Tom Sneddon. Their BEST man did his BEST job and found NOTHING. New ´witnesses´ are requested Not to Disturb



  by Helena on vindicatemj.wordpress.com



June 28, 2010


The conversation with Brian (our new ‘witness of molestation’ emerging in the comment section) has made me change plans again and say a word of praise about our favorite guy – the Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon.

Yes, you’ve heard me right. I’m not going to look much into all the wrong Tom Sneddon did to Michael Jackson, which everyone knows about – I’ll focus on a special kind of professionalism Sneddon displayed during his 10-year long persecution of Michael Jackson – the professionalism which should be constantly thrust into the face of Michael’s haters.



Tom Sneddon was the BEST man the prosecution could ever muster. Their BEST man did his BEST job with the BEST support he could get from the media and nevertheless reached NOTHING as a result (except ruining Michael’s health, alas)…. If such an experienced, skillful and dedicated hater of MJ as Tom Sneddon wasn’t able to put Michael behind bars it can only mean one thing - the absence of evidence in Michael’s case was absolute, total, radical, exhaustive, complete and unconditional.

If it hadn’t been for Michael’s ruined life I would be almost grateful to the Prosecutor for the thoroughness with which he swept those Michael’s ‘cases’ with a fine broom:

- His people traveled to every corner of the world to interrogate everyone in sight (for ex. to a far-away place like Australia they went twice to meet Brett Barnes who even the first time vehemently denied any abuse).

- He encouraged the whole nation to participate in a hunt for ‘victims of the predator’ in 2003, collaborated with the FBI in search of every scrap of evidence and went through whatever he could find with a really fine tooth comb.

- He confiscated all Michael’s medical records looking for the changes his genitalia might have undergone and stripped him of all dignity by making him undress in front of the gang of curious people and photographing his private parts naked…

- What he couldn’t find he falsified – just as those fingerprints on adult magazines put by the Arvizo accusers right in front of the grand jury.



What he couldn’t show he hid from the public eye saying it was a match while it wasn’t – remember Tom Sneddon’s declaration where he admitted it was him (not the doctor) who made a determination about the similarity of Jordan’s drawing and photos of MJ’s private parts – though they were completely at variance with each other both in color and non-circumcision condition.

The prosecutor checked up on all past ‘abuses’ and made the legislation change to be able to bring those cases into the 2005 trial or allow third parties to testify on behalf of some fictitious victims.

In short Tom Sneddon completely outdid himself in collecting whatever there was to collect about Michael Jackson in order to humiliate him beyond measure and get rid of him once and forever.

You are asking me why I am saying all that?

Because all the heroism Ton Sneddon demonstrated in the prosecution field means that not a single speck of dust Michael Jackson ever stepped on was overlooked and went unexamined without a magnifying glass. In such circumstances it was IMPOSSIBLE to miss a single piece of evidence or anything even remotely resembling it.

And this fact completely RULES OUT the possibility of any new witnesses appearing out of the blue now - which is the outrageous thing we’ve just seen with our own eyes in this blog.



This makes our approach to these guys simple and easy as a piece of cake – each time a new applicant presents himself as a ‘witness of molestation’ his attempt should be immediately laughed off, eradicated and smashed with an iron fist.

A word for the volunteers for the status of new ‘witnesses’ or ‘victims’:


It is a little too late, guys. You’ve had enough time for the past 15 years to state your case and lay out your cards. It is OUR turn now - so please have the decency to step down and let the other side have their say. We’ve been listening to you long enough and are not taking it any more.

Your best guy Tom Sneddon has done ALL the job for you, so relax and please Do Not Disturb.

* * * * *

THIS SUPPLEMENT includes a wide range of opinion about Tom Sneddon and is provided here to show that the District Attorney used every trick possible in his trade for persecuting Michael Jackson:

1) The National District Attorneys Association was full of praise for their Attorney when he was still in office:


- After a brief period as a criminal defense attorney with a Beverly Hills law firm and army service during the Vietnam War, he joined the Los Angeles DA’s office as a deputy DA. In 1969 he moved to Santa Barbara County to become deputy DA. In 1982 he was elected DA and has been re-elected five consecutive times since his initial and contested election.

- He continues to be a formidable courtroom presence and still prosecutes high-profile cases. His take-no-prisoners courtroom demeanor won him the nickname, “Mad Dog” early in his career, but the years apparently have mellowed him. His present nickname is “Snuffy.”

- Called “a ferocious athlete” since his undergraduate days at Notre Dame, where he was on the boxing team, he coached youngsters’ teams for 18 years and at age 61 he can still pitch a wicked softball.

- A newspaper article described him as “arguably the single most powerful person in all of Santa Barbara County.”

- Sneddon has served far longer than any other DA in the county’s history and during that period has created what one observer has called “a high-powered office of talented career prosecutors where the turnover is conspicuously low and the morale strikingly high.”

- Tom Sneddon, a native of the Los Angeles area, supervises a staff of 247, including 50 attorneys.

- Asked what has given him the greatest satisfaction in his career, he has a two-word answer: “Helping people.”



2) DA HELPED DIANE DIMOND OUT OF A ‘HARD’ SPOT By Lloyd Grove with HUDSON MORGAN
Wednesday, March 16th 2005

Yesterday, I learned that the Santa Barbara district attorney played a key role in killing a slander suit that Jackson filed against her a decade ago.

In 1995, when Dimond was working for “Hard Copy,” she reported that Sneddon was searching for an explicit 27-minute videotape showing Jackson molesting a boy.

Sneddon soon concluded that no such video existed, but not before Dimond appeared on L.A.’s KABC radio and her Paramount-produced tabloid show to trumpet the imagined X-rated details.

“It was taken right before Christmas, as the story goes, and it was recorded by one of Michael Jackson’s own security cameras,” Dimond said on the radio, touting her “Hard Copy” scoop. “Truly explicit,” she added, noting that she had not seen the alleged tape.

Sneddon, in an unusual instance of a prosecutor involving himself in a civil suit, signed a declaration supporting Dimond’s version of events. The trial judge dismissed the suit, saying Jackson couldn’t prove malice or false reporting.

Jackson appealed the judge’s ruling, and Sneddon’s declaration was cited extensively in the November 1998 California Court of Appeal’s decision affirming the summary judgment.

Neither Jackson’s lawsuit nor Sneddon’s role in snuffing it is disclosed in Dimond’s official bio on the CourtTV.com Web site or in the detailed history of her Jackson coverage, which includes her exclusive November 2003 interview with Sneddon.

Source: Diane Dimond

3) Who Is Tom Sneddon? A Look At The Man Pursuing Michael Jackson
LOS ANGELES, Dec. 18, 2003

By Tatiana Morales



… Jerry Roberts, editor of the Santa Barbara News-Press tells The Early Show, “I think people do feel that he is a man on a mission. You know, this is going to be the signature case of his career…

The two words that you hear the most are probably pugnacious and tenacious,” Roberts says, “He has a reputation for being fiercely competitive. He’s a law-and-order guy who sees the world in black and white. There’s bad guys and good guys, and he sees himself as the good guy.”

Still, even his detractors concede Sneddon is good at what he does.

Gary Dunlap [defense attorney who was falsely accused by Tom Sneddon and later acquitted] says, “I know he’s a very effective prosecutor. Tom Sneddon is not a lightweight”. “He lost his opportunity against Michael Jackson in 1993, and he doesn’t want to leave office without paying that score back.”

Source: Who Is Tom Sneddon?

4) The DA In The Michael Jackson Case

Wed Nov 19, 2003

Tom Sneddon, the District Attorney in Santa Barbara in charge of the 1993 case, said about it: “When that case went to bed … it went out of my mind. I haven’t given it a passing thought.” Here’s a sampling of just a few Internet entries on this issue to see whether this statement is true:

The Independent (London), August 20, 1994
A ruddy-faced veteran prosecutor with a reputation for bloody-mindedness, Thomas Sneddon is not willing to accept that his case is hopeless without the testimony of its central figure – Jordan Chandler.

Michael Cooney, an attorney who knows Sneddon well, says: ”Tom Sneddon is a very determined individual who will go further than almost anyone to prove something which he feels needs proving. Once he decides action is worth taking, he will pursue it to the very end.”

Showbiz Today, September 22, 1994
GIL GARCETTI, Los Angeles County District Attorney: We have concluded that because the young boy who was the catalyst for this investigation has recently informed us that he does not wish to participate in any criminal proceeding where he is named as a victim, that we must decline prosecution involving Mr. Jackson.

TOM SNEDDON, Santa Barbara County District Attorney: Should circumstances change, should other evidence become available within this period of the statute of limitations, like Los Angeles County, we would re-evaluate the situation based upon what information is available to us at that particular point in time.

The New York Times, September 22, 1994
Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garletti and Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon announced that after a 13-month investigation in which 400 witnesses were interviewed, no charges would be filed against Michael Jackson.

The boy who had accused him of misconduct has declined to testify against him in court in any possible prosecution. The formal investigation concluded in September 1994 and the case is closed. However, under California law, cases involving minors expire six years after the date of any alleged accusation, and in this particular case the statute of limitations expires in 1999.

The Chattanooga Times, August 19, 1995

Meanwhile, Saturday’s Today newspaper said Santa Barbara, Calif., District Attorney Tom Sneddon had twice contacted Presley’s mother, Priscilla, for information about Jackson’s relationships with young boys.

The New York Beacon August 23, 1995

Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon told the magazine that Jackson has not been “cleared” of sexual involvement with two boys, as Sawyer said during his interview of Jackson on ABC’s “Prime Time Live.”

“The state of the investigation is in suspension until somebody comes forward,” Sneddon said to the “Vanity Fair”. In the June 14 interview, Jackson told Sawyer there was “not one iota of information that was found that could connect me to these charges” of child molestation.

But Sneddon told the magazine in its September issue that he has seen photos of Jackson’s genitalia, and “his statement on TV is untrue and incorrect and not consistent with the evidence in the case .”

The Advertiser January 27, 1996

“The reality is, no matter what he does, he can’t escape the fact that he paid out millions of dollars to prevent a 13-year-old boy from testifying against him in court,” says Santa Barbara District-Attorney Tom Sneddon, who originally investigated claims Jackson had molested the boy at his Neverland ranch.

Mr Sneddon says, contrary to popular belief, it would be “inaccurate” to say Jackson was cleared of all charges. “The state of the investigation is in suspension until somebody comes forward and testifies,” he says.

Broadcast News (BN) February 15, 2001

Sneddon tells the New York Daily News the case against Jackson was never closed and it can be re-opened at any time. He says the statute of limitations hasn’t run out because Jackson was living out of the country for so much time.

Source: The DA in the Michael Jackson Case



5) The District Attorney

December 15, 2007 Excerpts from the Floacist: The District Attorney

- After having spent millions of dollars on the Michael Jackson investigation in 1993, District Attorney Tom Sneddon did not find enough evidence to bring charges against the pop star.

- Over the next few years, Sneddon and several of his employees made numerous statements to the press where they implied that there was indeed evidence to corroborate Jordan Chandler’s story. They failed to explain, however, why two grand juries did not indict Michael Jackson if such evidence actually existed.

- According to reporter Geraldo Rivera, members of the Santa Barbara Police Department were shown footage of the strip search of Jackson’s genitalia. “I’ve got a videotape that was shown to every cop in Santa Barbara of Michael Jackson’s penis,” Rivera said.

- In 1995, Sneddon told Vanity Fair magazine: “The state of the investigation [of Jackson] is in suspension until somebody comes forward.”

- Upon viewing the Living with Michael Jackson documentary that aired in February 2003, Sneddon saw an opportunity to re-open the case. In a press statement released on February 6, 2003, Sneddon said: “We encourage anyone who may be a victim or has credible evidence that a crime may have been committed contact the Department of Social Services Hotline (800) 367- 0166, or Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department Sgt. Phil Willis at (805) 681-4053”.

- A few days later, somebody leaked Jordan Chandler’s Declaration of December 28, 1993 onto the Internet.

- On February 13, Tom Sneddon gave an interview to tabloid journalist Diane Dimond where he again stressed the fact that if another victim came forward, the case would be re-opened.

5) Malicious Prosecution? Has Jackson been treated fairly?

by the Floacist (with some additional facts from other sources)

October 25, 2007

Malicious Prosecution? Has Jackson been treated fairly?



- During the raid of Neverland, police went into areas that they were not permitted to go into and took items that were not on the search warrant.

- At his press-conference (Nov. 19, 2003) Tom Sneddon acknowledged that he knew about these allegations since June but didn’t take action until November because of Halloween. The fact that 70 policemen made a surprise raid to Neverland when Michael Jackson was in Las Vegas exactly on the day he was releasing his new CD was a pure coincidence.

- Though the warrant for arrest of Michael Jackson was issued on the same day as the search warrant and Michael surrendered to the authorities the next day (Nov.20, 1993) the charges were brought against Jackson only a month later (Dec. 18, 2003). Tom Sneddon is said to delay filing charges until December so that the SBPD could set up a website for members of the press.

- Tom Sneddon dismissed the Department of Children and Family Services investigation as an “interview” and accused (the DCFS of being incompetent (the DCFS conclusion was that the accusations were ‘unfounded’). However it turns out that Sneddon’s own department also investigated Michael Jackson in February and came back with the same ruling as the DCFS. NBC News correspondent Mike Taibbi, discovered that two weeks after “Living with Michael Jackson” aired, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department launched their own investigation into Michael Jackson’s alleged activities. The investigation lasted from February until April 16th and was closed with “no further action required.”

- Sneddon said that the law was changed so that child victims in a molestation case could be forced to testify. This was a LIE; the law was changed so that if a civil suit was filed, it would remain inactive until the criminal trial was resolved.

- At the press conference, more victims were invited to come forward.

- During the press conference announcing the accusations against Michael Jackson, Tom Sneddon laughed and made several jokes at Jackson’s expense.

Tom Sneddon gave yet another interview to Diane Dimond where he called Michael “Jacko Wacko.

Dimond admitted to knowing about the allegations months in advance. Why was the DA leaking information to a tabloid journalist?

- Sneddon enlisted the help of a PR firm to deal with the media. Tellem, the PR firm working for Sneddon, also works for Dave Schwartz, the stepfather of Jackson’s first accuser.

- In December, Jackson told Sixty Minutes that he was roughly handled by police officers when he was arrested; he showed photographic evidence to substantiate his claims. The SBPD responded to Jackson’s allegations by releasing audio clips of Jackson whistling in the car before he was booked. Jackson, however, did not claim that he was abused on his way to the station. The only mistreatment he alleged before the booking was when the handcuffs were put on but you can hear him on the audiotape complaining about the handcuffs being too tight.

- The actual abuse was not alleged to have occurred until Jackson was brought into the booking station. The SBPD did not show any footage of Jackson in the booking station, claiming that they did not film Jackson’s booking because they didn’t anticipate that there would be any problems.

- Sheriff Jim Anderson said that if Michael Jackson’s claims of police abuse turned out to be false, he would charge Jackson with making a false complaint. Since Jackson never actually made a formal complaint, Anderson’s statement is not in accordance with the law.

- Sneddon has obtained 69 search warrants, including warrants to search Jackson’s bank statements, financial records and security boxes. What evidence of child molestation did Sneddon hope to find in Jackson’s financial records?

- The charges from the criminal complaint are completely different from the charges in the indictment. After the inconsistencies in Sneddon’s case were brought to the attention of the public, the timeline of alleged abuse changed, the number of times the abuse allegedly occurred changed and allegations of kidnapping have suddenly materialized.

- Jackson’s defense team filed a 126-page motion asking for the indictment to be thrown out. The document states that during the grand jury proceedings, Sneddon bullied witnesses, failed to properly present exculpatory evidence, refused to let the jurors question the prosecution witnesses and provided the jurors with a false legal definition of the term “conspiracy” (for which Jackson was indicted)

- According to a motion filed by the defense, the amount of search warrants that have been given to them by the prosecution does not match the amount of search warrants that have actually been issued by the prosecution. Six search warrants are missing, 10 affidavits used to support the search warrants have been heavily redacted and 49 affidavits used to support the search warrants have not been given to the defense at all. What is Sneddon hiding?

- According to the defense team: “There is no case in the history of the state of California that has condoned anything like the abuse of power demonstrated in this grand jury proceedings.

6) Michael Jackson is speaking about police brutality

Interview with Ed Bradley on “60 minutes”

December 28, 2003


MICHAEL JACKSON: They did it to try and belittle me, to try and to take away my pride. But I went through the whole system with them. And at the end, I wanted the public to know that I was okay, even though I was hurting.

ED BRADLEY: What happened when they arrested you? What did they do to you?

MICHAEL JACKSON: They were supposed to go in, and just check fingerprints, and do the whole thing that they do when they take somebody in. They manhandled me very roughly. My shoulder is dislocated, literally. It’s hurting me very badly. I’m in pain all the time. This is, see this arm? This is as far as I can reach it. Same with this side over here.

ED BRADLEY: Because of what happened at the police station?

MICHAEL JACKSON: Yeah. Yeah. At the police station. And what they did to me … if you .. if you saw what they did to my arms … it was very bad what they did. It’s very swollen. I don’t wanna say. You’ll see. You’ll see.

We were given a photograph said to be taken after Michael Jackson was released on bail. Jackson says the swelling above his wrist is where the police handcuffed him.

ED BRADLEY: How did they do it? I mean, what, physically, what did they do?

MICHAEL JACKSON: With the handcuffs, the way they tied ‘em too tight behind my back …

ED BRADLEY: Behind your back?

MICHAEL JACKSON: Yeah. And putting it, they put it in a certain position, knowing that it’s going to hurt, and affect my back. Now I can’t move. I … I … it keeps me from sleeping at night. I can’t sleep at night.

And Jackson says there was more.

MICHAEL JACKSON
: Then one time, I asked to use the restroom. And they said, “Sure, it’s right around the corner there.” Once I went in the restroom, they locked me in there for like 45 minutes. There was doo doo, feces thrown all over the walls, the floor, the ceiling. And it stunk so bad. Then one of the policemen came by the window. And he made a sarcastic remark. He said, “Smell … does it smell good enough for you in there? How do you like the smell? Is it good?” And I just simply said, “It’s alright. It’s okay.” So, I just sat there, and waited.

ED BRADLEY: For 45 minutes?

MICHAEL JACKSON: Yeah, for 45 minutes. About 45 minutes. And then… then one cop would come by, and say, “Oh, you’ll be out in … in a second. You’ll be out in a second.” Then there would be another ten minutes added on, then another 15 minutes added on. They did this on purpose.

What about Jackson’s allegations? Was he mistreated? Did the police injure his arm and shoulder? Did they lock him in a bathroom for 45 minutes? To get answers to those questions, we made repeated calls to both the sheriff’s office and the office of the district attorney. They declined our request for an interview and referred us to the statement on their Web site, which says about allegations of mistreatment: “That is not true.” It was the sheriff’s deputies who executed the search warrant of the Neverland ranch.

The full transcript: Jackson Interview Transcript

7) Tom Mesereau, Michael Jackson’s Defense Attorney about the 2005 trial:



“The prosecution was permitted to introduce evidence that Jackson had settled other claims of child molestation in civil court. The actual dollar amounts were not admitted (as if anyone hadn’t heard them!). It was also permitted to introduce evidence of alleged prior similar acts of child molestation. Prosecutors were permitted to introduce such evidence extending back 10 years. As icing on the cake, the court permitted them to call third-party witnesses who watched the alleged acts without any requirement that the actual alleged victims testify”.
Tom Mesereau


8) The jurors about Prosecution in the 2005 trial
:

What happened to some jurors after the 2005 trial?

HULTMAN: Well, I think the prosecution did everything they could possibly do with this case. I think the problem was the family. But as the prosecutor would tell you, they don’t pick their victims is what they said. And in this case, the accuser and his family had some real credibility problems. And that was kind of the key to the whole issue.

COCCOZ: I want to say, you know, I think the prosecution did a wonderful job. They went through with a fine toothed comb. And I think Mr. Sneddon, you know, he did his best. And we have to, you know, really give them credit for that.

But there was nothing — we had a closet full of evidence. There was nothing in that closet that was able to convince any of us of the alleged crimes. And, I mean, it was — I kept waiting and waiting throughout the trial you know, when are they going to bring in some kind of evidence that was going to be convincing and they never brought it.

9) William Wagener “On Second Thought”:


May 10, 2010

“… I want to ask the judges why they didn’t demand that Tom Sneddon be indicted for falsifying evidence in the Michael Jackson trial. I was a witness… I was right there in the courtroom, watched him get caught falsifying the fingerprints evidence, the phone evidence that they tried to create saying it was a conspiracy. Half a day on that! Then Tom Sneddon wanted to withdraw it from the evidence pool in the court. No, the Defender Tomas Mesereau said “That stays on”. The jury looked at all this evidence: “There is no way we can convict this guy. We got a pile of crap from Tom Sneddon”.

…This guy literally falsified evidence and it is under record. This thing which he did to Michael Jackson was so beyond the pale of forgiveness. Thomas Sneddon should be serving time in prison. You cannot falsify evidence and then just say, “Oh, we lost the case”. No, no..

He had that boy put his fingerprints on the magazine at the grand jury and the reason we know that is because the alert Tom Mesereau the Defense Attorney got the grand jury transcript and one the jurors said: “Shouldn’t that boy be wearing gloves?”. Then after the grand jury they sent it out for fingerprints analysis.

So when did the boy have his fingerprints on the magazine when the boy testified he hadn’t even been at Neverland for months when that magazine was published? And yet he claimed it was the magazine Michael Jackson gave him in bed.

If the DA were green behind the ears and he made a stupid mistake like giving the evidence to a boy and then sending it out… Ok, he made a mistake and we could let it go. But 25 years?

We shouldn’t be forgiving Tom Sneddon. The man should be serving time in jail… The man is guilty as sin”.


10) I couldn’t resist the temptation to also include a “D.S.” VIDEO here - the song is actually one of my favourites:






Thank you Helena for your generosity sharing your investigation!








TOP