Skip to content

How Sneddon Withheld Chandler’s Description, by kristinpan

October 8, 2015

I was recently contacted by blogger Kristinpan who informed me of making a certain discovery in the research of Sneddon’s tricks against Michael Jackson. Below you will find my introduction to this subject and a short summary of Kristinpan’s findings about Sneddon’s manipulation with the evidence codes. 

~

If you read Sneddon’s declaration of May 26, 2005 about Jordan Chandler’s [incorrect] description of MJ’s private parts and photos made during the strip search you will be surprised not only by Sneddon’s vague and incoherent dance around the subject, but also by his idea to enter this evidence to rebut “the opinion evidence offered by witnesses for Defendant to the effect that he is of a “shy” and “modest” nature and so would not have exposed his naked body in the presence of young boys”.

By then the prosecution had already introduced a lot of hearsay from third parties in an effort to prove the alleged prior bad acts on the defendant’s part (under evidence code 1108 allowed by the judge), but this supposedly direct evidence was to be broken by them at the very end of the trial and was meant to prove a relatively minor thing – that Michael Jackson was “not shy and modest” – and was supposed to be introduced as character evidence and under a different evidence code (1101).

But why? Wasn’t it ridiculous to use so “damning” an evidence to prove so minor and obviously untrue thing instead of using it as the main weapon in the course of the trial when they were discussing the so-called “prior bad acts”?

This peculiarity in the prosecution strategy stunned many of us, and so strange a twist in their thinking remained an enigma – until kirstinpan looked into the difference between the two evidence codes and found the reason why.

Putting it in plain language she found that it was absolutely no chance occurrence that Sneddon 1) manipulated with the codes and 2) wanted to enter the description and photos at the very end of the trial at the rebuttal stage when the defense already rested their case.

The wrong code was no mistake on the prosecutors’ part and was used intentionally – to keep the defense away from comparing the description and the photos themselves and finding out that they were in mismatch. Evidence code 1108 compels the disclosure of all evidence to the defense and in due time too, while code 1101 allows to keep it away from the other side as it is supposed to be a surprise and used for the rebuttal of something said during the main part of the trial (“the case-in-chief”).

Code 1101 didn’t apply here at all as there was nothing to rebut – Michael was indeed shy and modest and never exposed himself to anyone, but none of the witnesses spoke about it during the trial, so there was no one whose opinion was to be challenged by this Sneddon’s “evidence”.

However the rebuttal was merely a pretext. The real reason was Sneddon’s desire to hide the mismatch from the defense and never give them a chance to make the comparison themselves.

Let me also add that the discovery of Sneddon’s code manipulations impresses most if you place it in the context of Sneddon always knowing that he could not introduce that evidence at all (point 8 of this post explains why not).

Indeed, Sneddon only said he wanted to enter that evidence but there was absolutely no way to introduce the description\photos in Jordan Chandler’s absence. It would have broken the defendant’s constitutional right – his right to face the witness and ask him questions (the confrontation right is ensured by the Sixth Amendment). And this was actually the reason why the judge ruled against Sneddon’s motion. This outcome was obvious, well-expected and unavoidable, and Sneddon was of course perfectly aware that it couldn’t be any different.

And since Sneddon knew that his motion would go nowhere all his declarations were a mere publicity stunt. However in a combination with the evidence code games it was something even worse than that – Sneddon not only wanted to cheat, but he also made sure that no one found out that he was cheating.  Not only did he want to shock the media and public with his hollow declarations of the alleged “match”, but he also manipulated with the evidence codes not to give the defense a chance to check up on his declarations.

It was a publicity stunt meant to be never known to be a lie.

If Sneddon had tried to enter the description and the photos under code 1108 the judge wouldn’t have allowed them anyway (due to the confrontation right), but in this case a big complication would have arisen for the prosecution – the defense could have had access to that evidence and could have had an expert’s opinion about it, and could have easily challenged Sneddon’s lies in the media. Thomas Mesereau would have had first-hand knowledge that there was no match and the expert could have corroborated his words too.

But this was absolutely not to Sneddon’s liking. He wanted to tell a lie and get away with it too. So showing that “evidence” to the defense was out of the question for him, and this is why he manipulated with those codes. Evidence code 1101 allowed him to only talk about it and never show it to the other side.

All of it is explained in kristinpan’s post: https://truthrunsmarathons.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/how-sneddon-withheld-chandlers-description/

I invite everyone to read it as it adds a lot to our understanding of the situation.

The truth indeed runs marathons.

UPDATE: I now withdraw my invitation to read Kristinpan’s post as the story had an interesting development  – the post simply disappeared from her blog. The investigation of what happened and proof that the overall conclusions made in my introduction to it are still correct will be provided in my next post. In the meantime Kristinpan will hopefully reply.

The truth indeed runs marathons and sometimes it takes a very winding road.

22 Comments leave one →
  1. Coup De Grace permalink
    November 3, 2016 9:20 pm

    @Esmeralda Rokaj

    Oh yeah, that’s right. Sneddon himself admits there wasn’t any credible evidence to act against Jackson. I feel like a fool for failing to put the pieces together.

    “While it may seem strange that even if a person made an admission or a confession, under California law without a witness or other evidence to establish the corpus there is no case.”

    Ah-ha! Right from the extremist’s mouth. Sneddon had NO evidence besides Jordan’s declaration. That includes the supposed “matching” photographs of Michael’s penis (which really isn’t that hard to make a passable guess of what it looks like anyway), oh but of course, delusionists will try to look for any possible “loophole” they can to “discredit” this fact like they always do. Nevermind that the OFFICIAL AUTOPSY REPORT among SO many things confirmed Michael Jackson had vitiligo. He totally didn’t and was just using that as a clever ruse to make himself white! Yeah let’s go with that!

    Thanks for enlightening me on this subject, Esmeralda. And a thanks to Helena, the writer of these well researched articles. Keep doing what you are doing. Michael Jackson would have been very thankful knowing he had such intelligent and credible keen-eyed supporters putting out the truth about him.

    Like

  2. November 3, 2016 4:34 pm

    @Coup De Grace

    It’s in the previous link I left here, more specifically this one: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/the-abc-facts-of-michael-jacksons-innocence/

    Scroll down to the part that says: 5. SNEDDON ADMITTED HE HAD NO EVIDENCE AGAINST JACKSON

    Like

  3. Coup De Grace permalink
    November 3, 2016 1:26 am

    @Esmeralda Rokaj

    I read both links and came out satisfied. The satire one was hilarious. Pretty much highlights the general ludicracy of delusional mad Jackson critics. xD

    Just one thing though. If I may ask for a source of information that in 1993 witness wasn’t necessary and only evidence alone was for pressing charges? Just in case I ever need it.

    Like

  4. November 2, 2016 2:31 pm

    @Coup De Grace

    Exactly. Thinking about a context where MJ is guily defies a lot of common sense and logic. Here’s a satiric post to put it better. Please read it, you’ll burst out laughing:

    https://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/could-he-be-guilty/

    Like

  5. Coup De Grace permalink
    October 30, 2016 10:10 am

    @Esmeralda Rokaj

    Yeah, I kinda figured they weren’t being completely objective. They do bring up some good points, but they take stuff out of context and distort information quite a bit. They have even flat out lied and thrown things out of thin air a few times. Much of the users there ignore undeniable facts such as MJ having vitiligo, and like to insinuate he was a black hater despite mountains of evidence proving otherwise and no evidence supporting it. Overall, I wasn’t very impressed with a lot of what I read there. I’ve read a majority of their threads and I too, ended up with a headache. I also have a fair suspicion as to who’s writing the articles on that site, but I’ll save that for later.

    The one about MJ not being arrested is very interesting though. That’s why I came to you guys on the matter. I didn’t even know you only needed evidence back then. Even if witness and evidence both were required, emphasis is strengthened by the fact that Jordan was still cooperating with authorities for close to a month after the strip search. More than enough time to press charges, had the photos matched. Absolutely absurd to believe the photos matched and nothing was done after. What were those officers doing when they discovered it was a match?

    “It’s a match….So what now?”
    “I dunno. Let’s wait and see what happens.”

    Give me a break.

    Like

  6. October 28, 2016 2:39 pm

    @Coup De Grace

    First let me warn you that MJFacts (or MJLies better) is a hater website. Truly, it’s entire purpose is to tell people that MJ was a… you know what. I’ve been there and I ended up with a headache.

    The only reason MJ didn’t get arrested was because there was not a piece of evidence that would make it reasonable. This blog has covered this in previous posts. Back in 1993, it was not necessary to have a child witness in such cases, if there was evidence against the person. So Even if Jordan didn’t want to testify, a match would have been enough.

    Furthermore, the biggest proof against the Chandlers, are the Chandlers themselves. To put it short, they asked for the pictures to be barred from a trial. That means, not only that the description wasn’t close enough, but that it was so wrong that it was devastating to the Chandlers.

    All this and more is perfectly detailed here, debunking lots of lies from MJ”Facts”: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/the-abc-facts-of-michael-jacksons-innocence/

    Give it a careful read. Hope it helps🙂

    Like

  7. Coup De Grace permalink
    October 21, 2016 2:57 am

    @EJM

    I had read on MJfacts that the reason why MJ wasn’t arrested was apparently because they needed testimony from Jordan and the photographer. The “rules of evidence”. I’m a little confused on this matter. Is that really how it works? When did the grand juries see the evidence? Some sources tell me it was early Jan of 1994, others say it was much later.

    I also don’t understand why–IF the photos matched, that Katherine Jackson was summoned before the grand jury to be questioned if MJ had changed his genitals so it “wouldn’t match” the description. Yet Bill Dworin, the lead investigator of the 1993 investigation, said it WAS a match!

    I am so confused. Can somebody please clear this up for me?

    Like

  8. April 28, 2016 2:34 am

    I have always wondered why Sneddon would even try to get the descriptions in when Jordie wasn’t even accusing MJ of sexual abuse in 2005. Quite the contrary he fled the country to fight his subpoena. According to the Sixth Amendment, obviously MJ would have the right to cross-question Jordie.
    My question is how did Ralph Chacon get allowed to testify? What part of Sneddon’s bag of tricks got him through?
    On the grand jury thing in 1994. Two grand juries refused to indict MJ.
    Here is the definition of a grand jury, which you can use against haters.
    “A grand jury is a legal body that is empowered to conduct official proceedings to investigate potential criminal conduct and to determine whether criminal charges should be brought. A grand jury may compel the production of documents and may compel the sworn testimony of witnesses to appear before it.”
    It clearly says here that it can “determine whether criminal charges should be brought.”
    An investigative grand jury means that the grand jury does its own independent investigation along with the prosecution bringing its case.
    GRAND JURIES INDICT OR DO NOT INDICT.
    They didn’t indict MJ in 1994. That means the evidence against him was very tiny. Basically what Jordie claimed against MJ claimed.
    The descriptions of genitalia are obviously not a match. If they were MJ would have been arrested immediately, for that would mean Jordie saw him naked intimately and numerous times, which would basically mean MJ molested Jordie.
    There was no arrest warrant ever issued.
    So the whole thing is a sham.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. October 27, 2015 7:04 pm

    Ive completed re-working my post and the new version is up. Enjoy! https://truthrunsmarathons.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/how-sneddon-withheld-chandlers-description/

    Like

  10. October 16, 2015 4:17 pm

    “It’s still there.” – nemoran

    Nemoran, you’ve given a link to a different post (which is the first post on that blog). And I am talking about the second post to which the link is not working: https://truthrunsmarathons.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/how-sneddon-withheld-chandlers-description/
    Kristinpan contacted me and I asked her to explain where the mistake was. The explanation was that “federal rules of criminal procedure only apply in district courts. Michaels trial was tried in a state court though. So everything that relates to discovery and rebuttal does not apply here. In California the only statute regulating discovery is actually number 1054 which does not allow for discovery of documents at all.” I requested her to bring the post back, probably with some corrections made to it or with some explanations. Up till now that has not been done, so I myself looked into this subject and hopefully will be able to report my findings in the near future.

    “It’s also Important to understand that instead of producing Jordan or the description Sneddon wanted to take the stand and testify that HE WAS TOLD that there was a spot, not that he had seen the spot or the photos. That is rank hearsay and is not admissible in court.”
    What’s the evidence of that?

    There is no evidence of that, but it may have a connection to what Lynande51 explained before about the phrase “based on information and belief” in Sneddon’s declaration:

    “What Sneddon wanted to do was introduce the photos without the affadavit and accompanying description or the affadavit without the photos. He did not want to introduce both of them. He wanted to be able to qualify the photos with his own statement that they were a match. He did not want the description to qualify the photos. Then in the same statement he qualifies it by using the legal term “based on information and belief”. So basically what that means is that he does not have first hand knowledge but he has been told what he says and he believes it. If you look up the term “information and belief in the legal dictionary it is just another way to say it is so because someone told me and I believe them. It wipes out the possibilty of perjury with that term because he is saying he believes what he is told, he is not saying it is the truth. If he was wrong he would just be considered stupid or gullible for believing it which is not a crime in a court of law. If you look at all of the Prosecutions filings you will find that term in many of them.

    information and belief n. a phrase often used in legal pleadings (complaints and answers in a lawsuit), declarations under penalty of perjury, and affidavits under oath, in which the person making the statement or allegation qualifies it. In effect, he/she says: “I am only stating what I have been told, and I believe it.” This makes clear about which statements he/she does not have sure-fire, personal knowledge (perhaps it is just hearsay or surmise), and protects the maker of the statement from claims of outright falsehood or perjury. The typical phraseology is: “Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges that defendant diverted the funds to his own use.”

    Like

  11. nemoran permalink
    October 16, 2015 3:48 pm

    “I now withdraw my invitation to read Kristinpan’s post as the story had an interesting development – the post simply disappeared from her blog.”

    It’s still there. Here:
    https://truthrunsmarathons.wordpress.com/

    Like

  12. nemoran permalink
    October 16, 2015 3:42 pm

    “It’s also Important to understand that instead of producing Jordan or the description Sneddon wanted to take the stand and testify that HE WAS TOLD that there was a spot, not that he had seen the spot or the photos. That is rank hearsay and is not admissible in court.”

    What’s the evidence of that?

    Like

  13. October 16, 2015 1:23 pm

    A NEW UPDATE on Kristinpan’s post:

    I now withdraw my invitation to read Kristinpan’s post as the story had an interesting development – the post simply disappeared from her blog. The investigation of what happened and proof that the overall conclusions made in my introduction are correct even despite this development will be covered in my next post.

    The truth indeed runs marathons and sometimes it takes a very winding road.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. October 14, 2015 6:10 pm

    An UPDATE on Kristinpan’s post:

    Kristinpan contacted me and said that she found out that “the federal rules of criminal procedure only apply in district courts. Michaels trial was tried in a state court though. So everything that relates to discovery and rebuttal does not apply here.”

    I am absolutely not sure that everything that relates to discovery and rebuttal doesn’t apply here and while Kristinpan is double checking I’ve also begun reading about the discovery rules in California. For a start here are the general principles valid for all state courts in the US:

    Discovery: What and When the Prosecution Must Disclose
    Discovery — the information about the other side’s case — is supposed to promote fair trials and case settlement. Learn how it works.

    Discovery is the process through which defendants find out about the prosecution’s case. For example, through standard discovery procedure, they can:
    • get copies of the arresting officers’ reports and statements made by prosecution witnesses, and
    • examine evidence that the prosecution proposes to introduce at trial.

    Traditionally, the prosecutor wasn’t entitled to information about a defendant’s case. But in recent years, discovery has become more of a two-way street. Just as defendants can discover information from prosecutors, so too can prosecutors examine certain evidence in the hands of defendants.

    Modern Discovery Policy: Pretrial disclosure of information through discovery can foster settlement and enhance the fairness of trials.

    Can prosecutors spring evidence on defendants like they do on TV?
    No. In the past, prosecutors could guard evidence from defendants with the same fervor toddlers show in protecting toy trucks and dolls from their siblings. Defendants couldn’t force prosecutors to hand over witness statements or even reveal the names of their witnesses. Now the view that advance disclosure will promote fairer trials has taken hold — if defense attorneys know ahead of time what to expect, they can better defend their clients.
    Surprise evidence may produce fine drama, but it leads to poor justice. Unlike prosecutors, defendants can’t call on police agencies to help them investigate and respond to evidence they find out about for the first time at trial. Thus, every jurisdiction (each state and the federal government) has discovery rules requiring prosecutors to disclose evidence to defendants prior to trial.

    Are discovery rules really intended to help defendants at trial?
    Not exclusively. Sure, advance disclosure promotes fairer trial outcomes, but it also promotes case settlement, which saves judicial time and resources. If a guilty defendant finds out before trial that the prosecution has a particularly strong case, that defendant will be more likely to plead guilty and save the government the hassle of trying the case. Discovery is likely a significant reason why at least 90% of criminal cases settle before trial.
    Issues regarding settlement aside, discovery is intended to help defendants in the sense that prosecutors must hand over certain information that’s helpful to the defense.

    Does discovery mean that the prosecution has to reveal its case strategy?
    No. Discovery rules generally distinguish between raw information like names of witnesses, police reports, and drug or alcohol test results, and attorney theories and strategies. The latter is called “work product.” Prosecutors don’t have to turn over their work product to defendants—otherwise, it just wouldn’t be fair. Lawyers would be incentivized to hide their work or do less of it.

    EXAMPLE
    Vy Tummin is charged with assault and battery on a police officer. Vy claims that she reacted in self-defense to the police officer’s use of illegal force. The prosecutor plans to show a videotape of the incident to the jury. The prosecutor also has prepared a file memorandum as a self-reminder about what portions of the tape to emphasize during the trial and why those portions are especially significant. Vy’s lawyer demands to see the videotape and all the prosecutor’s trial memoranda. Discovery rules allow Vy’s lawyer to see the videotape. But the prosecutor won’t have to turn over the memorandum. The memo is the prosecutor’s work product because it contains strategic analysis.

    Is there a particular period of time prior to trial when the defense is supposed to engage in discovery?
    Not really. Prosecutors can’t disclose all discovery on the eve of trial, but on the other hand, they don’t have to divulge it all way ahead of time. Discovery can unfold gradually. For example, a defendant’s attorney might receive a copy of the police report at the first court appearance, but might not receive a prosecution expert’s written analysis of blood evidence until shortly before trial.

    http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-when-the-prosecution-must-disclose.html

    Like

  15. October 13, 2015 1:50 pm

    I have a question to Kristinpan – when I tried to open her blog following the earlier link (https://truthrunsmarathons.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/how-sneddon-withheld-chandlers-description/) I faced a notice: “404 Your request was not found.” Is it a malfunction or what?

    Please note that if you changed the title the earlier link may no longer work.

    Like

  16. nannorris permalink
    October 13, 2015 11:30 am

    lynande51
    October 13, 2015 7:19 am
    It’s also Important to understand that instead of producing Jordan or the description Sneddon wanted to take the stand and testify that HE WAS TOLD that there was a spot, not that he had seen the spot or the photos. That is rank hearsay and is not admissible in court.
    ————–
    Thank you for that information..I didnt know he did that ..Talk about a sick obsessive person.
    He should have been thrown out of office

    Like

  17. lynande51 permalink
    October 13, 2015 7:19 am

    It’s also Important to understand that instead of producing Jordan or the description Sneddon wanted to take the stand and testify that HE WAS TOLD that there was a spot, not that he had seen the spot or the photos. That is rank hearsay and is not admissible in court.

    Like

  18. October 11, 2015 1:51 pm

    “Ive been readng your blog since I was a new fan and had so much to learn and now Im in it. Hopefully one day well have a more of a voice in public and reveal it all.” – kristinpan

    Kristinpan, I’m happy that you are joining in. Revealing the whole truth will take time, so every new hand is a great help especially if a new person is ready to do serious research. By now we’ve reached a stage when the facts lying in full view of everyone have already been collected and examined, and new progress requires very much indepth study.

    Like

  19. October 11, 2015 10:58 am

    Hello,
    Sorry for my absence Ive been on a trip. Im so happy to see this great introduction. Ive been readng your blog since I was a new fan and had so much to learn and now Im in it. Hopefully one day well have a more of a voice in public and reveal it all

    Like

  20. October 10, 2015 7:08 pm

    “I hope that all these discoveries will be used one day by future researchers to expose this set-up and officially acknowledge that Michael Jackson was dragged through court with a sham case to destroy him.” – Susannerb

    Susannerb, I’ve just written in another comment about Sneddon being only part of the trash campaign against MJ and want to correct myself now – the degree of his responsibility is much higher than anyone else’s. A prosecutor has a power over a person’s freedom and it is unforgivable for him to falsify the evidence and cheat the jury in order to put an innocent man behind bars. The stakes are much highter here than everywhere else.

    I also hope that one day it is will be officially acknowledged that Sneddon’s case against Michael Jackson was a setup and malicious prosecution in its pure form.

    Like

  21. October 10, 2015 1:01 pm

    Sneddon should’ve been impeached from that exact moment that he was indeed cheating the case against Michael and he should’ve been at the very end. Hearing that made me think of what Jermaine said in his book that “justice cheated Michael” which is true because of Sneddon’s dirty work.

    Like

  22. susannerb permalink*
    October 10, 2015 9:51 am

    Interesting piece of truth. I hope that all these discoveries will be used one day by future researchers to expose this set-up and officially acknowledge that Michael Jackson was dragged through court with a sham case to destroy him.

    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: