Skip to content

Did Sneddon REALLY want to introduce Michael Jackson’s photos at the 2005 trial?

October 19, 2015

lies run sprints, but the truth runs marathons 1When making this post I was surprised to find that Michael’s detractors are still disputing the fact that Jordan’s description didn’t match the photos of MJ’s private parts. They claim that at the 2005 trial the Prosecution were “determined” to bring this evidence out into the open and supposedly “it speaks volumes about their confidence in Jordan’s description and the photographs matching”.

The presumption that the prosecutors really planned to bring in that evidence is totally wrong as they knew they could never introduce it in the absence of Jordan Chandler as their direct witness, and ignoring this issue is like ignoring the elephant in the room. 


Entering a drawing as evidence without the right to cross-examine the one who actually made it would have amounted to gross hearsay and would have violated the defendant’s confrontation right ensured by the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.

In their response to Sneddon’s motion the defense thundered about it and said that they couldn’t believe that the prosecutor was actually doing it:


Jordan Chandler has never been cross-examined. The alleged statements in Mr. Sneddon’s declaration are the result of an ex parte examination of Mr. Chandler by law enforcement. The drawing by Mr. Chandler and the statements are rank hearsay and have never been tested by cross-examination. The United States Supreme Court, in Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S.36. squarely held that the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause prohibits the introduction of testimonial hearsay statements that have not been subject to cross-examination.

The drawing and statements of Mr. Chandler are testimonial. Mr. Chandler was interviewed for the purpose of gathering evidence against Mr. Jackson. […] The purpose of the Confrontation Clause is to protect against the danger of this type of unreliable hearsay testimony.

Note 1: It is hard to believe that the prosecutor could file this motion in good faith, given the lack of a factual basis and the legal prohibition against this type of hearsay. One would hope that this was not merely an attempt on the part of the prosecutor to publicly disseminate this inadmissible material.”

Sneddon’s motion to admit the description and photos as evidence was made on May 25, 2005 – just a couple of weeks before the trial ended on June 13. The response from the defense had to come quick and was indeed prepared overnight as the hearing of the matter was to take place the very next day, on May 26th.

The hearing was brief. The judge listened to the arguments of both sides and quickly ruled against Sneddon’s motion pointing out that since the witness was “definitely not available” the confrontation clause did not allow this type of evidence:

9 …. Crawford would apply to the ability to

10 cross-examine the boy — or the — you know, Mr.

11 Chandler. He’s not a boy anymore — on that issue,

12 and that’s definitely not available, so that would

13 be my reasoning for excluding that evidence.

14 Was there anything else we needed to discuss

15 before we brought the jury in?

Thus the matter was dismissed almost immediately leaving us wondering about the purpose of that motion and thinking that it was some kind of a misunderstanding and some trifle – only the kind of a “trifle” that leaves a long trail of negative publicity behind it and keeps all of us busy even today, ten years after the trial.

Producing this feeling of uncertainty and doubt was actually one of the goals of Sneddon’s motion – the idea was to hit and run and leave the public dazzled forever after.

However the matter is clear as a teardrop – what was supposed to prove the “match” could never be admitted as the witness was unavailable, and Sneddon knew it perfectly well, so from the point of view of entering that evidence the motion was meaningless.

The only goal Sneddon’s lie was pursuing was negative publicity combined with his certainty that the defense would never be able to verify his story.

It doesn’t escape our attention either that the discussion in court took place the very next day after Sneddon’s motion and was resolved uncharacteristically quickly, so the defense never had a chance to get familiar with Sneddon’s so-called “evidence” and make a comparison of the description and the photos themselves.

If the sides had not already rested their cases and the trial had not been close to jury deliberations, there would have been time for the defense to request disclosure of the description\photos after Sneddon’s motion, however there was no time left, especially since the judge dismissed the motion almost momentarily – and this makes us suspect that this was the way it was planned by the D.A. from the very start of it.

It’s noteworthy that MJ’s haters totally ignore this elephant of a problem preferring to go into numerous side issues whose sole goal is to distract the public from the fact that Sneddon’s declaration was sheer bluff. They shrug their shoulders in feigned surprise telling you that the prosecutor would have never taken the risk of perjuring himself and telling so flat a lie.

However Sneddon safeguarded himself against any risk.

Firstly, when making his declaration he concluded it with a statement that it was “based on information and belief” which legal dictionary interprets as “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, and protects the maker of the statement from claims of outright falsehood or perjury.”

So essentially Sneddon said that this is what he believed but was not sure of.

And secondly, the prosecution took every step not to allow things to even come to a stage when their so-called evidence could be verified. To make sure that the verification never happened the prosecution took every precaution to block access to it for the defense throughout the whole trial. This explains why the matter was raised so late and in so quick a manner too.


Their official explanation for bringing the matter at the very end of the trial – at the rebuttal stage when the defense already rested their case – was that they wanted to rebut someone’s testimony that “Michael Jackson was shy and modest”.

But there was nothing to rebut. During that overnight analysis of Sneddon’s motion the defense made a word search of all the testimonies at the trial and found that no witness had used those words. Michael was indeed shy and modest, only by sheer accident no one ever mentioned it.

So the motive provided was a clear pretext prepared in advance in the hope that one way or the other the matter would be raised during the trial. It was District Attorney’s “pocket brief” as the defense put it.

During that hearing on May 26th, 2005 Mr. Sanger said:

           7  … it seemed to me that, when I was looking

           8   at this, this was a pocket brief the District

           9   Attorney had originally prepared in case somebody

          10   did this.  It didn’t happen.  Now they’re trying to

          11   bring it in by way of rebuttal, and it would just be

          12   absolutely inappropriate as 1101, because it doesn’t

          13   rebut anything, okay?

“1101” is a chapter in the California evidence code referring to “character evidence”, and though the evidence was filed as 1101 the prosecution still wanted to pass it off as 1108 (“prior bad acts”).

But as to “prior bad acts” the prosecution had already made two motions and several months prior to that too.  However on both occasions Sneddon chose not to mention that description\photos as evidence and didn’t’ seek their introduction.

Mr. Sanger noted these strange prosecution movements with some surprise – first they didn’t introduce it as 1108 “prior bad acts” and now they did, however under a different 1101 evidence code, at the same time arguing that it is 1108.

Even the text of Mr. Sanger’s answer conveys how perplexed he is with this moving target – what the hell is really going on here?

14 What really they’re trying to do, and I

15 think that’s what I heard Mr. Zonen just argue, is

16 they’re trying to argue this is 1108.

… 14 It was not even in the original 1108 motion from

15 which the Court made a cut and reduced what they had

16 presented originally. So it wasn’t even in there.

…28 And they’re not asking to bring it in as 1108                      

1 evidence. They’re asking to bring it in as 1101(b)

2 evidence.

3 And the idea is, I think they’ve said in

4 their pleadings, that this goes to the issue of

5 whether or not Mr. Jackson was shy or modest. Now,

6 that’s not what Mr. Zonen just said when he got up

7 here and argued.

… 10 we can’t just

11 keep having a moving target here. They didn’t offer

12 it in their moving papers. They didn’t offer it for

13 that purpose. They offered it on the shy and modest

14 purpose. So it would be 1101(b) evidence on kind of

15 a collateral matter, if it ever happened. But it

16 didn’t happen.

By “it didn’t happen” Mr. Sanger meant that no one had mentioned the words “shy and modest” so there was nothing to rebut under that 1101(b) section. As regards section 1108 he also said:

17 it doesn’t meet the criteria for 1108. It doesn’t meet

18 the criteria the Court set down that it would be

19 somebody directly observing something.

Please don’t be confused by this last statement. Had that evidence been true it would have perfectly met that criteria for the “prior bad acts”, and the only problem here was the missing witness who couldn’t testify about that description and claim that this was what he observed with his own eyes.

Discussing it in his absence would have been gross hearsay and from this point of view that “evidence” would have never qualified of course and was to be rejected by the judge in any case.

However the missing witness factor existed all throughout the trial, but it didn’t stop Sneddon from finally raising the matter, so the only riddle we need to solve here is why he did it so late.

Ask yourself a question – even if you know that the evidence may be rejected why not try and introduce it together with other “prior bad acts” instead of mentioning it as if in passing at the very end of the trial and under a fake pretext too?

In both cases it was inevitable for this evidence to be barred (due to confrontation right), but wasn’t it still better to strike while the iron was hot? 

However in the opinion of Sneddon it wasn’t any better. In fact it was much-much worse and the answer to that question is in one word only.

This word is DISCOVERY.


“Discovery” is the process of exchanging information between the opposing parties at a pre-trial stage.

It enables the parties to learn what evidence will be presented and is designed to prevent “trial by ambush” where one side doesn’t learn of the other side’s evidence or witnesses until the trial, when there’s no time to obtain answering evidence. “

The rules of discovery require the prosecution to hand over their evidence to the defense, and this is the key to the whole matter here. 

If the prosecution had mentioned the description\photos in their earlier “prior bad acts” motion, they would have been obliged to show that evidence to the defense, same as they did it with all the rest of it – the witnesses’ statements, books seized at all times from Michael’s home, the Chandler agreement, etc.

However the prosecution did not introduce the description\photos under their 1108 motion and the obvious reason for it is their total disinclination to disclose that evidence to the other side and reveal to them that it was a fraud.

The prosecution mentioned that evidence only several months later and at a moment when the defense no longer had a chance to obtain it. It was at the very end of the trial and there was no time for the defense to make a request for evidence submission. The matter was dismissed almost momentarily due to its absurdity and sheer lack of time, so the prosecutors felt absolutely safe in bragging about it without actually having to disclose it to the other side.

This is the short of it, and if we want to know what other interesting discoveries this “discovery” issue has for us we need to go a little further into the subject.

And the findings we will make here will be really invaluable.


Discovery: What and When the Prosecution Must Disclose

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.

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.

To differentiate between the “discovery” and “work product” the following example is provided:

A video tape of a certain incident on which the police charges are based is the discovery and is to be turned over to the defense, however the memorandum containing the conclusions drawn from its analysis is the work product and this is what prosecutors keep to themselves.

  • If we apply this example to Jordan’s description and MJ’s photos, both would be considered “discovery”, while the accompanying analysis and experts’ reports on their comparison would be the “work product”. The discovery was to be made available to the defense while the prosecution analysis of those materials was not.

Every state has its own discovery rules and in California the matter is regulated by chapter 1054 of the California evidence code.

The California difference is that the prosecution there is not obligated to release the discovery until the defense makes an informal request for it, so the conclusion we make here is that as a very minimum the defense needs to know what evidence the prosecution intends to introduce, because if they are not informed they simply don’t know what to ask for.

  • This explains why the defense made so big a point of the fact that they never knew that the prosecution would raise the issue of the description\photos and why it was an “unfair surprise” for them. If the defense had known about the prosecutors’ intentions to introduce it, they would have made a request for it in due time, but in that situation it was impossible.

Chapter 1054 of the California Evidence code says that the disclosure of all evidence is to be made at a pre-trial stage and well in advance too – at least 30 days prior to the trial.

The defense is to make an informal request for the disclosure, and if within 15 days after that the prosecution fails to comply with the request, the defense can seek a court order and the judge can make an order for the “immediate disclosure, contempt proceedings, delaying or prohibiting the testimony of a witness or the presentation of real evidence,” etc.

  • It goes without saying that in a situation when the trial in 2005 was already reaching the stage of jury deliberations, waiting for 15 days for the prosecutor to disclose the description\photos was not an option, especially since the judge rejected that motion the very next day – and this makes it clear that the created time pressure was not a mere accident but the inherent part of the prosecutors’ plan.

The type of evidence to be disclosed to the other side is different in every state, so it is a must to know whether the Californian chapter 1054 allowed the disclosure of that description\photo evidence at all. Let me provide the point concerning it in full here:

The prosecuting attorney shall disclose to the defendant or his or her attorney all of the following materials and information, if it is in the possession of the prosecuting attorney or if the prosecuting attorney knows it to be in the possession of the investigating agencies:

(a) The names and addresses of persons the prosecutor intends to call as witnesses at trial.

(b) Statements of all defendants.

(c) All relevant real evidence seized or obtained as a part of the investigation of the offenses charged.

(d) The existence of a felony conviction of any material witness whose credibility is likely to be critical to the outcome of the trial.

(e) Any exculpatory evidence.

(f) Relevant written or recorded statements of witnesses or reports of the statements of witnesses whom the prosecutor intends to call at the trial, including any reports or statements of experts made in conjunction with the case, including the results of physical or mental examinations, scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons which the prosecutor intends to offer in evidence at the trial.

Several points in this section call for our full attention:

Point (c) says that all real evidence is to be disclosed to the defense, and Chandler’s drawing and MJ’s photos clearly met that requirement. The only possible complication here is that “the offenses charged” could have probably limited the disclosure possibilities to the Arvizo case only.

On the other hand the judge did admit as evidence the Chandler settlement agreement though it had nothing to do with the Arvizo case. And also allowed the admission of two books and every scrap of paper seized in Michael’s home back in 1993 though it clearly was not part of the investigation of  “offenses charged” in connection with the Arvizos.

  • So our conclusion here is that if Sneddon had introduced the description\photos together with other “prior bad acts” evidence, its disclosure to the defense was to be left to the judge’s discretion and considering the above examples had a high chance to be admitted.
  • In this case the matter would have not reached the courtroom anyway (due to the defendant’s constitutional rights) however the defense could have at least seen the description and the photos. This was a major complication Sneddon tried to avoid by all means and for this reason alone this evidence was never introduced as “prior bad acts”.

Point (e) is also interesting. It required the prosecution to provide all exculpatory evidence to the defense. Given that the drawing and photos were in mismatch it clearly indicates that Sneddon violated the law here. This point is a perfect explanation why Sneddon avoided like hell the introduction of that evidence all throughout the trial, only to mention it as if in passing at the very end of it.

And point (f) is much more interesting than you think it to be. This point required the prosecution to disclose to the defense the statements of all witnesses whom he intended to call at the trial and it admirably explains why Sneddon called as witnesses scumbags like Phillipe LeMarque (whose story about Macaulay Culkin depended on the sum paid), but did not call a witness like, for example, Dr. Strick.

In that TV interview Dr. Strick said that he was TOLD that it was a

In October 2009 Dr. Strick revealed that he was TOLD that it was a “match”

Dr. Strick was the doctor working for the government in 1993. He was present during Michael Jackson’s strip search and his job was to compare the description and the photos. However for some reasons he was kept away from this task and later said that he was only “told” that it was a match.

Imagine the cross-examination of Dr. Strick at the 2005 trial and the thunderous facts Thomas Mesereau would have extracted from him and you will understand why Sneddon didn’t want to call Dr. Strick as his witness (or at least we never heard of it).

Another witness that could have been called by Sneddon (but was not) was Sergeant Spiegel, the government photographer who took pictures of Michael’s genitalia.

The glaring absence of these witnesses speaks volumes about Sneddon’s lies about that evidence and his determination to never allow his experts to testify about those photos and reveal the innocent truth about Jackson.


When I looked up the list of those who were to give their testimony under Sneddon’s original #1108 motion I saw a list of people who only heard things about some alleged “prior bad acts” (and not necessarily saw them), but despite that were ready to share their hearsay with the jury.

But in addition to that I also made a stunning discovery of a fact that previously escaped me – though the alleged “prior bad acts” were supposed to be a side issue for the Arvizo case, the prosecution made their motion about it well before the trial started – on December 10, 2004. 

I need to apologize to those who knew it all along but for me this was big news. Previously I thought that the trial was focusing on the Arvizo case only, and the “prior bad acts” was a side issue and arose only in the middle of the trial. And now it turns out that from the very start of it Sneddon planned it as a massive case against Michael Jackson covering a span of at least ten years (since 1993) if not more.

This is why Sneddon made his “prior bad acts” motion at a pre-trial stage and right within the time limits allowed by the law – the trial started on January 31, 2005 with jury selection and the motion for the admittance of evidence under the 1108 “prior bad acts” code was made almost two months prior to that.

Imagine how much time for a check-up the defense could have had if Sneddon had included the Chandler description\MJ photos into that original motion?


Even a perfunctory analysis of the 1108 motion shows that it was never Sneddon’s intention to really introduce the Chandler description\MJ photos at that trial – the prosecution collected every third party hearsay they could ever get hold of, but at the same time carefully avoided the introduction of what was supposed to be their direct evidence.

The peculiarity of that motion was that it sought admission of hearsay testimony of a dozen people who were ready to testify about seven alleged victims, however these alleged victims (except Jason Francia) did not intend to testify for the prosecution and vehemently denied any abuse.

The motion carefully avoided the subject that there were no victims and that it was relying only on hearsay testimonies of third parties whose credibility was questionable to say the very least.

The main page of the motion says that the alleged offense against Jason Francia, Jonathan Spence, Wade Robson, Brett Barnes, Macaulay Culkin, Jimmy Safechuck and Jordan Chandler is supposed to be proven by the anticipated testimony of third parties – Jolie Levine, Orieta Murdock, Jason Francia, Mariano “Mark” Quindoy, Blanca Francia, Ralph Chacon, June Chandler, Mary Coller, Charlie Michaels, Phillipe LeMarque and a couple of other people whose summarized testimony is provided in the follow-up pages of the motion.

The motion leaves you with a wrong impression that the alleged victims will testify, however a closer look reveals that it is only Jason Francia whose summarized testimony is supporting this motion:

Excerpt from the prosecution #1108 motion dated December 10, 2004

Excerpt from the prosecution #1108 motion dated December 10, 2004

Jordan Chandler was mentioned as someone put on the witness list, only the prosecution made it look like he was still in doubt whether he would testify. A special note hinted that the prosecution had some “additional evidence of offenses against Jordan Chandler in 1993” but said that “The People have deferred incorporating Mr. Chandler’s proposed testimony into this motion because of the uncertainty surrounding a waiver”.

This note was a clear announcement on the part of the prosecution that they were withholding what seemed to be the key evidence related to the alleged “prior bad act” in 1993.

The official explanation was that they were uncertain whether Jordan Chandler would testify against his alleged abuser.

However the same statement also implied that the testimonies of other alleged “victims” would be incorporated into the motion. The prosecution made it look like they were ready to testify for the prosecution (though this was absolutely not the case), and that it was only Jordan Chandler who was in doubt and therefore only his evidence needed to be withdrawn.

See where it is taking us?

It makes us realize that all alleged victims (except Jason Francia) were in an equal position as none of them were available for the prosecution, however the evidence concerning all others was asked to be admitted in court, while the evidence concerning Jordan Chandler’s was withdrawn, and this was done on the pretext that he was the only one of whose testimony the prosecution were unsure. But he wasn’t the only one! 

What a big bluff again.

First of all, by then the prosecution had already known for several months, since September 2004, that Jordan flatly refused to be involved. He said that he “had done his part” and even threatened to sue them if they insisted – so the story about his “doubts” was an outrageous lie. This became known to us only after Michael’s death due to the release of those FBI files.

But what is even more important in this context is that Jordan Chandler was no exception none of the alleged victims, except Jason Francia, were planning to testify for the prosecution. And the prosecutors knew that they could not force them. The testimony of alleged victims could take place only of their free will and this is what the three of them (Robson, Barnes and Culkin) actually did when they volunteered to testify – for the other side, though.

But if all them refused to testify for the prosecution what was the point of singling out Jordan Chandler out of the rest of the group?

Well, it was the prosecutors’ way to explain why they were withdrawing what was supposed to be their key evidence against Jackson.

Everyone had been waiting for it for more than a decade and Sneddon had talked about the alleged “match” for so long that if he didn’t introduce that evidence as proof now no one would understand.

Hence this story about Jordan being officially “in doubt” and this looked to the audience like a plausible explanation. If there was no witness the poor prosecution could not introduce the evidence, and the best part of that argument is that it was actually true.

However the other alleged victims were not testifying either, but this was never an obstacle for the prosecution to bring in whatever evidence they thought they had in relation to them.

So though all alleged victims were in an equal position in terms of their common refusal to testify against MJ, for Jordan Chandler the prosecution withdrew what was supposed to be their “direct” evidence, while for the rest of them the evidence was built up through some third parties and asked to be admitted.

Isn’t it an interesting little secret of Mr. Sneddon and Mr. Zonen?


On January 4, 2005 (still prior to the trial beginning) the defense gave their response to the prosecution “prior bad acts” motion.

The defense drew the judge’s attention to the fact that the prosecutors’ motion was based solely on the testimony of third parties (hearsay) and that out of the seven “victims” mentioned in the motion the schedule of testimonies showed only one – Jason Francia. The defense also noted that they were still waiting for the prosecution discovery regarding this witness.

This last point is important as it makes it clear that after the motion was made the evidence concerning the alleged victims was to be presented to the other side even though it didn’t concern the main Arvizo case and was sort of a side issue.

The defense said in their opposition paper:

“Strikingly, the District Attorney is alleging at least seven prior sexual offenses, yet only one of the seven alleged victims is scheduled to testify. Note 1: The defense has yet to receive current discovery regarding this witness.

In place of the alleged victims, the prosecution seeks to introduce the testimony of a collection of disgruntled former employees, paid tabloid informants, and other disreputable characters”.

Obviously, at that stage the defense didn’t yet know that in respect of the alleged victims’ testimonies the prosecution were lying too. They simply wondered why none of them were put on the witness list and were scheduled to testify.

The judge ruled on the “prior bad acts” matter only in the middle of the trial – on March 28, 2005 and this is when he dismissed part of the proposed hearsay and admitted as evidence only those statements where the witnesses allegedly saw something with their own eyes.

Interesting, but by the line drawn by the judge we can now make a conclusion which of the witnesses were basing their stories on pure hearsay and who at least claimed that they had seen something.

This is how we learn that the story of Michael Jackson’s former employee, Mark Quindoy was obviously so gross hearsay that his testimony was not admitted by the judge, and that the recently dismissed Bob Jones had nothing but an “opinion” about his former employer and never saw anything with his own eyes either and this is why the judge reduced his testimony only to the episodes where he could describe what he really saw.

The judge explained the rule by which he made the selection as follows:

22 … the grooming testimony is limited

22 I divided that up, the grooming testimony is limited

23 to those cases where there’s actual physical sexual

24 conduct that’s been observed by somebody. That

25 really is where I’ve drawn the line.

26 And just to give you an example, Mr. Jones’

27 observations over a long period of time were

28 conclusionary and opinions that I wouldn’t allow

1 based on what he didn’t see.

2 All right. Now, the next item I want to

3 take up is the settlement issues of whether or not

4 the settlements are admissible. In the one case,

5 the Chandler case, I’m going to rule that the

6 evidence that there was a settlement may come in,

7 the amount may not.

Isn’t it funny that the Chandler civil agreement was allowed to be brought in as the “prior bad acts” evidence, though the description and photos which were supposed to be the most “damning” evidence were not even asked by the prosecution for admittance?

On April 15, 2005 the “prior bad acts” saga entered a new stage – the prosecution made a supplemental  motion in order to admit additional evidence “pursuant to evidence code section 1108 and 1101 (b)”.

This additional motion sought for the admission of Kassim Abdool’s testimony urgently required by the prosecution to support the falling apart Ralph Chacon’s story.

Strictly speaking the discovery is generally to take place at the pre-trial stage and any “after-discovery evidence” could be entered only in case “it could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence prior to a court ruling upon the motion or the trial’s completion,” as legal sources say.

But in this case the prosecution had known about Kassim Abdool’s story for nearly a decade however for some reason it wasn’t included into the original 1108 motion.

The defense noted it in their opposition paper filed on April 18, 2005:

“The District Attorney has been aware of the statements of Kassim Abdul for almost a decade. For whatever reason, the prosecution opted not to include this “evidence” in their 1108 motion. Penal code Section 1054.7 requires disclosure of statements of witnesses at least 30 days prior to trail, or immediately if the information becomes known within 30 days of trial, unless good cause is shown. Now, in the middle of trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce this testimony without offering good cause as to why they did not disclose the statements of Mr. Abdool 30 days prior to trial. The Court should reject this request based on the failure to show good cause.”

Now we all know that this additional discovery was not rejected, Kassim Abdool did testify and we even have a court transcript of his testimony.  But this is not the point.

The point is that even in the middle of the trial the prosecution could still introduce any old evidence of which they had known for a decade, and this means that they could have easily included into that motion the request to admit Jordan’s description and MJ’s photos too – of course only in case they really wanted to introduce that evidence and were brave enough to face the defense after its disclosure.

If someone tells you that the prosecution couldn’t introduce that evidence because Jordan Chandler was not testifying, our answer to these good people will be that this factor ran throughout the whole of the trial and didn’t present any obstacle for the prosecution when they finally decided they needed it at the very last moment.

From this point of view the moment of introducing that evidence made absolutely no difference. Whether the beginning, middle or end of the trial, the prosecution could have asked for the evidence to be admitted at any time.

The only difference was that at an early stage of the trial (for example, in the period of December 10, 2004 – March 28, 2005) the defense would have had plenty of time for its analysis, while on the only one day they had at the end of the trial they had a zero chance to do it.

We can only imagine what Thomas Mesereau would have said if he had had an opportunity to see that description and photos in due time. During the hypothetic hearing on this evidence at an earlier stage, the judge would have rejected it anyway (due to that confrontation right), but a big scandal about the prosecution fraud over the alleged match would have been simply inevitable.

Did Sneddon want it? Certainly not. And this is why he never as much as mentioned those photos until the trial was almost over.

And if this were not enough for us to settle this matter once and for all, it was at this point that I found another proof that Sneddon never, ever intended to use Michael Jackson’s photos.


The rules of evidence break all evidence into four types – real, demonstrative, documentary, and testimonial. For example, the description is testimonial, and the drawing and photos are real evidence (sometimes called demonstrative).

All types of evidence need to be “relevant, material and competent” and proving that they are needs authentication.

Real evidence also needs authentication and probably even more than any other evidence does. It is far more serious than, for example, answering a simple authentication question “Do you know that gentleman in the gray suit sitting in the second row?” “Yes, that’s Dr. Murray”.

The authentication of photos, for example, is supposed to be made only by those experts who were present during the photo session and could prove that these pictures really depicted MJ’s private parts.  Otherwise the genitalia of another suitable male could be presented in court and said to be his.

Legal sources say that there are three ways for the real (or demonstrative) evidence to be authenticated. The piece is long but is worth it:

Real evidence may be authenticated in three ways–by identification of a unique object, by identification of an object that has been made unique, and by establishing a chain of custody.  The easiest and usually the least troublesome way to authenticate real evidence is by the testimony of a witness who can identify a unique object in court.

The second method–identification in court of an object that has been made unique, is extremely useful [..] If a witness marks it with his signature, initials, or another mark that will allow him to testify that he can tell it from all other objects of its kind, that witness will be allowed to identify the object in court and thus to authenticate it.

The third and least desirable way to authenticate real evidence is by establishing a chain of custody. Establishing a chain of custody requires that the whereabouts of the evidence at all times since the evidence was involved in the events at issue be established by competent testimony.

The proponent of the evidence must also establish that the object, in relevant respects, has not changed or been altered between the events and the trial. This can sometimes be a tall order, or can require the testimony of several witnesses. If there is any time from the events in question to the day of trial during which the location of the item cannot be accounted for, the chain is broken. In that case, the evidence will be excluded unless another method of authentication can be used.

Demonstrative evidence is just what the name implies–it demonstrates or illustrates the testimony of a witness.
For some time in California, and in some other states, there was a controversy over whether photographs were only demonstrative in nature or whether they had evidentiary value independent of the testimony of the witness who authenticated them. This problem was particularly pressing when there was no witness who could confirm what the camera saw as, for example, where crucial identifying photographs were taken by automatic cameras.

Fortunately, the courts in California and most other states seem to have reached the only sensible solution, which is that photographs can be either real or demonstrative evidence depending on how they are authenticated. When a photograph is authenticated by a witness who observed what is depicted in it and can testify that it accurately reflects what he saw, the photograph is demonstrative evidence. When it is authenticated by a technician or other witness who testifies about the operation of the equipment used to take it, it is real evidence and is, in the language of the courts, a “silent witness.”

So whether real or demonstrative evidence those photos had to be authenticated. And the easiest way to authenticate them was to submit the photos to those who were actually present during that notorious strip search.

And this is when we recall a very convenient book by Diane Dimond where this esteemed author provided an account of that scene and said that the only two people representing the government were Dr. Strick and photographer Sergeant Spiegel.

According to Dimond’s account Michael was so unruly and hysterical that Dr. Klein managed to make Michael get undressed on one condition only – that the number of those present was reduced to an absolute minimum, a doctor and a photographer from each side. The government side was represented by Dr. Strick and Sergeant Spiegel, and the other two people were Michael Jackson’s own photographer and Dr. Forecast.

Here are some short extracts from the book:

“I don’t want you here. Get out!” Jackson shouted at Detective Birchim, directing the officer toward the door.  The now-enraged Jackson pointed to Detective Sicard next. “Is he going to be here, too? Who is he?

“I’m Detective Sicard from LAPD,” Sicard spoke up.

“Get out of here. You get out of here, too,” Jackson ranted. The star struggled to rise from the couch as Dr. Forecast worked to restrain him.

Sergeant Spiegel [the police photographer] continues:

“… Dr. Klein made the statement that others in the room should turn their heads so as not to view Jackson’s genital area.  At the time, I found this peculiar because the only persons in the room at the time were Mr. Jackson, the two doctors, me and the other photographer. Dr. Klein also made the statement that he was not going to look. He said he had never seen Mr. Jackson’s genital area and he was not going to do so at this time. As Mr. Jackson lowered his trunks, he said something to the effect of, “I don’t know why they are making me do this” or “Why are they making me do this?” Dr. Strick asked Mr. Jackson to lift his penis. Mr. Jackson questioned why he had to do that, but he did comply with the request…”

So even Diane Dimond may be an occasional help. Now we know that there were only two experts who could authenticate the photos from the prosecution side and these experts were Dr. Strick and Sergeant Spiegel. Without their authentication the introduction of those photos was worthless as the pictures presented could belong virtually to anyone.

And at this point it suddenly dawns on us that Sneddon never displayed as much as an intention to have those photos authenticated!

Please note that Sneddon could not authenticate the photos himself as he was not present when they were taken, and out of all people taking part in the 1993 investigation Dr. Strick and Sergeant Spiegel were the only two who worked for the government and could do the job.

However at no point during the trial did Sneddon call them as witnesses and at no point did he even mention their names – even in his motion for the supposed introduction of that evidence to court.

The Motion had a loud name and told the whole Sneddon’s story even in the title of it.  It was called “Plaitiff’s Motion to admit evidence that Jordan Chandler had knowledge and accurately described defendant’s distinctively-blemished lower torso and penis in 1994”.

However despite its loud name the inside of that paper lacked the most essential part of it, which made the motion actually invalid – the names of the people who could confirm that the photos were real and were identical to what they had seen.

Now that we know what to look for we can finally see this glaring gap in the text of that motion:

“…as soon as the matter may be heard, Plaintiff will move the court for its order allowing Plaintiff to put before the jury, as rebuttal evidence, 1) the testimony of LAPD Detective Rosibel Ferrufino or LA Deputy District Attorney Lauren Weis that on September 1, 1993, in Ms. Weis’s office and at the direction of Detective Ferrufino, Jordan Chandler described the discoloration of and markings on defendant’s body below his waistline and above his knees, including his penis, and drew a picture of his erect penis, and 2) that drawing, and (3) photographs taken at a later date of defendant’s body and his distinctively-marked penis.

This motion is made on the ground that the proposed evidence is relevant to rebut evidence introduced by Defendant the purport of which is that Michael Jackson, by reason of his “shy” and “modest” nature, would not have exposed his unclothed self to young boys.

The motion will be based on this notice, the accompanying Declaration of Thomas W. Sneddon, Jr., and the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities.

Dated: May 25, 2005

Respectfully submitted, THOMAS W. SNEDDON, JR. District Attorney”.

May 25th 2005 motion excerpt


Okay, but where is point 4?

There is none. The drawing is mentioned (2),  the names of those who can authenticate it are stated too (1), the photos are also there (3), but instead of point 4 which should provide the names of experts to authenticate the photos there is simply a blank space.

Point 4 is missing here not only because Sneddon wanted to conceal the names of his experts and the fact that the photos were not authenticated. His idea was to conceal the fact that the authentication was required at all. And until a certain moment of time he did reach his goal as many of us were totally misinformed.

And now we’ve had enough of it. This is really the final touch that closes the subject and answers all questions:

  • The description and the photos did not match.
  • Sneddon never really planned to introduce that fake evidence at the 2005 trial. It was a bluff.
  • He also took every precaution for the fraud to be never uncovered.
  • The experts who could authenticate the photos were never called. The need for authentication proper was never disclosed. Sneddon’s motion did not state that authentication was one of the basic points required for presenting that evidence at all. The careful wording of the declaration accompanying the motion protected Sneddon from the possibility of being accused of perjury as he could claim that he based his statements on “information and belief” only.
  • The fake evidence was thoroughly avoided from being presented. The defense was continuously blocked from having access to it – the prosecution did not want to admit it until the very last moment when there was already no physical possibility to disclose it to the other side.
  • By declaring an intention to introduce his fake evidence Sneddon did not take any risks. He knew that it could never be admitted as it would have been a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights. And since he knew that his motion would go nowhere, its only other goal could be negative publicity about Jackson.
  • In addition to that the motion provided Sneddon with a sort of an alibi. It created the impression that he had never lied about the “match”.
  • So the first two goals were to use the motion as an ugly publicity stunt for smearing Jackson and simultaneously whitewash Sneddon and release him of the suspicion that he had always been lying about the “match”
  • And the third major Sneddon’s goal was to do irreparable harm to Michael Jackson, prejudice the jurors via the scandalous media reports and make them bring in a verdict in favor of the prosecution.

And if you are still in doubt about those photos see how easy it is to see through Sneddon’s lies.

It is enough to remember that all alleged victims excluding Jason Francia were in an equal position as none of them were available for the prosecution, and Jordan Chandler was absolutely no exception here. However his case looked the strongest as the prosecution had his direct statement and from all others they had none – only some claims from disputable third parties. And what did Sneddon do? Instead of focusing on his “strongest” case he withdrew it and kept its evidence to himself, choosing to introduce all others with only a third-rate evidence to support them.

Ask yourself (and Michael’s haters) why and you will get an answer. Sneddon had nothing to prove his story about Jordan with and all of it was just a bluff.

Dictionary defines bluff as deceiving someone by making them ​think either that “you are going to do something when you really have no ​intention of doing it”, or that “you have ​knowledge that you do not really have” – and both definitions perfectly apply to Sneddon here.

lies run sprints, but the truth runs marathons

Michael was absolutely right.

“Lies run sprints, but the truth runs marathons”. – Michael Jackson


46 Comments leave one →
  1. October 19, 2015 9:56 pm

    Innocent 100%


  2. nannorris permalink
    October 19, 2015 11:23 pm

    This is absolutely fascinating and equally appalling…Excellent job !

    Now when you think back , they must have lied to the judge , that there was even a slight chance that JC would come in , as they knew for certain , he wasnt going to show up ..
    And we know this due to MJ unexpected death and the FOI papers being released ., by the FBI..We wouldnt have seen it without his death .
    Well that must have made Sneddon and Zonen uncomfortable
    They prosecutors didnt even ask Mac Culkin to come in and testify, and as I recall, they didnt contact WR or Brett,, yet as, you pointed out , they wanted only others to testify as to what they said for tabloid money.

    It really hits home, now for me, when Tom Mesereau was speaking to MJ cast show on the anniversary of the verdicts ,
    He said, when Sneddon asked him who his first witnesses would be , and he said Wade, Brett and Mac, and he Mr Sneddon , actually bent over and braced himself with the jury box, it actually knocked the wind out of him,.
    He was stunned , so now we know why ..Because the had such an intricate and elaborate plan to railroad someone , I believe they knew full well was innocent ..

    No wonder they had staff working double overtime on this case for over a year, attempting to intimidate defense witnesses, breaking into people private investigators office etc.
    And this thing with the photos ..
    Interesting if they needed an expert to confirm these photos , they wouldnt even let Dr Strick look at them back in 93..
    Once again , it would seem they were concealing exculpatory evidence
    It was the police that told the Dr, they were authentic..Just incredible
    And they got away with all this stuff scot free., until MJ death .

    No wonder , now after MJ untimely death , and these transcripts have come out , , his autopsy has come out , the AEG trial which cleared him yet again , due to his medical records, showing JC knew virtually nothing about any part of MJ , from his the top of his head to his torso, and the police should have noticed that ..
    Seems ot me , this is why these same people , are desperately trying to push WR obvious BS, and keeping Gavin and his brother close ..
    To hide their own sins..They have Michaels BLOOD on their hands
    I bet they never thought in a million years , MJ would be dead and people would be actually going over this entire thing , and seeing just how evil , and imo , bigoted these people were .

    The tabloid people are garbage , but that is part of their job description.
    People know they are the equivalent of cock roaches , but the prosecutors office is part of govt and had a higher duty.., not to abuse the power of the office
    These people should be exposed for the entire world to see, and have to live in shame for the next thirty years until a ripe old age .vilified ., many thanks to you Elena

    Liked by 1 person

  3. D.Koutris permalink
    October 19, 2015 11:52 pm

    These people are deaf and blind from they hate for Michael Jackson they do not want to except the trough,their will be drawn them selves in their hate.Not long ago i so i photo of Diane Dimond and someone else posing with a book ( be careful who you love) and they reminded me of those people in Syria who cut peoples heads off and then they pose for all the world to see so proud look what we can do you sould be afraid from us.Do these people like Dimond have family children grand children;what message do they send when their posing with a dead mans picture that he has been loved from millions of people and has been found innocent of all accusations.I am as white as you can be but when i see people act like that i hate my color.America has failed badly one of his children someone that the rest of the world adores someone who believed every ones religion is LOVE and that,s the world i want for my children my grandchildren and the rest of the world.


  4. D.Koutris permalink
    October 20, 2015 4:53 am

    Dear Elena i thank you and your friends from the bottom of my heart for everything you do presenting the facts.The truth of the matter is that love on its own it may saved Michaels soul but not is life.


  5. October 20, 2015 6:08 am

    “The truth of the matter is that love on its own it may saved Michaels soul but not is life.” – D.Kourtis

    Oh, right. If we couldn’t save Michael’s life we should at least save his soul – from being further trashed and dragged through the mud.


  6. October 20, 2015 7:34 am

    “they must have lied to the judge , that there was even a slight chance that JC would come in, as they knew for certain , he wasnt going to show up .. And we know this due to MJ unexpected death and the FBI papers being released” – nannoris

    Yes, they certainly knew it. Four months had already passed since Jordan refused them and his threat to sue them shows how determined he was. So there was not a slight chance he would change his mind. And you are right, without the release of the FBI files we wouldn’t have known it.

    “They prosecutors didnt even ask Mac Culkin to come in and testify”

    A good point I forgot of. Macaulay did indeed say that he learned that he was an alleged “victim” from TV only and was astonished that no one from the prosecution side ever approached him to check up the stories told about him by some chef.

    What a great proof that the prosecution presented them as “victims” without any of their statements and even despite their will! And the same was true for Robson and Brett Barnes. And Jonathan Spence actually simply closed the door on the police.

    Victor Gutierrez’s book has an interesting account about the results of police visits to the homes of Safechuck and Spence. Considering today’s Safechuck story I think we need to know Gutierrez’s version of it:

    “Currently, according to the police and court files, Jimmy Safechuck “is a little screwed up in the head because the singer had given him an incredible amount of attention only to leave him when he had grown up.”
    The Los Angeles Police also interviewed Jonathan Spence, who was then 22 years old. This meeting was also in vain. Jonathan told them to leave his house within fifteen minutes. Later, the police told me that he had been blunt and uncooperative. Reporters had the same bad luck.”

    But Sneddon was still determined to prove that they were “victims” through the statements of third parties – people like Phillipe LeMarque who wanted $100,000 for seeing the hand outside Macaulay’s pants and $500,000 for seeing it inside the pants!

    Actually trying to prove that you were “molested” by the testimony of others, especially rogues like LeMarque, is like proving that you were murdered because someone said so. And it doesn’t matter that you are actually alive.


  7. October 20, 2015 8:34 am

    Hi Helena,
    Glad this is finally out there. Id like to add that the defense did receive 1993 discovery before the trial because it was supposed to be offered under 1108. Now had the prosecutors put the description etc. under code 1108 too the judge might have ordered disclosure even after the 30-day limit. Ofcourse they needed to prevent that so they used section 1101 instead.
    Also when you mentioned Dr Strick the fact that they prevented him from doing his job is very meaningful. He was actually their only key to really get their ‘match’ in front of a jury but instead they chose to remove him from the case. I wrote a short post about that:
    LG Kristin


  8. October 20, 2015 9:55 am

    “Id like to add that the defense did receive 1993 discovery before the trial because it was supposed to be offered under 1108.” – kristinpan

    Kristinpan, of course the defense received 1993 discovery as otherwise Thomas Mesereau would not have had a chance to cross-examine Blanca Francia, for example, and refer to her two depositions in 1993\94.

    However as you know the California procedure requires 1) the prosecution to motion for admitting some evidence first, 2) the defense to make a request for its disclosure then and 3)only after that the prosecution provide it.

    And in case of the description\photos, for example, the prosecution never expressed their intention to enter it as evidence. Moreover, they officially withdrew it (in their original #1108 motion) under the pretext that Jordan was hesitating to testify.

    So that evidence was not an issue until the very end of the trial – the defense didn’t know and never asked for it. If they had known and if it had been included into the 1108 motion they would have requested its disclosure.

    And this is why Sneddon and Co. never touched the subject until the last moment – when it was already too late for any requests from the defense.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. October 20, 2015 10:25 am

    “Now had the prosecutors put the description etc. under code 1108 too the judge might have ordered disclosure even after the 30-day limit. Of course they needed to prevent that so they used section 1101 instead.” – kristinpan

    Kristinpan, I totally avoided the difference in the discovery (if any) under these two evidence codes as this is more in your line – your post was right about it but was suddenly removed due the difference in federal and state rules of disclosure you found. I thought you would rework your post, so didn’t go into that and focused on something else.

    But I’m grateful to you for raising this subject at all. If you hadn’t removed your post I would have probably never looked into this matter as the subject is too legal and technical for me. But after that removal there was simply no other way out for me but try and research this problem myself and in doing it I made these unexpected discoveries.

    And as regards evidence codes 1108 and 1101 I noticed that Sneddon’s original motion about those “prior bad acts” refers to both 1108 and 1101, and this is why I don’t see it that important under which evidence code Sneddon made his final motion.

    To me the crux of the matter is in the timing of that motion. It was intentionally placed at the end of the trial and is therefore the most helpful tool for uncovering Sneddon’s secrets.

    Looking forward to seeing your take on this matter now.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. October 20, 2015 11:22 am

    I was just thinking you once wrote that the proseution ultimately never managed to bring up enough evidence regarding Chandler (even with June testifying) to ‘open the door’ for the defense to rebut that part. So that could be a factor too. It only makes sense to even dislocse exculpatory evidence regarding something if the other side can use it to rebut.


  11. October 20, 2015 11:25 am

    Im still working on this. Im really slow so thats why Im glad we already have most of what I was trying to say published now. Im still rewriting the original post since most of it is still usable. Once I got it done Ill comment about it. Thanks


  12. October 20, 2015 3:51 pm

    Kristinpan, previously I was not sure, but you have swept away my last doubts. Your post is indescribable –

    I’ve even made a copy of it for myself in case it disappears too.

    Whether it “just happened” and you intended it this way from the start of it, but your post is promoting the idea that the prosecution failed to introduce that evidence due to their lack of professionalism, and not because the description and photos didn’t match.

    Actually it looks like your post is dedicated to one idea only – how the prosecution could have avoided the objections of the defense and how easily it could have been done.

    The post looks like a register of the mistakes made by the prosecution accompanied by your suggestions how it should have been done properly.

    You even say it yourself that you are “presenting the alternative way that Sneddon could have gotten this evidence admitted” which sounds more like a suggestion on how the matter should have been handled to be successful in court.

    But we here are not giving Zonen advice on how he should go about his business.

    We here simply look at what they did during the trial and try to understand why. So if Sneddon did make that motion at the very end of the trial we take it for a fact and try to find out what could be their reason for so strange a strategy.

    We don’t rebuke them for their unprofessionalism. We consider Zonen and Sneddon qualified law enforcement officers who perfectly knew what they were doing and did their utmost to put Michael behind bars. And their skill, knowledge and ability are not questioned by us. It is only their integrity and objectivity which were a problem.

    Now the fact that you devoted the major part of your post to explaining how Sneddon could have got past Michael’s confrontation rights is actually a dead give-away to me.

    With an approach like that your post belongs more on a site like mjfacts or Desiree’s.

    By the way do you by any chance know these people?

    You begin your long explanation of how Sneddon could have got past MJ’s confrontation right as follows:

    “It seems like as long as Chandler was not cooperating there was no way to get past the confrontation clause and have his statements and drawing admitted. Good news for Sneddon there was a way he could get his ‘match’ and smoking gun in without having to worry about Chandler not testifying. All he would have needed was the help of an expert testifying to his opinion of how well the description and photos matched. California evidence codes 800-805 make it possible. I’ll explain step by step what needed to be done.”

    No, thank you, you needn’t explain any further.

    Code 804 (3) says that “Nothing in this section makes admissible an expert opinion that is inadmissible because it is based in whole or in part on the opinion or statement of another person”.

    This essentially means that an expert’s opinion is inadmissible because it is based on a statement of another person and nothing can change that situation and make it admissible.

    And the above is true for MJ’s case too. Even if the expert had been called to compare the photos and the description (made by another person – Jordan Chandler), the expert’s opinion would have been still inadmissible because it is based on inadmissible foundation – a hearsay statement made out of court.

    And hearsay statements are prohibited in court. Legal dictionary explains why:

    “This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement). Out-of court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by ambiguity, insincerity, faulty perception, or erroneous memory. Thus, statements made out of court are perceived as untrustworthy.”

    Jordan Chandler’s statement perfectly falls under a hearsay prohibition rule – it was not made under oath, the jury could not see his demeanor, he couldn’t be cross-examined by the other side, and his sincerity, erroneous memory and faulty perception could not be in any way probed.

    His description was hearsay. And if an expert had been asked to compare that hearsay with the photos (even genuine ones) it would have been double hearsay because it would have been a third party opinion based on another person’s untrustworthy statement. And this was too much even for Sneddon.

    And you think that this double hearsay could have won over Michael’s constitutional rights?

    No way.

    Of course you can offer your views to Michael’s detractors. Over there you will be enthusiastically applauded.


  13. October 20, 2015 4:22 pm

    “Im really slow so thats why Im glad we already have most of what I was trying to say published now. Im still rewriting the original post since most of it is still usable. Once I got it done Ill comment about it. Thanks” – kristinpan

    Kristinpan, first of all I am surprised that “we have published most of what you were trying to say”. I was under the impression that in this post I was expressing only my point of view and spoke of the things I discovered myself.

    And now that you expressed your point of view too and still intend to rewrite that original post, I don’t even know what to expect of it.


  14. October 20, 2015 5:41 pm

    Our conclusions are similar so it does convey most of what I’ve been trying to say. But of course it‘s your Investigation.
    Ok this is a major misunderstanding.

    “Whether it “just happened” and you intended it this way from the start of it, but your post is promoting the idea that the prosecution failed to introduce that evidence due to their lack of professionalism, and not because the description and photos didn’t match.”

    With this post I’ve been trying to say just the opposite. They already had their expert. They knew of this option but didn’t use it. Not because of a lack of professionalism but because there was no match. I would never suggest that all these objections were created for recklessness or lack of legal education. I know full well that they were intentional.

    “Actually it looks like your post is dedicated to one idea only – how the prosecution could have avoided the objections of the defense and how easily it could have been done.”

    Yes that’s actually true. I was motivated to write this post because Desiree commented on my blog. Her comment suggested that the Chandler case just didn’t go to trial because Jordan was unavailable and not because there was no evidence (or rather just exculpatory evidence). It is so important to finally address this faulty assumption and make it crystal-clear to everyone that there was no indictment and no trial because there was no case. This post was designed to show how the prosecutors could have built a Chandler case even without him had they had their best evidence.
    I believe exploring alternatives can be very helpful. A persons decision also depend on the alternatives that they are given. I’m trying to question their integrity and honesty too just in a different way. I am exploring how prosecutors can circumvent constitutional rights. I’m not saying that that should be done or that the law is perfect in that way. But they could have done it and that’s the point. Now I see when I wrote ‘good news’ that sounds strange. It was supposed to be sarcastic but came across endorsing probably.
    I know Desiree from her comments and two other haters from Twitter. All I did there was debunking them.
    There is one section where the code seems to contradict itself. I’ve read that an expert opinion can be improper because it only repeats the opinion given by someone else. There was an example when an expert was excluded from testifying because he only wanted to repeat a lay eyewitness opinion on how an accident happened. That is improper. But here the expert would have to build his own opinion and not just repeat a statement. After all we know about the confrontation clause it seems paradox but:
    “An expert opinion otherwise admissible is not made inadmissible by this section because it is based on the opinion or statement of a person who is unavailable for examination pursuant to this section.” [Code 804. (d)]
    So the person that made the statement really doesn’t have to be available. The court must decide if the out-of-court statement is sufficiently reliable and proper though.
    And lastly I want to say a few things about myself. I’ve been a fan for 7 years and I would never try to assist haters in what they do. I’m trying to help our side really.
    I hope you all understand


  15. October 20, 2015 6:31 pm

    Dear Helena,
    I realized the rhetorical question in the end was not suitable. I now replaced it with an explicit conclusion that will hopefully make clear what I was trying to say with that post:

    In conclusion had there been a match Sneddon would have simply let Dr. Strick do his job. Dr. Strick would have made a comparison and his opinion would have been that there was a match. Then Sneddon would have had Dr. Strick testify to that in the Chandler Grand Juries and in the 2005 trial.

    Because Sneddon did not use the only way to let any jury hear about the ‘match’ we know he never wanted to introduce the evidence. And the only possible reason behind that is that it was not favorable to him.


  16. October 20, 2015 6:56 pm

    Lies and bluffs, from a horrible man Sneddon, against an innocent man. How Michael survived this trial says a lot about his perseverance. God Bless you Michael ❤


  17. October 21, 2015 2:29 am

    I think we shouldn’t mistake Dr. Strick’s task in the 1993 case. According to my information Dr. Strick was working for the prosecution from the beginning as a forensic physician. Please correct me if I’m wrong. He was not an independent witness, but worked for Sneddon himself, so I am not sure if he could have been called as an expert witness in this case (except perhaps for authentication). I think it never was an option and not his job to be called as an expert witness. His job was mainly to review MJ’s patient files for the prosecution. Of course his task would have included to examine the “match”, but for obvious reasons Sneddon kept him away from that.

    I understand Kristin’s intention to show how Sneddon avoided to bring the “match” evidence in, but I think it doesn’t make sense to invest time and energy for the research how Sneddon could have done his job if their had been a “match”. There is enough indication that he avoided this “evidence” to be examined and only used it at the end of the trial for sensational reasons and to manipulate the jurors’ opinions. So it is much more interesting to examine what he did and not what he could have done.


  18. D.Koutris permalink
    October 21, 2015 3:50 am

    No one can touch Michaels soul not now not when he was alive,his soul is with God now.What am saying is he could have walked away from everything after the Chandler case and not have anything to do with kits,but because his soul was pure and he was all about love and he knew he wasn’t doing anything wrong he dint stop.I loved him and believed him for over 35 years.I loved the man that he was the entertainer that he was i loved that he was different and a special human been.But love, our love for him and his love for us dint saved his life and that is when people like you and Mr Tom Mesereau come alone,your search for the truth with your skills and you put it out there and save is legacy and is name. Many of his older fans aren’t very good with technology and love only is not enough.We support you and we voice our love in every way we can. I wish you and more people like you were around when he was alive so he can read something positive that people fighting for him love in action.


  19. October 21, 2015 4:24 am

    Hi Susannerb,
    As far as I know expert witnesses are never independent. They are paid by one side and the other side is allowed to use such a payment as an impeachment method. So independence is not a criterion for being allowed as an expert. I didn’t know about Dr Strick examining the medical records but that examination was then part of the comparison as well. He had to know if Michael had made any changes to his body to be able to tell if there used to be match. And he was a dermatologist and could have provided info on the course of vitiligo and changes that might have happened between the description and the search. So it totally looks like he was supposed to do a real comparison but then was released from the job. That he ultimately wasn’t able to do his job is very telling.
    After all my attention to ifs and could-haves may seem weird but I hope I could formulate a question that haters will not get around and won’t be able to answer:
    “If Sneddon wanted to bring this in why did he avoid the only way it was possible?”


  20. October 21, 2015 6:52 am

    “With this post I’ve been trying to say just the opposite. I would never try to assist haters in what they do. I hope you understand.” – kristinpan

    OK, I understand. This is why I noted that you probably didn’t intend it, but the unwanted side-effect should be also always taken into account.

    I was motivated to write this post because Desiree commented on my blog. Her comment suggested that the Chandler case just didn’t go to trial because Jordan was unavailable and not because there was no evidence (or rather just exculpatory evidence). It is so important to finally address this faulty assumption and make it crystal-clear to everyone that there was no indictment and no trial because there was no case. This post was designed to show how the prosecutors could have built a Chandler case even without him had they had their best evidence.

    Your motivation is clear too, so let us look into this problem with a totally unbiased eye and without stretching the truth for either side. And we can even employ your alternative method to see “what Sneddon could have done” to make that evidence admissible.

    Suppose you are Sneddon and on the eve of the 2005 trial you have the description\photos from 1993 as some “damning” evidence against MJ. What will you do?

    1) You will try to introduce it before the trial together with all other “prior bad acts” evidence which you seek to introduce in your motion on December 10, 2004.

    The fact that Jordan Chandler is unavailable is not a problem as all other alleged “victims” are unavailable too but it does not stop Sneddon from introducing everything he has in connection with all the others.

    2) So let us suppose that Sneddon includes the description\photos into his original motion. What happens next?

    Next comes a move from the defense – they make a request for the “discovery” as they want all the evidence to be passed over to them. If the prosecution do not do it within the next 15 days, the judge may interfere and make an order about it.

    3) The evidence is disclosed and some time later comes the hearing stage (in real life it took place only on March 28).

    At this stage the judge listens to the arguments of both sides and makes an order which evidence goes to trial and which doesn’t, so some evidence is admitted and some is refused.

    It is at this point that the judge decides whether Jordan Chandler’s description is considered hearsay (and is therefore rejected) or is considered reliable (and therefore admitted).

    To bring the judge to their side the opposing parties use their best arguments – the defense focuses on MJ’s constitutional rights and his right to confront the person who made that description, and the prosecution refers to hearsay exception rules which in some cases allow an out-of-court statement to be admitted in the witness’s absence.

    The evidence code the prosecution will most probably refer to at this stage will be 804(d) you spoke about – “An expert opinion otherwise admissible is not made inadmissible by this section because it is based on the opinion or statement of a person who is unavailable for examination pursuant to this section”. So there might be some exceptions to the rule, and as you say, “the person that made the statement really doesn’t have to be available. The court must decide if the out-of-court statement is sufficiently reliable and proper though.”

    And though I’m sure that MJ’s constitutional rights would by far outweigh this point, theoretically we don’t know what order could be made by the judge at this stage.

    Ok, so what conclusions can be made from all of it?

    If Sneddon had really wanted to introduce that evidence he would have done it at an early stage. A thorough discussion would have followed and there wouldn’t have be any time trouble which arose at the end of the trial.

    Jordan being non-available was not a problem as all other “victims” were not available either, but it didn’t stop Sneddon from producing their evidence. So this factor can be fully brushed aside.

    The only difference for Sneddon was that if he had introduced that evidence at an early stage, he would have had to pass it over to the defense, and the defense would have seen it.

    So the only explanation we have for Sneddon addressing it so late is his intention to avoid the disclosure of that evidence to the defense.

    The only other remaining question here is “What if the judge still ruled to admit that evidence even at so late a stage? Wouldn’t the defense still have a chance to request that “discovery” and see the evidence?

    And this is the point where we come to MJ’s Sixth amendment confrontation right again and to the fact that Sneddon knew that the confrontation right would by far outweigh all other considerations.

    Hearsay exception code 804(d) you referred to really allows an out-of-court statement to be admitted (to an expert), but only if the court finds it “admissible”. And to find it admissible the judge is to consider it reliable and competent. But since the description was made not under oath, not during Jordan’s deposition by the other side, not challenged by cross-examination by MJ’s lawyers, etc. the chances that the judge would think it reliable were minimal.

    The judge still had to observe the defendant’s constitutional right which says that if someone makes a statement about the defendant and he is an adult now, he should come to court and face the defendant and be cross-examined by his lawyers (if he is a minor the confrontation right does not apply). And if he refuses to come and confirm what he said earlier there is a very high chance that his statement would be considered unreliable.

    So Sneddon could be at least 99,9% sure that his motion would go nowhere and that the chance that his “evidence” would be admitted was close to a zero.

    And this finally explains the strange strategy Sneddon chose. If he had introduced that evidence at an early stage the chance that the defense would have seen it was 100%, but since he introduced it so late the chance of its disclosure to the defense was minimal – like 0,1%.

    In short, in the first case the defense seeing the evidence was inevitable and in the second case it was almost completely ruled out.

    And since we deal with facts only and what Sneddon really did (and not what “he should have done”) we need to find an explanation for his actions and analyze why he did one thing and avoided another.

    And this analysis tells us that if Sneddon was ever to take a risk with that vidence, the twisted way he did it was his only chance.

    And besides many other proofs we have it is also this twisted course of actions that proves that his so-called evidence was fake and that the description and the photos did not match.

    P.S. By the way, Kristinpan, the post you are planning to rework says that you cannot comment on vmj for some reason, but this is not true. You absolutely can.


  21. October 21, 2015 11:49 am

    Guys, this matter only looks complicated while in reality it is very simple.

    Previously I said that all alleged “victims” excluding Jason Francia were in an equal position as none of them were testifying for the prosecution – and this is absolutely correct.

    But to be more exact Jordan Chandler’s case was supposed to be a much stronger one.

    For Jordan’s case the prosecution had a direct statement from the “victim” himself, and for all others the prosecution had only third party statements and nothing direct.

    However despite that Sneddon chose to introduce only the third party evidence and kept to himself the direct statement.

    Just ask yourself (and Michael’s haters) why and you will get an answer.

    Because Sneddon had nothing to prove his story about Jordan with and all of it was just a bluff.


  22. susannerb permalink
    October 21, 2015 1:38 pm

    I agree, Helena, it’s not necessary to make things complicated when they are so easy.

    Kristinpan, yes, expert witnesses are not always completely independent when they are paid by the prosecution or the defense. This is true. But expert witnesses have to look at the evidence objectively and unbiased, and for that reason I think they are normally not a member of the prosecution/investigation team, they usually are assigned from outside to form an expert opinion within their field of expertise based on certain evidence given to them – as an assistance to the fact-finder (jury), not to one of the two parties. They should not be involved in the complete investigation of a case. But Dr. Strick was involved in the investigation and I think that does not qualify him to be an “expert witness”.
    If you remember Dr. White who was an expert witness for the defense in the Murray trial, he even shouldn’t have been sitting in the courtroom to not hear the testimony of other witnesses because it could influence his own testimony. The same way I think expert witnesses for the prosecution should not know everything that is going on in an investigation.


  23. nannorris permalink
    October 21, 2015 10:23 pm

    I just wanted to bring up one more thing regarding , possibly , why Sneddon didnt give over the description and pictures earlier ..
    Not only would the defense have seen their evidence but, Im wondering ,if the judge would have also ., in order to determine what evidence could come in
    That means that the pro prosecution judge , they hand picked,would have been able to make the comparison himself also
    And really since this case was a straw to get back to the 93 accusations, if he saw there was no case with Arvizo, and knew ,, with his own eyes there was no match, with Chandler , he may not have ruled the 1108 coming in , and the case would have been over

    It was obvious , from day one, these prosecutors , with their high profile raid , of 70 sheriffs, with tabloid hack in tow , were playing to the media , and had media , leaking stuff like the grand jury testimony, to their advantage.
    Well actually from what I remember only damaging grand jury stuff, not the positive stuff people said about mj
    It would go to follow, that their advocate , Diane Dimond, would have found a way to leak that they showed the picture and description to the judge, to prove it was a match , but the judge couldnt let it in ….
    That didnt happen , and that would have been a really big opportunity missed by these people, and they were not missing any opportunity to defame MJ in the public eye

    But they didnt even do that ..I think that is very telling
    I remember Rita Cosby asking Sneddon, after the verdicts, about MJ team being concerned they might leak naked pictures of MJ, which anyone would be appalled to think of happening to them .
    Sneddon said they needed two judges to sign off on the pictures to be taken out of where ever they were.He said the pictures could not be leaked , but I think , given how humiliated he was after the verdicts , they would have found a way to leak those pictures anyway, just like with the grand jury testimony, and a lot of other shady stuff they did
    He obviously didnt care about mJ rights and or privacy.
    , I wonder if he was relieved those pictures had so much security around them…because it protects him , not MJ
    So Sneddon didnt want the defense to see the pictures, maybe , didnt want the judge to see the pictures , and supposedly no one is ever going to get to actually see and compare those pictures ever again..
    That protects the prosecutors , not the defendant


  24. nannorris permalink
    October 21, 2015 10:29 pm

    BTW we keep concentrating on the photos of his crotch, that Sneddon was trying to deceive people with , but JC , when compared with the testimony in the AEG trial , when they revisited his medical records , show he got NOTHING right from the top of his head down ..
    Surely these police realized that when they stripped him..It was not just his crotch he got wrong, it was the rest of him too
    I think what these police and DAs did to him was very clsoe to criminal, because any reasonable person would have started looking at Evan..
    They arent going to interogate a child , they just interview them, but surely they should have interrogated Evan Chandler ..They just turned a blind eye , because they wanted a show trial


  25. October 23, 2015 1:49 pm

    @ Helena,
    Obviously if Sneddon really wanted this in he would have done it in proper timing to prevent timing-objections from coming up. Then the defense could have requested it.
    The thing is there needs to be a witness that can be cross-examined. The lying “eye-witnesses” were such witnesses so it was okay. And if an expert does a comparison he’s the one who will get cross-examined. The matter that his opinion is based on according to the code needn’t even be admissible in itself. And this grossly contradicts the confrontation right but that’s what the code says.
    It should be appropriate as a basis for the opinion sought and it needs to be reliable. The reliability question might have been an issue but I believe the judge would have found the description a reliable enough basis. Especially if there had been a near 100% match. In that case I believe it would have been deemed completely reliable because he could not possibly guess it all. It was made in a police interview so the defense could have said it was unreliable because the interviewers influenced Jordan too much and he wasn’t under oath. That’s very legitimate but Melville was always so lenient on the prosecution, I believe the expert strategy would have worked.
    “And since we deal with facts only and what Sneddon really did (and not what “he should have done”) we need to find an explanation for his actions and analyze why he did one thing and avoided another.”
    Exactly we need to analyze why he did one thing and avoided another alternative. That’s just what I’m trying to do.
    If I access the post directly I can’t comment for some reason. When I access it over the home page it works though.

    @ Susannerb
    Maybe youre right and experts can only come in at a later stage. Thats an objection the defense could have raised in that event. But at the same time Dr. Strick was there at the search to have a look first hand. And why should he be allowed to do that if not to evauluate what he saw later?


  26. October 23, 2015 5:11 pm

    “The reliability question might have been an issue but I believe the judge would have found the description a reliable enough basis. Especially if there had been a near 100% match.”- kristinpan

    What “near 100% match” are you talking about? The stuff you say is simply incredible. The circumcison point was so big a contradition that Sneddon tried really hard to ignore it talking about “erection” instead, and the light blemish Jordan spoke of also suddenly turned a “dark spot” and “at about the same relative location” too. The “accuracy” of his conclusion is simply mind-blowing. So not only wasn’t it 100 – it was a 0% match.

    “In that case I believe it would have been deemed completely reliable because he could not possibly guess it all.”

    Guess what? The pinkish areas on Michael’s buttocks? But there was no need to guess that – his daddy Evan Chandler made Michael an injection in his buttocks and they perfectly saw that Michael was like “a cow” there. And the same could be easily assumed about his front part.

    “I believe the expert strategy would have worked.”

    Even if it had worked, what does it change? If Jordan’s evidence was supposed to be the prosecution’s strongest argument, it would have been natural to use it together with other “prior bad acts” and summon all the experts they had at the beginning of the trial – instead of keeping it until the last moment and introducing it under a fake pretext of rebuttal.

    However the prosecution withdrew Jordan as a witness, kept that evidence away for several months and never called any expert to make a comparison. And the fact that Sneddon didn’t call his own experts to authenticate the photos either and hid the fact that such authentication was needed at all (before making his motion) speaks volumes about it being NOT a match and Sneddon trying to hide that fact as best as he could.


  27. October 23, 2015 6:03 pm

    “I wonder if he was relieved those pictures had so much security around them….. That protects the prosecutors , not the defendant” – nannoris

    Possible, but besides that Sneddon took every other precaution for his bluff to be never disclosed. To bluff means “to ​deceive someone by making them ​think either that you are going to do something when you really have no ​intention of doing it, or that you have ​knowledge that you do not really have” and this definition perfectly applies here.

    “JC , when compared with the testimony in the AEG trial , when they revisited his medical records , show he got NOTHING right from the top of his head down”

    Right, Jordan Chandler did not even know that Michael was constantly carrying a patch with a painkiller as he had just had a horrible operation on his head (metal stretching his skin) which developed into a neuroma and all that time he was in severe pain.


  28. October 24, 2015 5:25 am

    Helena you said it right on;.”,When you really have the intention…..,or you have have reliable
    knowledge that you really don´t have.” Sneddon knew exactly,I don´t think he was so ignorant,
    His intention was a cheap trick ,to blow smoke in the eyes of non-thinkers, to the press and
    naturally for DD and her ilk.


  29. October 24, 2015 5:01 pm

    When those pictures were taken it is the only time Michael was really angry. I don´ know of any other occasion depicted of Michaels anger.Sure inside he must have had anger at at all that was going on.
    Now I want to divert to something else altogether.The boys often spent time at his apartment.And he often had long phone conversations with ,I think mostly,his teen and sometimes younger male friends. Jordan only mentioned videogames in the dr. Gardener interview.I happened to live in US when video games started to be a really big thing ,already in the 80:ies.There was even fear of youngsters being addicted to them.Now ofcourse they are ubiqutous, and pros and cons have been explored.Now the games are more complex and people even attend international conferences to play or discuss a very complex game. I know Michael was interested in various media techniques. and now I am pretty convinced that videogames was a big part of the time he spent with his friends .And that it was very much a common interest.,rather than any p-lia.Players often do not speak of their video games to peple as they are not interested or don´t understand the fascination.


  30. October 27, 2015 5:38 pm

    Again im delving into what-ifs and could-haves here. I know there was not even a 5% match there. But if that is what Sneddon claims I want to see if his actions were consisntent with that claim. They are not and that is valuable to know.
    What is so weird is that the Chandlers must have known Michael was splotchy all over on his buttocks yet they had Jordan say he only saw one spot.
    I know at this point the evidence that there was no match is mounting but Im still looking fo new ways to impeach haters. Next time a hater is going to tell me Sneddon really wanted this in Im going to ask them:
    Why did he not use the only strategy that guaranteed admission then?
    And they wont have an answer.


  31. November 18, 2015 6:55 pm

    Hi its me again. So I found out about a california misdemeanor called indecent exposure. A matching description would have proven that offense alone. And as I wrote before by havig Dr Strick testify to his comparison they can get it before a jury. Without Jordan testifying they could definitely have convicted for indecent exposure – had Sneddon had the evidence he claimed to have.


  32. nannorris permalink
    November 19, 2015 2:42 am

    That is very interesting , regarding your comment on indecent exposure.
    If that were to apply, then I wonder why Sneddon wouldnt have added that to the list of charges he filed against MJ in the Arvizo case.
    Here he had 2 supposed witnesses who claim, even though, in a private home,he was willfully exposing himself in an aroused state , and trying to get them to go along with it , according to this clip, it would seem,he could have thrown that in too.
    He was throwing in all kinds of ridiculous stuff, why not that one too?

    But he didnt..It is like , once again , he wants to accusation out there, but no specific way for MJ to defend himself from it .
    Sneddon , to me, seems to be protecting himself , from having the defense be able to bring in the fact , that there was no match
    If Gavin had actually seen anything, which he did NOT, by his own testimony….seems he would have had to agree with whatever JC said, and perhaps MJ could have defended against that , in court,
    Instead we just have Sneddons innuendo about what Jordan said.
    He really didnt get too much into details with Gavin , who supposedly had a ten minute encounter , along with his brother
    As it stands, Sneddon has Gavin say MJ was aroused ,in the grand jury testimony which would mean , he wouldnt have to discuss circumcision or non circumcision..
    He didnt ask him about the coloring of his skin, that I recall.
    It was Mesereau in cross, that had Gavin say he thought MJ was WHITE ALL OVER.., which disagreed with Chandler
    So Sneddon, imo, knew BOTH of his supposed victims , didnt get the description right.
    I truly think Sneddon brought MJ to trial , knowing both accusations were bogus


  33. NeoIsis permalink
    November 19, 2015 5:57 pm

    Helena, Thank you 1000 times for your work to seek out, research, examine and provide in-depth analysis of the sources. 
    It was clear to me since 2005 that the prosecution’s last minute motion to put this stuff in was unconstitutional. And that it was done at the last minute in a rush to avoid discovery since it would have been a big problem for Sneddon et al. for the defense to actually see what they really had — or didn’t have.
    The actual hard evidence of these photos and description/drawing has never been any use to the DA as proof of any crime.  This pit bull prosecutor would have been so overjoyed to have a powerful convincing match that there’s no way he would not have used it back in the 1990s.   He would have had Michael arrested on the spot , and Michael knew that quite well.   But he didn’t.  and the evidence did not meet the usually low threshold for a grand jury indictment. 

    Clearly there was no match.  The value of this oh-so-secret evidence was only as a tool for insinuation and humiliation. 

    Because these photos had been taken, it allowed Sneddon to lie about a “match” to sensationalistic reporters like Dimond and Orth.  
    And maybe even lie to other officials. Funny how nobody else wants to say they saw both the photos (or the real thing) and the description.  You have the doctor who was present for the strip search saying he was told the description matched.  And you have the police detective who saw the description saying he was told the photos matched.
    Told by whom? Sneddon himself?
     He apparently had no problem telling journalists or colleagues that there was a match…. but when it comes to saying it under oath, well then he suddenly gets bashful, using the caveat “to the best of my knowledge and belief” to avoid a perjury charge.  If the match was so significant, what would be the need for such equivocation?  It makes it sound like he too was only told by someone else!  Who would that mystery person be? Not the doc who didn’t see the description….  Not the lead detective who didn’t see the photos….
    Basically nobody wants to admit under oath to having seen and compared the photos with the description/drawing.  The doctor and detective wouldn’t even say it on camera when not under oath.   
    I can’t recall if Sneddon ever said it on camera or in a direct quote.  

    In reality, the Santa Barbara District Attorney has been from the beginning refusing to let anyone compare the photos and drawing.  They have never let Mikes attorneys see the description. And as you said, one reason they saved it for the last minute in 2005 was to get around discovery. 
    If Mr. Sneddon had truly been confident in the reliability of this evidence and believed it to be admissible, he would have included it in the list of 1108 (“prior bad acts” ) evidence he wanted to introduce. They were throwing everything but the kitchen sink into those motions, hoping something would stick. 

    But insinuation about these photos & Jordan’s description has always been much more effective than the actual truth would be — which is that there was no match.

    Bringing it up in 2005 in a motion they knew wouldn’t fly was a pathetic last minute attempt to poison the well.  the hope was that the  jury would learn of this motion and be influenced by it. In fact, this ploy may well have worked to convince some jurors that Michael Jackson was probably guilty in the Chandler case.
     Fortunately the current charges in the 2005 case were absolutely ridiculous and fortunately the jury followed instructions to only render verdicts on those current charges ( for which they had been able to hear the evidence, both direct and cross .)

    No doubt Sneddons little game with these pictures was also out of spite, lashing out for how poorly the prosecution case had gone.   So he could try to take this chance to increase lingering suspicions in the public.  Just the fact of the prosecution having tried to introduce this “evidence” may seem to confirm its reliability to the average person who has heard only a little about it.  And that is what the haters count on. 

    But I can’t see how it could be taken seriously by anyone who has given this issue more than a very superficial attention. 
    That’s why I am so glad for people like you who write to refute the lies. 


  34. November 22, 2015 1:39 pm

    “He apparently had no problem telling journalists or colleagues that there was a match…. but when it comes to saying it under oath, well then he suddenly gets bashful, using the caveat “to the best of my knowledge and belief” to avoid a perjury charge. If the match was so significant, what would be the need for such equivocation?” – Neolsis

    Sneddon’s vague statement “To the best of my knowledge and belief” is in big contrast to the clear and definite way declarations are usually signed, “I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct”.

    But I want to emphasize another point. The motion that included Sneddon’s declaration lacked one of its most essential parts – the name of an expert to authenticate the photos. If it was their real intention to introduce the description and the photos, the description was to be authenticated by the investigators in whose presence Jordan was making it, and the photos were to be authenticated by those in whose presence the photos were made.

    But Sneddon ignored it altogether! And never even mentioned Dr. Strick’s name. Or the name of the photographer – Sergeant Spiegel. This glaring absence is the best proof that firstly, Sneddon never wanted those two witnesses to testify and secondly, he never intended to introduce those photos at the trial. Without authentication they could be anybody’s.

    If Mr. Sneddon had truly been confident in the reliability of this evidence and believed it to be admissible, he would have included it in the list of 1108 (“prior bad acts” ) evidence he wanted to introduce. They were throwing everything but the kitchen sink into those motions, hoping something would stick.

    If those photos and description had really matched, Sneddon would have put them as point one into his #1108 motion, even if he didn’t believe them to be admissible. Third-party evidence was not admissible either but it never stopped Sneddon from using it and having it admitted after all.

    Imagine the photos and description in that prior bad acts motion and the names of Dr. Strick, Sergeant Spiegel, Rosibel Ferrufino, Lauren Wies and possibly some independent expert to corroborate the story. It could have been a sensation, but was a flop instead as Sneddon thoroughly avoided even mentioning them.

    The answer is obvious – the description and the photos didn’t match and were actually exculpatory evidence, clearing Michael of any suspicion. And this is the real reason for all that Sneddon’s equivocation.


  35. NeoIsis permalink
    November 29, 2015 10:53 pm

    Oh, absolutely. Listing the photos, description and testimony from medical and law enforcement would have been extremely powerful in the 1108 motion and there is NO WAY that Sneddon would have omitted something like that IF he had had it. The obvious answer is he didn’t have it.

    And if that kind of powerful inculpatory evidence had been presented to the 2 Grand Juries on the Chandler case, there would have been an indictment.

    It’s baffling that people are incapable of seeing this obvious logic. And it’s ironic that some of these people call fans delusional, in denial and unwilling to look at facts, when they themselves cling to nonsensical notions like this idea that Sneddon knew he had a clear match of photos and description , yet he wouldn’t even let Dr. Strick see the description and make the comparison himself so that he could have given expert testimony.
    Talk about cognitive dissonance!


  36. February 3, 2016 3:11 am

    NO,he really did not want to show those pictures.Is was all a cheap and he thouhgt an easy trick on peolple.


  37. March 8, 2016 4:53 pm

    I’m impressed at how Sneddon got away with everything he did on that trial. Not only this bluff with the photos, but also the fact that he falsified evidence. He gave Gavin Arivizo the physical magazine that was allegedly shown to him by Michael, without Gavin wearing gloves and after that he wanted to analyzie it for fingerprints. It was one of the jurors himself who said “shouldn’t that boy be wearing gloves?”. Of course, a prosecutor with so many years of experience could never do such a stupid mistake. It was clear that he was falsifying evidence and Sneddon should have spent time in prision for that because what he did was a crime. Yet, nobody did anything against him and it’s just sad and outrageous how easily he got away with it, while Michael, who was proven innocent, had his life turned into a nightmare. I think Sneddon was so seduced from the idea of being known as the prosecutor who put in jail the greatest celebrity on the planet, he forgot about justice for completely and his tremendous efforts throughout the years show that. He went far beyond to a prosecutor’s job, even at doing his own personal investigation for years. It deserves to be called a persecution, not a prosecution. I’m so sorry for everything Michael went through and I can’t imagine what would it be like if he was convicted. Many innocent people go to jail, but I’m thankful that in Michael’s case, the truth finished it’s marathone.

    Thank you Helena for this post. I keep learning so much in here and provide myself with enough information to make strong arguments on MJ’s defense. At every discussion I have with haters I keep realizing how much they don’t know and how they play mind games, but never give anything concrete to back up what they say. Of course, every talk I have with them leaves me with a headache from facing such ignorance, but I have the advantage that many other people will see that discussion and everyone resonable enough, will give the right to the best defense. Thank you once again. Blessings.


  38. malcolm permalink
    March 16, 2016 2:42 am

    @Esmeralda Rokaj

    Another example of Sneddon’s obsession to win at any cost is when the Arvizos originally told investigators that the allege acts occurred during a certain time period, but when the defense discovered the evidence of the rebuttal video and the child protective services interview, they all of a sudden changed their stories and started claiming that everything happened after the rebuttal video and after the child protective services interview and then Sneddon all of sudden changed the dates in the grand jury indictment. Any prosecutor faced with this kind of evidence would seriously question these allegations and reconsider going forward with the case. It would cause them to want to take a deeper look at the accuser and his family’s claims. But in Jackson’s case, when the evidence was discovered, the dates were changed around to fit the evidence and the case went forward. This is why it is laughable to me when people say that this guy was some kind of advocate for victims and wanted to seek justice for them. No he wasn’t. All he cared about was getting Michael Jackson the international superstar. He loved the idea of being involved in such a high profile case because of all the attention and benefits that came with it. So many people were gloating over this trial and had jobs lined up if Jackson had been convicted.


  39. March 24, 2016 5:07 pm


    Yeah,I remember that one too.That whole case was laughable.Reading the court transcripts I felt like going through a comic book.


  40. Coup De Grace permalink
    October 20, 2016 5:01 am

    Is there a transcript of the occasion Sneddon falsified evidence? I can’t seem to find physical proof of this anywhere.


  41. Sonja permalink
    November 10, 2016 10:00 am

    This is all quite eye-opening, thank you.

    Moreover, when you read about what allegedly happened during the strip search, the photographer said that after Michael had lifted his penis, he observed “a dark spot on the lower left side of Mr. Jackson’s penis.” How does that correspond to a dark spot “on the right side” in Sneddon’s words?

    One thing I do wonder, though, is: wouldn’t those present during the strip search have the description at hand, so they would know what to look for? They checked whether Michael was circumcised, asked him to lift his penis, so they must have had the description available to compare it, don’t you think so?


  42. November 13, 2016 4:24 pm

    “they must have had the description available to compare it, don’t you think so?”- Sonja

    Of course they had some lame description from Jordan Chandler made after discussing this matter for two hours between Jordan and his lawyer (according to Ray Chandler’s book) and which was the reason why that strip-search was made at all. And even that two-hour discussion didn’t give them the result they wanted, which is why the lawyer wanted the photos barred from the trial, the photos shown to the Chandlers and another strip-search.

    The whole thing is laughable, so the question is – how much longer is this “penis” problem going to be discussed at all? Everything was made clear long time ago and speaking about it again and again is like having to prove that the Earth is round to every new generation of people. If some people still believe that the Earth is flat – well, that’s their problem, not ours, right?


  43. ejsteenisupcmailnl permalink
    April 30, 2019 4:43 am

    Why would the judge have had said it’s not hearsay when he gave his motivation to denied the request to bring the drawing and pictures in?



  1. Did Sneddon REALLY want to introduce Michael Jackson’s photos at the 2005 trial? | Nonlocal Universe
  2. Debunking Maureen Orth’s Trash “10 Undeniable Facts” Vanity Fair Article | MJJForum
  3. Действительно ли Снеддон хотел представить фотографии гениталий Майкла Джексона на суде 2005 года? — Michael Jackson is INNOCENT

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: