D.A. Tom Sneddon: The results of the 1993-1994 investigation are IRRELEVANT

If anyone asks you to comment on Jordan Chandler’s description of Michael Jackson’s genitalia and whether it matched the photos of his private parts (it did not), or talks about Bill Dworin’s views on the so-called evidence they had against Michael Jackson back in 1993, or brings up the two books with boys on the beach seized by the sheriffs in MJ’s home, there is a universal answer to all of the above which comes from the best source you could ever imagine.

This source is Tom Sneddon, the Santa Barbara District Attorney, who in 2004 made a written statement to court that the materials gathered during their prior investigation in 1993-1994 were irrelevant for Gavin Arvizo’s alleged molestation case that eventually led to Michael Jackson’s trial (and his full acquittal too).

This incredible answer about the “irrelevance” of earlier materials was given to Michael Jackson’s Defense team in reply to their request to provide them with everything the Prosecution collected (discovery in legal terms) in the Jordan Chandler case.

The fun of the situation is that the Defense attorneys insisted that this discovery was relevant for the forthcoming trial as they were sure that it contained the exculpatory evidence proving Michael Jackson’s innocence, however the Prosecution claimed that it was not relevant, and resorted to all sort of excuses not to provide it to the Defense.

So if you listened to the prosecutors speaking to the media, you would learn that they were in possession of some “damning” evidence against Michael Jackson and were dying for a chance to present it to the public, but when facing the judge during the 2004 pre-trial proceedings the prosecution claimed exactly the opposite and stated that any evidence from the past case was irrelevant for their new molestation investigation, thus making it clear that they never had any evidence against Michael Jackson and the earlier allegations were totally groundless and unsubstantiated.

This alone should tell you all you need to know about the Chandler case and the collection of fiction stories it is based on.

Below you will find an excerpt from my post of long ago about the many other secrets revealed by the 2004 court documents, only this time I will focus solely on this “irrelevance” issue. The post will also have some added materials relating to further adventures of the Defense team in their quest for the evidence from the 1993-1994 investigation.

The page you see here is different from the regular posts in this blog as it is meant to be a vault of the respective documents retrieved from the Santa Barbara Superior Court archive.

Unfortunately, the archive was taken down several years ago, but some documents were saved on my computer, so this page will serve as a kind of a temporary storage for them. Every link provided here will take you to the respective document uploaded in this blog in full.

Here is an excerpt from the post made seven years ago.

~

SO WHICH OF THEM WANTED TO SUPPRESS THE 1993 EVIDENCE?

On September 3, 2004 the Defense asked the prosecution to turn over to them all discovery and forensic tests made by the prosecution in the course of the 1993/94 criminal investigation, but the prosecution refused to provide that discovery and said that it was “irrelevant”.

Let me say it again and slowly this time:

The Defense asked Tom Sneddon to turn over to them all evidence the prosecution collected against Michael Jackson in 1993/94, but the District Attorney refused to provide it and said that it was irrelevant.

What an incredible turn to the story.

Michael Jackson’s detractors are trying to make us believe that the poor District Attorney wanted to introduce some “damning”  evidence from the 1993 case, only the judge didn’t allow it, and now we learn that it was the defense who was asking for it and was ready to discuss it at the trial, however the District Attorney refused them and said that it was “irrelevant”.

The “damning” evidence was “irrelevant”!  Have you ever heard anything like it?

This truly historic answer from District Attorney Tom Sneddon is hiding in a document with a noncommittal title “Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Discovery; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Steve Cochran; Exhibits [unsealed pursuant to 6/16/05 Court’s order].

To make sure that everyone understands that the situation with the 1993 evidence was exactly the opposite from the way it is described by MJ’s haters I’ve partially retyped this breathtaking document.

It says that the defense insists on having the 1993 discovery as their exculpatory evidence, however the prosecution is not only dragging its feet, but even declines to produce it:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 16, 2004 at 8:30 am, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, before the Honorable Rodney S. Melville, defendant Michael J.Jackson (“Mr. Jackson”) through his counsel, will and hereby does move for an order compelling discovery.  Specifically, Mr. Jackson requests an order requiring the prosecution to produce information and materials gathered during the 1993-1994 investigation conducted by police and prosecutors in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties. Additionally, the results of forensic tests done by the prosecution must be produced.

This motion is brought pursuant to Penal Code #1054.1. The discovery requested is relevant. The prosecution relies on information from the prior investigation in these proceedings, including the affidavit to justify searches in this case. That material also contains, or is likely to lead to, exculpatory evidence.

The results of forensic testing by the prosecution are long overdue. The production of that information should now be compelled.

The parties have met and conferred to impasse. The prosecution declines to produce this discovery”.

• So it was the defense who insisted on having all discovery materials from the 1993 case, but the prosecution declined to produce them.
• The defense said that the evidence was relevant, but the prosecution said that it was not.
• The defense wanted all forensic tests and said that it was exculpatory evidence for Michael Jackson, but this is exactly why the prosecution was refusing it (under no circumstances did they indend to provide an expert’s determination that the MJ photos and Jordan’s description did not match).

In fact the prosecution did not even respond to the requests of the defense – this is how the Defense Motion describes the prosecutors’ reaction to their appeals:

THE MEET-AND-CONFER ON THIS ISSUE

Defense counsel have informally requested the materials from the prior investigation. Correspondence containing this request is attached hereto as Exhibit A.  The prosecution has not responded in writing to this request. The prosecution has stated in court, however, that discovery from the prior investigation is irrelevant. See Declaration of Steve Cochran.

THE RESULTS OF FORENSIC TESTS HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED

Police reports produced thus far indicate that the prosecution has commissioned forensic examinations of all kinds. Among other things, analyses of computer data, DNA and fingerprints have been done by the California Dept. of Justice and/or the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The defense informally requested the results of such tests long ago. A copy of that correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit B. To date, virtually no reports of the results of forensic tests have been produced. See Declaration of Steve Cochran.

The Defense attorneys stress that the 1993 discovery is indispensable to them and the prosecution is obliged to produce it as it is the exculpatory evidence for Michael Jackson.

According to discovery rules it is indeed an obligation of the prosecution to turn over all exculpatory evidence to the other side. “Exculpatory” is the evidence that can exonerate the defendant of any guilt or suspicion, and it is exactly for this reason that the Defense insist on its provision.

Incredibly, they even have to explain to the Prosecution that since the latter raised the 1993 issue themselves, the discovery from that period is falling within the necessary requirements of the current case and should be provided by all means. This is why the prosecution is obliged to do it:

III.     THIS DISCOVERY SHOULD BE COMPELLED BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION HAS RELIED ON INFORMATION FROM THE PRIOR INVESTIGATION AND THAT MATERIAL IS LIKELY TO CONTAIN OR LEAD TO EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE

Materials from the investigation of 1993-1994 are within the purview of discovery in this case.

The prosecution has already utilized information developed during that investigation and innuendo from the settlement of civil proceedings initiated by the complainant in that matter.

The prosecution relies on so-called information from the prior investigation to justify the scope of the November 2003 search of Mr. Jackson’s ranch.

Resort to that information as part of this case obliges the prosecution to provide discovery.

Mr. Jackson’s right to receive exculpatory information from the prosecution also requires production of materials from the prior investigation. Law enforcement unquestionably developed information rebutting allegations of misconduct from the many people who testified before the grand juries or submitted to informal interview.

The volume of material generated during the prior investigation appears to be large. Ample time is necessary for the defense to review and follow up on that information. The prosecution has already waited too long to provide this discovery.

IV. THE PROSECUTION SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO PRODUCE THE RESULTS OF FORENSIC TESTS

The prosecution has not yet produced the results of forensic examination going on for weeks, if not months. The forensic work covers a wide array of areas from fingerprints to computers to DNA.

Ample time is needed to review results obtained by the prosecution and conduct independent analyses. Accordingly, the prosecution should be ordered to produce promptly the results of all forensic examinations of all kinds.

CONCLUSION

The materials gathered during the prior investigation are relevant and exculpatory, as are the results of forensic tests. Accordingly, Mr. Jackson respectfully requests an order compelling the prosecution to provide discovery.

Dated September 3, 2004

Respectfully submitted,

by Steve Cochran, Defense attorneys for Michael Jackson

 

What a fantastic situation indeed!

Michael’s haters are shouting on every corner that “the wealth of 1993 evidence” was “damning” for Michael Jackson, but in reality it was damning for Sneddon and his team.

It could reveal that they had nothing against Jackson, and what they did have was actually exculpatory for Michael and cleared him of any guilt. And this is why the prosecution tried extremely hard to avoid the disclosure of this sensational fact.

Do you want to know what Tom Sneddon replied to this defense motion?

He gave his reply only two weeks later, on September 17, 2004. His response said that they were “diligently investigating every possible lead to relevant discovery in this case”, only their resources were “limited” and the “task is extremely complex and demanding in time” (apparently 10 years prior to that were not enough time).

However since the judge “expressed a concern that ongoing discovery may cause a delay in trial” the prosecution “share the Court’s concern” and promise to “make every effort to provide prompt discovery pursuant to Penal Code section 1054.1”

The prosecution also says that “upon further consideration the People do not oppose the defendant’s request for discovery of police reports” (only police reports), and as to forensic reports they will “canvas all involved agencies” (as if that description and those photos were not lying on Sneddon’s desk right at that very moment).

They promise “to obtain and discover such reports on and before October 8, 2004. On the same date, the People will provide defendant and the court with a status report on all forensic investigations that have yet to be completed and the expected date such reports will be completed and discovered to the defense.”

And this is all, guys.

So what Sneddon essentially says here is the following:

• as per September 2004 the prosecution still did not have any forensic reports (for example, from Dr. Strick about MJ’s photos and Jordan’s description) though full ten years had already passed since then
• Sneddon pretended that they needed to “canvas all involved agencies” for this information (and this way admitted that they themselves had nothing).
• he also made it look like they simply didn’t want to raise anything “from the past” but “upon further consideration did not oppose it” (hello to Michael’s haters and their stories about “the wealth of evidence the prosecution was keen to introduce”).
• Sneddon didn’t oppose the disclosure of police reports only (but not forensic evidence)
• and as regards forensic reports (like the FBI evidence or expert’s opinion about those photos) the only thing Sneddon promised was that they would try to obtain it for themselves by October 8, 2004.  On this historic date the prosecution would provide to the defense – no, not any discovery – only information on the “status of their forensic investigations”.

What a jaw-dropping answer indeed.

Isn’t it a clear statement that the 1993 investigation didn’t produce a single shred of evidence against Michael Jackson and that all this time – what’s the right English word for it – all of them were “taking us for a ride”?

(end of excerpt)

~

And here is what happened then.

By October 8, 2004 the prosecution thought better of it and surprisingly, did provide the defense with some materials from their 1993-94 investigation, listed in the document called People’s Response to Court Ordered Discovery Compliance and Status Report [redacted]

”On October 8, 2004, the Defense was given reports, photographs and numerous tapes (see Exhibit 5 – 5A), complying with the discovery request for the 1993-94 investigation into child molestation allegations against the defendant […]”

Here is  Exhibit 5 – 5A:County of Santa Barbara District Attorney

October 8, 2004

Re. The People of the State of California vs. Michael Joe Jackson

Superior Court Case No. 1133603

Dear Mr. Sanger,

Enclosed please find the following discovery items downloaded onto 6 CD-R’s.

1. Reports and photographs from the 1993-1994 investigation downloaded onto 6 discs.
2. DVD’s (11) from 93-94 investigation

(1) Interview male juvenile from Vancouver

(2) (a) & (b) interview of [blacked out] (2 discs)

(3) Titled [blacked out] 9-13-93 (the tape was blank)

(4) (a) & (b) [blacked out] (2 discs)

(5) (a) & (b) & (c) [blacked out] (3 discs)

(6) Copy of Beta Tape of Neverland

(7) [blacked out] Sexual Assault

3. Audio tapes (26) of interviews from 93-43 investigation

(1-4), (5) 2 tapes, (6), (7) 2 tapes, (8-14), (15) 2 tapes, (16), (17) 2 tapes, (18-22) [all of them blacked out]

Very truly yours,

Gordon Auchincloss

Senior Deputy District Attorney

As you see almost all information in the above document is blacked out, however we can still fish something out of it.

1) Firstly, there are no details of the reports and photographs provided by the prosecution, but it is clear that the photos of MJ’s genitalia were not among them, as several months later at the close of the 2005 trial, Tom Sneddon only threatened to produce them, though he knew perfectly well that the photos were inadmissible in the absence of the accuser (Jordan Chandler) according to the 6^th Amendment to the US Constitution.

It was a purely histrionic gesture on Sneddon’s part meant for the unitiated who don’t know that the 6th Amendment says that the accused person has the right to confront his accuser and have him grilled in a cross-examination. And in the absence of the accuser any photos he may refer to are out of the question.

However, forget the photos. According to Tom Sneddon’s own admission they were irrelevant anyway.

2) Point two of the prosecution document lists seven discs of DVD interviews with the most important witnesses as they were video (and not audio) recorded. Over here we find the video of the Neverland ranch, some blank video tape and most importantly, the video interview of a “boy from Vancouver”.

This boy was a sham victim from Canada who was coached by Victor Gutierrez’s friend, a certain Rodney Allen who was later convicted of pedophilia and sentenced for life. But when Rodney Allen was still free he summoned the notorious Diane Dimond to Canada to report the case and malign Michael Jackson even further. However to her disappointment the Canadian police exposed the boy’s allegations as a fabrication. But even despite that, the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office apparently considered the sham victim important enough for recording a video interview with him.

3) The rest of the materials from 1993 are twenty two audio interviews with those witnesses who were apparently even less important than the sham victim, judging by the fact that the prosecutors didn’t even bother to video tape them.

And that was all the prosecution had to produce???

~

The Defense attorneys were utterly dissatisfied with all of the above and made a new Motion that sounded more like a lone voice crying out in the wilderness, asking for the forensic evidence which the other side certainly failed to provide.

The Motion was made on October 12, 2004 and was called Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery and Response to Status Report Re: Production of Forensic Data.

Judging by its text the Defense attorneys spoke about the overall discovery (for both cases) expected from the Prosecution side. Among other things the Defense said:

The prosecution’s approach to discovery puts the trial date in jeopardy. It is plainly unfair for the prosecution to have almost a year to conduct other investigation and provide discovery to the defense, over time, up until weeks before the trail. The defense must be provided with ample time to conduct independent investigation, find out what really happened and cogently present the information at trial. The prosecution should be compelled to produce additional discovery forthwith.

The Defense attorneys’ immediate concern was the absence of any forensic tests that were more or less promised by the Prosecution but which the other side nevertheless failed to present.

No wonder they didn’t – the prosecution case against Michael Jackson both in 1993 and 2004 was based on words only, with nothing to prove them, no forensic evidence in either of the cases and no foundation.

The text below refers to providing the computer examinations that were made already in February 2004 and were ready in April, but were not made available to the Defense even half a year later:

II.   THE PROSECUTION SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PRODUCE THE RESULTS OF FORENSIC TESTS IMMEDIATELY

In mid-September 2004, as a result of a defense motion made weeks earlier, this Court ordered the prosecution to provide all results of forensic examinations by October 8, 2004. That was a date proposed by the prosecution, which also promised a status report if forensic date was not available for delivery.

Characteristically, everything was not produced by the prosecution on the so-called due date. Some forensic date was produced but the prosecution indicates that discovery of forensic information will not be complete for approximately six (6) weeks.

An additional six (6) week delay of receiving the results of forensic examinations was not contemplated by this Court and is unacceptable to the defense. An accused is entitled to at least as much protection as a civil litigant. A strict deadline for production of forensic data is necessary to insure adequate trial preparation and avoid surprise at trial.

Furthermore, the major forensic reports from the FBI relating to the contents of computer harddrives were delivered to the prosecution on April 5, 2004. This Court and Mr. Jackson have been told by the prosecution that these reports would not be completed until now because the work was not done. The fact is that the reports show that the FBI work was done at the Sheriff’s department, in the presence of Sheriff’s detectives in February and March 2004.

It is incredible to learn that the tests were not only completed in February and March, but that the reports were in the hands of the Sheriff’s detectives on April 5, 2005. This Court should do more than nothing about the delay and the misrepresentations which accompanied this delay. [ ]

Dated: October 12, 2004

Let me remind you that the FBI found NOTHING incriminating Michael Jackson on the many (17 as far as I remember) computers seized from the Neverland ranch.

We know it from the FBI files released to the public much, much later, and only after Michael’s death.

~

Seventeen days after the Defense nearly cried for help the prosecution finally obliged them with some additional evidence, but the drag with the discovery from the 1993-94 case still continued.

In the Status Report for Discovery of October 29, 2004 which covered both cases that were ten years apart, the defense stated that the production of the ’93 materials was still incomplete. By then they had received approximately 18,168 documents all in all.

VII.  Meet and Confer re. ’93 Materials

The parties met and conferred about the incomplete production of the ’93 materials. The prosecution represented that it will provide the defense with additional ’93 materials forthwith.

It should be noted that the defense has received approximately 18,168 documents as of the date of this status report. Of these approximately 13,383 documents were produced in the last three weeks, and approximately 9000 of them related to the earlier allegations which the prosecution had in its possession for over 10 years. Additionally produced within this short time period are over 300 audio tapes and 40 CDs\DVDs.

Due to the overwhelming number of discovery received just recently, it is virtually impossible to effectively litigate, investigate and prepare this case for trial, which is only three months away. In this regard, the defense may be forced to seek a trial continuance.”

If the statement about the audio tapes and DVDs refers to the discovery in the 1993 investigation, this must have been a substantial contribution to the earlier portion. What exactly was produced is unknown to us, but it is clear that at that moment the Defense was already overwhelmed with the materials from the prosecutors, who strategically placed it at a time when the Defense virtually had no opportunity to examine them.

The Defense attorneys were naturally resentful that though the prosecution had kept the ’93 discovery for more than 10 years, they provided it only three months before the trial, which left the Defense too little time to analyze it and summon the relevant witnesses.

But let us recall Tom Sneddon’s initial statement that all discovery from the earlier investigation was irrelevant for the Arvizo investigation, so whether 9000 documents or 90,000, all of them were of no relevance for the new “molestation” case in any case.

Of course, it was exceptionally reckless on the part of D.A. Tom Sneddon to make a written statement about that irrelevance, and he surely regretted it later, but as the saying goes, once a bell is rung, it cannot be unrung.

We can go on and on, looking for the documents that cover the battlefield between the defense and prosecution, but the fact will still be there – according to Sneddon’s own statement the materials related to the 1993-1994 investigation were irrelevant for the Arvizo case.

~

And the above should be added to the fact that the Arvizo story was a bald lie in and of itself. In order to provide you with just a sample of their (and the prosecutors’) gross lies, here is one more excerpt from the 2004 discovery process which is worth making a note of.

The excerpt comes from the document called Status Report Re. Discovery made on November 1, 2004, and it has to do with the Arvizos’ and prosecution willful changes in the dates of the so-called molestation, which were initially hand noted by the investigators at an early state of discovery, but later changed and were presented as such to the Grand Jury.

The Defense insisted that initial investigators’ notes should be provided as part of the discovery process:

“The defense pointed out that chronologies prepared by those other than the district attorney were important because the dates regarding the alleged molestation in the original complaint were different from those in the Indictment.

The dates are different because the Doe family [the Arvizos] apparently provided different dates in their interview before the criminal complaint was filed and then changed the dates for the grand jury proceedings.

The chronologies are crucial to the defense because they will reveal not only the inconsistent dates of the alleged molestation, but also the inconsistent facts and dates regarding other alleged acts in the Indictment. The defense requests that the prosecution produce all such chronologies (handwritten and typed).²

It should be noted that Defense Request No. 10 calls for prosecution teams’ investigative notes, documents, chronological records and logs, audio and/or video tapes, and police reports concerning or relating to the case. These documents constitute exculpatory and impeachment material. They are exculpatory because they contain inconsistent statements by the Doe family (and possibly other witnesses as well) which will demonstrate that Mr. Jackson is completely innocent. They are impeachment material because they will show that the charging allegations by the Doe family and their cohorts against Mr. Jackson in the Indictment are entirely false, fabricated or both.

———————-

² One version of the chronology was presented as an exhibit to the grand jury.

“The prosecution repeatedly says it has complied. The investigation of this case began in February of 2003, approximately 20 months ago. The prosecution has in its custody, possession, control and/or access the chronologies, yet not a single chronology has been produced. The defense respectfully requests that the prosecution be ordered to produce all items encompassed in the law, as set forth above, including chronologies.“

The reply of the prosecution?

The prosecution said that “all of the handwritten notes by officers and investigators were destroyed”.