — not to blindly seek the conviction of the defendant.
The Evidence of Prosecutorial Bias in the Jackson Case
Meanwhile, the evidence of prosecutorial bias in the Michael Jackson case is far more blatant and longstanding [than in Kobe Bryant’s case]. Indeed, it’s plain by now that Santa Barbara D.A. Tom Sneddon is so grossly biased against Jackson that he should no longer be on the case. And if Sneddon does remain on the case, it’s likely much of Jackson’s trial will be occupied with a mini-trial on the issue of Sneddon’s own longstanding bias toward Jackson.
In 1993, Sneddon handled the investigation of an earlier child abuse claim against Jackson. The claim ended in what was reportedly a multi-million dollar civil settlement; charged were never filed. Sneddon has admitted he was frustrated by this outcome.
In recent interviews, Sneddon has repeatedly implied that Jackson was guilty of the earlier 1993 child abuse charges. He has done so despite the fact that it was his own office that declined to ultimately file charges.
Sneddon has also claimed that it would be possible to somehow drag these charges into the current Jackson abuse case, supposedly on the ground that they evidence prior criminal behavior. But without a conviction, the charges, alone, ought to be ruled inadmissible. Evidence of prior criminal behavior that does not result in a conviction is a classic example of prejudicial evidence. A defendant who testifies in his own defense opens the door to the admission of prior convictions, not prior charges. And there is no prior conviction here. Whether or not this evidence is technically admissible, the judge should exclude it due to its prejudicial nature. Once the jury has heard Jackson has faced two claims of abuse, it will assume he is guilty.
The risk that the prosecutor’s office’s actions and comments will taint the jury pool — by convincing potential jurors of the defendant’s guilt even before they walk into the courtroom for jury selection — is plain.
Prosecutors are not supposed to personally vouch for a defendant’s guilt even at trial, let alone outside it; it’s the evidence, not the prosecutor’s opinion, to which the jury must look. And personally vouching — as Sneddon has done — for a defendant’s guilt with respect to a prior offense for which he was never criminally charged, is arguably an even lower blow.
Yet Sneddon’s inappropriate behavior does not end there. He has joked at a press conference that the Jackson case will at least inject money into California’s failing economy. And he has referred to Jackson on Court TV as “a guy everybody calls ‘Jacko Wacko.‘” (Sneddon did subsequently apologize for this comment — but only after his wife pointed out to him how inappropriate it was!)
Sneddon has also vouched for the credibility of the family whose child Jackson allegedly abused. He commented, “I think it would be really unfair to be talking about these people as if they want to get even with Michael Jackson or something like that.”
In making this comment, of course, Sneddon implicitly tried to discredit Jackson’s likely defense — that the alleged victim’s family seeks money — long before trial has even begun. The prosecution will have plenty of time to try to discredit the defense at trial; it need not get a head start with the potential jury pool before trial.
Why Prosecutorial Bias Can Matter: Prosecutors’ Control of Evidence in Criminal Cases
After reading the analysis above, readers may object, So what if the prosecutors are biased against the defendants? The defendants, in each case, will have terrific defense lawyers. They are wealthy, and they and their lawyers ought to be media-savvy by now. Surely that evens the playing field, doesn’t it?
The answer is: Not necessarily.
It’s well known that the Fifth Amendment’s “right to remain silent” and the Fourth Amendment’s right against unreasonable searches and seizures limit the prosecution’s ability to get evidence from the defendant. … But what is less well-known is how limited criminal defendants’ ability to get evidence from the prosecution is, given current rules of criminal procedure.
Suppose the prosecution has in its possession a piece of evidence that may help the defendant’s case. The defense, meanwhile, has no idea that this evidence exists. If the evidence is exculpatory — that is, if it tends to prove the defendant’s innocence — then the Supreme Court has ruled, in Brady v. Maryland, that according to constitutional due process, it must be turned over.
But who decides whether or not the evidence is indeed exculpatory? You guessed it: The prosecution. (And since the prosecution, by definition, believes the defendant is guilty — that’s why it indicted him, after all — it’s not going to be easily inclined to see even evidence that is quite favorable to the defendant as “exculpatory” under Brady.) That’s why it matters so much whether a prosecutor is biased, or fair-minded toward the defendant.
A fair-minded prosecutor is more likely to be evenhanded in dealing with evidence –– and will consider defense theories, even though he or she is not convinced by them, in deciding what evidence to hand over to the defense. A biased prosecutor will be stingy in giving over evidence.
Suppose the prosecution, indeed, fails to turn over exculpatory evidence. And suppose the defense suspects there exists a particular kind of record that is probably exculpatory, though it hasn’t yet received that record. The defense can then file a motion to try to convince the court to order the prosecution to produce any such exculpatory evidence. And if the defense is persuasive, it may get a court order urging the prosecution to comply with Brady.
But again, who decides what evidence, exactly, will be produced in response to the court order? You guessed it: The prosecution. The judge isn’t going to ransack the prosecutor’s file drawers and hand over to the defense copies of all the evidence the judge thinks is exculpatory. Instead, the judge will issue the order, and assume the prosecutor will comply. Thus, if the prosecutor isn’t conscientious in complying with the court order, the prosecutor’s failure to properly do so may never be discovered. In the end, only the prosecutor knows what lies within his own office’s files.
Now consider this: If you were Kobe Bryant or Michael Jackson, would you trust the D.A. in your case — given events that have occurred so far — to turn over all of the evidence in his files that might result in your being acquitted? My view is that for either defendant to trust his D.A. to be fair-minded, at this point, would be naive.
Let me repeat – a defense attorney is very much expected to be zealous in defending his client. However a prosecutor’s job is not to seek conviction by all means – his job is to ensure that justice is done. This is the fundamental principle for prosecutors’ work which is emphasized by all legal sources:
“When engaged as a prosecutor,
- a lawyer’s prime duty is not to seek to convict, but to see that justice is done through a fair trial on the merits;
- a lawyer must act fairly and dispassionately;
- a lawyer must not do anything that might prevent an accused from being represented by or communicating with counsel;
- a lawyer must make timely disclosure to the accused or defense counsel (or to the court if the accused is not represented) of all known facts and witnesses, whether tending towards guilt or innocence”.
The prosecutor does not have a duty to convict after evaluating all the evidence collected by the police. In case there is insufficient evidence the case should be dropped at the pre-trial stage and the person will still be regarded innoncent as another old legal principle, the presumption of innocence, says that everyone is innocent until found guilty:
- The Prosecutors duty and mandate is, TO SEEK JUSTICE. Occasionally this negates his duty to prosecute when he comes to the conclusion that insufficient evidence/information exists to prosecute an individual. This usually results in the prosecution entering a ‘Nolle Prosequi,’ and requesting that the case be dropped for “lack of prosecutorial merit.”
The need to drop the case “for lack of prosecutorial merit” in case of no incriminating evidence found reminded me of the Chandler 1993 case.
Ridiculous as the 2005 Arvizo case was, it nevertheless went to a trial, and this makes you wonder – how much weaker was the 1993 case if the District Attorneys of two counties were unable to bring charges even after a year long investigation? And two Grand juries found nothing to indict Jackson for after looking at all the ‘evidence’ collected and listening to 400 witnesses?
To see that the first case was weaker than the second, though it is presented by Sneddon and the media as something formidable, it would be enough to listen to Sneddon’s own words. And he expressed his disappointment with the jurors’ not-guilty verdict in 2005 by saying: “We thought we had a good case this time”.
The first thing we realize from this statement is that he thought the Arvizo case was good despite all its madness and absurdity. However the second point is even more mind-boggling than the first – the fact that he thought it was good this time brings home to us that Sneddon thought that the previous case, involving Jordan Chandler, was not that good or was weak even in comparison with the Arvizos!
Wow, but Sneddon practically exonerated Michael Jackson himself by his own words!
In the year 1994 the prosecutors had two Grand juries looking into the Chandler’s case but none of them found anything to indict Jackson for and this is why the case went nowhere as a result.
- ‘In felony cases the prosecutor may be required under law to obtain permission from a grand jury before she or he can prosecute the defendant. A grand jury is a panel of individuals that can reject a criminal prosecution for lack of evidence. If the grand jury returns a no bill, the defendant is not indicted and the case against the defendant must be dropped. If the grand jury returns a true bill, the defendant is indicted and the prosecution may proceed.” http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prosecutor
However no indictment and no charges didn’t stop Sneddon from spreading lies about Jackson though it was his own department, as the Findlaw analyst notes, which declined to ultimately file charges.
- “In recent interviews, Sneddon has repeatedly implied that Jackson was guilty of the earlier 1993 child abuse charges. He has done so despite the fact that it was his own office that declined to ultimately file charges” – Julie Hilden http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20040102.html
Even despite no indictment and no charges brought against Jackson Sneddon never stopped spreading “ideas” in the media, particularly via his special media friends – Diane Dimond and Maureen Orth. And this, among many other instances of the District Attorney’s misconduct was one of the gravest breaches of a prosecutor’s responsibilities.
Julie Hilden makes a crucial conclusion regarding this point which should be carved in stone and placed on the front entrance of every District Attorney’s office:
- Prosecutors are not supposed to personally vouch for a defendant’s guilt even at trial, let alone outside it;it’s the evidence, not the prosecutor’s opinion, to which the jury must look.
- And personally vouching — as Sneddon has done — for a defendant’s guilt with respect to a prior offense for which he was never criminally charged, is arguably an even lower blow.
Every legal source says it again and again that the Prosecutor’s job is not to convict but to seek the truth in the case, though some admit that this is what it’s like “in theory”:
- In theory, a prosecutor’s job is not to convict and send to prison as many persons as possible. The basic function of a prosecutor is to seek the truth about criminal actions. Thus, if a prosecutor discovers evidence that puts the defendant’s guilt in doubt or relieves the defendant of criminal liability, the prosecutor must turn that evidence over to the defendant. If a prosecutor lacks evidence of a defendant’s guilt, he or she must drop the charges or decline to press charges. In practice, prosecutors find that they are judged in the court of public opinion on the number of convictions that they obtain”.
In theory – yes, Sneddon was to seek the truth and turn over the evidence exonerating the accuser to his defense attorney. However in practice Sneddon failed to make the evidence of Jackson’s innocence available to the prosecution and stubbornly kept it to himself .
I am talking of the photos which showed that there was no match between Jordan Chandler’s description and MJ’s private parts in the 1993 case. Sneddon should have turned them over in 1994 (but never did) when Reuters and USA today reported that there was no match.
If he turns them over now it will serve as proof that he breached his obligations as a prosecutor by withholding the key evidence exonerating the defendant. This is probably why Sneddon is so tenacious about those photos and does not give them back – he doesn’t want anyone to know that he breached the law and withheld so crucial an evidence of Michael’s innocence.
However Sneddon went even to a greater length than a mere withholding of the truth – he fell as low as forging the evidence against Jackson. One of the instances known to us is his stunt at the Grand Jury hearings when he tried to obtain fingerprints of the Arvizo accuser by allowing him to handle the adult magazine belonging to Jackson. Since the magazines had been sealed after their seizure Sneddon used the opportunity of showing the magazines to the Grand Jury to get the boy’s fingerprints on one of them and later claim that Michael Jackson had looked at it together with the boy.
This Sneddon’s project turned out to be a flop as firstly, one of the members of the Grand Jury noticed that the boy was not wearing gloves when leafing through the magazine, and secondly, it was found out that the magazine was dated several months after the Arvizos had left Neverland and even in theory the boy could never see it together with MJ.
However you will agree that Sneddon’s idea to obtain the boy’s fingerprints in full view of the jury was a bold and impressive one, and suggestive that it wasn’t the first time Sneddon was practising it?
These false fingerprints is exactly what William Wagener will be giving his affidavit about to the Santa Barbara Supervisors.
Oh, you are still hesitating whether to support him?
And what if a similar kind of Sneddon comes after you? And forges your fingerprints to put you into jail?
* * *
Here is the petition which can still be signed in the few hours left before the affidavit:
- Target: Santa BarbaraCounty of California Supervisors
- Sponsored by: MichaelJackson SimForum
This petition serves to express our concern and belief that former District Attorney Thomas Sneddon committed at least three felonies against Mr. Michael Jackson during the 2005 trial of charges for child molestation.
On August 14, 2012, Mr. William Wagener will present to the County Supervisors of Santa Barbara an affidavit of criminal conduct committed by Mr. Thomas Sneddon during the 2005 trial of Mr. Michael Jackson. We support the effort to have a full investigation into the matter carried out by an independent special prosecutor; someone outside of Santa Barbara County.
We are outraged at the egregious misuse of power during the 2005 trial of Mr. Jackson. It is frightening to think that, in someone’s zeal to get a conviction, felonies can be committed by those sworn to uphold the law and seek truth.
We are concerned about the message this sends to future prosecutors who may be tempted to go beyond the boundaries of the law in order to fulfill personal agendas. Our court system is not a weapon to be used to satisfy personal vendettas or to gain personal notoriety, social status, or political power.
We ask that there be a full independent investigation into the claims made in Mr. Wagener’s affidavit of criminal conduct. Please hold those in power responsible for their crimes, and let full justice be extended to Michael Jackson, as well as others who have been or may in the future be victims of over zealous prosecutors.
Still hesitating whether to support?
Then listen to your conscience and do what it tells you to do.
AFFIDAVIT Of William J. Wagener
I hereby state, under penalty of Perjury, that it is my opinion, that I carefully observed in the actual courtroom significant fabricated false evidence that Prosecutors fabricated false evidence against an innocent man, and the most famous resident of Santa Barbara County, Michael Joseph Jackson. I have attended Law School, and over 400 court cases & Hearings. I also attended every day of Michael Joseph Jackson 2005 public Trial, except for 3 days of testimony & Verdict day June 13,2005. I said, in the Jury Pool, in 2005 during a break, shouldn’t Thomas Sneddon be indicted for faking fingerprint evidence. It is my firm opinion, prosecutors, Thomas Sneddon , Ron Zonen, Gordon Auchincloss, & Mag Nicola individually or in combination did with Malicious Malice of forethought, contrive, and fabricate false Fingerprint evidence on a Barely Legal Magazine that did not exist until more than 5 months after Gavin Arvizo admitted he was last at Neverland. Prosecutor then encouraged Gavin Arvizo to testify against Michael Joseph Jackson and to state on the record, that Michael Jackson gave him that specific magazine, which is impossible because it had not been printed until many months later. And that Thomas Sneddon, gave that specific magazine to Gavin Arvizo at the secret Grand Jury indictment hearing without any gloves on and afterward sent it out for Fingerprint Analysis, and if not for the court reporter capturing the comment of a grand juror about the lack of gloves on Gavin Arvizo at the Grand Jury, it might have lead to A conviction on fabricated evidence. Further, that a Prosecutor of more than 25 years experience does not make this mistake by accident. It is my firm opinion, that a objective jury trying Tom Sneddon for this felony, would find Tom Sneddon guilty as charged. Furthermore this was and continues to be FRAUD ON THE COURT, because the Prosecutors have pretended that nothing felonious was done by them, and no one from the pool of the Santa Barbara County District Attorneys office, will indict one of their own. What a surprise.
Second, Mag Nicala fabricated false evidence on dates of phone calls to make it appear That Michael may have made phone calls, but their own Prosecutor’s witness took the witness stand and stated that the Prosecutors had it all wrong, as seen on the over head projection, after it had been admitted as evidence. Prosecutors tried to remove it from Jury consideration, and Defense objected, and the Jury saw the blatant lie for what it was, just another of a long list of fabricated false evidence. It is my firm opinion that if and when Mr. Nicola is indicted by a jury of 12, they would find Mag Nicola guilty of felony fabrication of false phone contact evidence and FRAUD ON THE COURT.
Thirdly, It is my considered and firm opinion that the cooperation between the prosecutors to present fabricated evidence, to the court, and to the jury is FELONY Conspiracy, by The Prosecutors against a man the Jury found completely NOT GUILTY of all 10 original Charges plus that last minute 4 misdemeanors. This Conspiracy and the silence of a corrupt Santa Barbara District Attorneys office for 7 years and continuing is an On going felony and stops the Statute of Limitations from running, in my opinion. One can not escape Justice by continuing the fraud on the court, on the public.
Lastly, there appears to be many other felonies committed in the 2005 trial, that a good and honest prosecutor could find. But I am limiting this affidavit to these three, and it is Your duty under your oath of office to see that these four do not escape true justice. It is valuable to the community to know that justice is applied equally and that none are above the law, not even prosecutors, who commit willfully and maliciously FRAUD UPON THE COURT, and felonious Fabrication of Evidence against a man, who even the F.B.I. found faultless. In my opinion, and can never be, a statute of limitation for FRAUD ON THE COURT, and wilful Fabrication of Felonies in due process of rightful law, While the evidence is on the Court record, which it certainly is, and is NOT in dispute.
As a long time resident of this City and this County, I demand that this Board of Directors of Santa Barbara County, appoint a Special Prosecutor to review this Affidavit of my opinion, and the court record of 2005 trial of Michael Joseph Jackson, that Criminal Conduct of fabrication of Evidence of fingerprints and phone call conspiracy and the conspiracy by two or more of the four prosecutors to commit such crimes against a man the Jury found completely innocent member of the County, Michael Joseph Jackson. I suggest this board ask Atty. Susan YU to recomment an unbiased special prosecutor. I am convinced that if indicted, the 2005 Court record will be sufficient to support a conviction of Thomas Sneddon, now retired, and some or all of his three assistants who daily blodgened Michael Jackson with lies. Katherine Jackson and many others who sat through this trial of fabricated falsehoods, also suffered, and at the very least, there should be an Official appology to the Jackson family for the fabrication of false evidence and wilful malicious prosecution executed by the four prosecutors with malice afore thought.
There Can be NO IMMUNITY for prosecutors who willfully, and maliciously fabricate false evidence against a man even the FBI found no fault with. To do so, is to claim a Honor and /or Title of Nobility, making some citizens in Government service above the citizens they supposedly server, and is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.
Delivered this day, 14 of August, 2012, in person to the Board of Directors of Santa Barbara County, California, and public meeting in Santa Maria, California, and now that the FRAUD is made known, the Statute of Limitations does start to run, and if this board of Directors fails to appoint a special Prosecutor to conduct a thorough and fair examination of the 2005 Court Record of Michael Joseph Jackson, then this board will be In effect an accessory AFTER the Fact, because Today, you have this statement as evidence a criminal act by Santa Barbara County elected and employed officials was Exposed and made known to you.
I, William J. Wagener, am over the age of 60 years and mentally competent and do state that the above statement is my firm opinion of criminal acts: Committed by members of the Santa Barbara County District Attorneys Office, Mssr. Sneddon, Zonen, Mag Nicola & Auchincloss. And I state under penalty of Perjury that this is my firm opinion, and that in my opinion based a true law, natural law, common law, and Gods Law, that there is NO immunity for prosecutors who wilfully, maliciously, fabricate false evidence, nor can the Statute of Limitations begin to run until the FRAUD on the COURT is exposed, which I am doing this day, by giving you this affidavit that the above named prosecutors did at least these three felonies in combination and illegal criminal cooperation with one another. Therefore you have a duty, now that you have this statement to appoint a special prosecutor and get on with the indictment and any others that helped them fabricate false evidence to maliciously and with wilful malice aforethought bring false charges against this innocent man, Michael Joseph Jackson, formerly the owner and resident of Neverland in this County of Santa Barbara, in Republic of California.
Statement by Larry Nimmer, Film Producer of “The Untold Story of Neverland”
There will be a public comment protest against Thomas Sneddon at tomorrow’s Santa Barbara County Supervisor’s meeting in Santa Maria at 9am. I’m under the weather with Bronchitis, so, I’ve asked that the following letter from me be read at the meeting.
“I, Larry Nimmer, worked for Michael Jackson during his 2005 trial here in Santa Maria. After learning from insiders about how Michael had been relentlessly persecuted by Tom Sneddon, I have come to believe that a great injustice was done to him. Michael Jackson was one of history’s greatest supporters of children’s rights and showed them unparalleled respect and understanding. It broke his spirit to be unjustly accused of the opposite.
Maybe initially, Tom Sneddon good intentions. However, he was confused by the unorthodox and unprecedented nature of one of history’s biggest philanthropic superstars. Due to a type of cultural and social bias, Mr. Sneddon could not believe that there could be such a well intentioned adult, but “childlike”, superstar. Instead, he wanted to believe the words of people who were proven scammers and who were intent to make money off of Michael, like people before them and, after them. Sneddon lost sight of the law and the ability to believe in goodness and viciously pursued Michael Jackson, resembling the evil police inspector “Javert”…. in Victor Hugo’s “Les Miserables”.
I believe, like many others, that this unjust persecution of Michael Jackson lead to his medical problems and finally, to his death. Santa Barbara County should do something to right this wrong.
Film Producer “The Untold Story of Neverland”
Sneddon Accused of 2005 Crimes, 3 felonies
Sneddon Accused of Crimes, in Michael Jackson, 2005 Trial, part 2
The speech of Dan Petry impressed me so much that I transcribed the parts I could understand. He said:
“I honestly feel that Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon made a career of prosecuting victims of some criminal or incompetent police officers. Michael Jackson was one of these victims. The affidavit presented by William Wagener is sufficient reason to appoint an outside special investigator to evaluate Tom Sneddon’s fabricated fingerprint evidence in 2004. Mr. Sneddon must be put on trial.
…The fingerprint evidence was put on the magazine at the Grand Jury deposition. The Prosecution team handed the boy a magazine. The Jury said: “Shouldn’t the boy have gloves?”
SHOULDN’T — THE — BOY — HAVE — GLOVES?
That was the way the fingerprint evidence was presented!
Tom Sneddon knowingly presented this evidence to a jury to try and convict one of the most famous people in the world. That is disgusting. That is knowingly committing a felony. So that’s the one thing I have to say.
The other thing – is that welcoming Michael Jackson to Santa Barbara county? [Think of] all the good he could have done to the community. He could have raised money for every school, he could have went to every school and talked to every child.
But no. Tom Sneddon spent (allegedly) $20 mln. to find him innocent on all charges. That money could have went to the homeless (shelters are closing down), could have went to the schools who are suffering. I am a retired school district […], I know this. They cut the schools, cut the schools, cut the schools and that money could have helped that.
Thank you for listening to me. And do the right thing. Thank you”.
Bravo Dan Petry. I applaud you and all the others who are at least trying to hold Tom Sneddon accountable for his misdeeds to Michael Jackson, other victims of malicious prosecution, and the damage Sneddon did to the system of justice as a whole.
All of you are doing the right thing. It is through the efforts of people like you that History is being made.
Former Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon, left, is accused by William Wagener, center, and others of planting evidence in the 2005 molestation trial of Michael Jackson, right.