Page 1 of 1
Posted on August 18 at 6:51 a.m.
Michael Jackson's case was a tragic example of what happens when justice is no longer blind. Tragically, also, Michael was not the only one to suffer at the hands of a subjective vendetta by a bigoted DA. Tom Sneddon has built a career of of prosecuting people he simply didn't like the look of. One need only glance over past cases dealt with his by his office to reach that conclusion. For example, police officers that hounded Michael Jackson, an innocent man, for 20 years, yet refused to prosecute an officer in their own department found guilty of sleeping with an underage girl. That particular officer’s flimsy and horrific excuse? He mistook her for his wife. Or, take the reports of Tom Sneddon treating ethnic minorities in his workplace in a bigoted and demeaning manner. To read a more thorough account of the injustices committed against others during Tom Sneddon’s tenure, follow this link: http://www.mj-777.com/?p=8062Yes, the fans in this case are speaking up for a humble, gentle and decent man whom they admire as an artist and humanitarian. But, more importantly, they are speaking up for a fellow citizen wronged by a corrupt judicial system. Were it one of your friends, your family members, your associates, would you not want them to do the same? To quote the infinitely wise Dr.King, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
On Michael Jackson Fans Go After Prosecutor
Posted on August 18 at 6:50 a.m.
At no point did the media concern themselves with the facts of the 2005: That the prosecutions’ flimsy, non-existent case consisted of a family with a prior history of extorting celebrities, (Chris Tucker testified in court that they had tried to take advantage of him also, at which point he warned Michael as a friend to be wary of their motives,) and a couple of legal art books, that the witnesses for the state perjured themselves on the stand on an almost daily basis and were completely annihilated by Mr.Jackson's defense, that the mother of the accuser was unstable and had serious mental health issues, (throughout her testimony she continually referred to "the Germans," a non-specific group that was "after her",) that the DA and the DA's office exhibited several signs of malicious prosecution-for example, during the grand jury hearings, the DA, Tom Sneddon, was caught trying to fabricate fingerprint evidence, that the DA's office, which has a history of racially motivated attacks, stacked the charges against Mr.Jackson by employing an utterly ludicrous conspiracy theory, namely, that he had attempted to keep the family "hostage," despite the fact that bill and receipt payments indicated they had been using Mr.Jackson's cars and credit cards to shop and sight see in the nearby town during this alleged period of "imprisonment." Mr.Jackson was the only one tagged with this absurd "conspiracy" charge. Everyone else that worked at his ranch was named an un-indited co-conspirator. Since the very notion of a conspiracy requires the involvement of more than one person, the very fact this charge was employed at all should cause any rational person to question the DA's motives. This information is all supported by official government documents-both the FBI files and the DCFS ongoing investigation found one thing against Mr.Jackson-nothing-both documents declared him innocent. Here is a link to a discussion of the DCFS article which stated there was never any evidence against Mr.Jackson:http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/the-dcfs-says-there-was-never-any-evidence-against-michael-jackson-give-this-truth-a-chance/
Posted on August 18 at 6:49 a.m.
Several sources have in fact suggested that Jordie Chandler has privately admitted to lying when he accused Mr.Jackson, (several college friends state that he told them, during Mr.Jackson's 2005 trial that he thought he was innocent and that his father forced him to do something he didn't want to do.) It is also telling that he refused to testify against him during the 2005 case. In terms of the 2005 trial, that again was a clear case of extortion: a family driven by avarice, and a corrupt judicial system willing to support them. Mr.Jackson invited the Arvizo's to Neverland because he was told that one of the young boys, Gavin, was dying of cancer. In his kind, loving way, Mr.Jackson offered them free rein in his house, amusement park, cinema, in a bid to offer this child a chance for a normal and happy childhood given the daunting prospects he faced. However, when Gavin recovered the Arvizo's started to exploit Mr.Jackson's generous and kind nature, routinely using his credit cards, his cars and vandalising his property. When Mr.Jackson attempted to distance himself from the family, they, anxious perhaps that they would lose moneyed privileges, invented their accusations. (All of this evidence is available in Larry Nimmer's "The untold story of Neverland", which was used as evidence in the 2005 court case.) The family's accusations were then used by DA Tom Sneddon, who, it is clear, had a vendetta against Mr.Jackson for many years. Mr.Sneddon, throughout the course of the case, exhibited all the signs of malicious prosecution, abusing his power, and, engaging in illegal acts, (the like of which fans recently discussed in court, such as evidence tampering, (eg. putting fingerprints on evidence, fabricating phone evidence,) in order to try and convict Mr.Jackson for a crime he did not commit. His motives for these actions I can only put down to jealousy and deep seated prejudice.
Posted on August 18 at 6:47 a.m.
It is a sorry state of affairs when those individuals in society who act in the name of truth, honour, justice and decency are labelled "crazy," "mad" and "strange," whilst those who delight in persecuting and vilifying innocent people are allowed to live a life untarnished by consequences. Michael Jackson was an innocent man. Both the 93 and 05 cases were clear examples of extortion. (Anyone who took the time to look at the evidence, or lack thereof,) would reach the same conclusion. The 1993 extortion attempt was made clear by the comments made by the accuser's father in a taped phone conversation in which, when asked how certain situations will affect his son, he states, "That's irrelevant to me...It will be a massacre if I don't get what I want. It's going to be bigger than all us put together...This man [Jackson] is going to be humiliated beyond belief...He will not sell one more record." This is clearly not the heartfelt statement of a man seeking justice for his son. David Nordahl, an intimate friend of Mr.Jackson's for more than 20 years, reiterates the point: "That little boy's dad, who considered himself to be a Hollywood screenwriter because he had written (one script,) had assumed that Michael was going to make him a business partner in (his new film company. When Michael declined to make that offer, the father extorted the money from him using false allegations.) To listen to the illuminating interview David gave about who Michael Jackson really was in full, follow this link: http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/... Several false assumptions are made about the 93 case which are, as follows:1) It wasn’t Mr Jackson but his insurance company who paid to the Chandlers.2) The claim was for ‘negligence’ only (no molestation charges) which was withdrawn after reaching the financial settlement. Mr Jackson always maintained his complete innocence.3) The settlement had absolutely no limitations for Jordan Chandler to testify in court in case the family wanted justice for their son and insisted on taking the case to a criminal court. They could go on with it while still keeping the money.4) This opportunity was open to the Chandlers up to the year 2000 but Tom Sneddon, [the Santa Barbara DA] prolonged it as he wanted Jordan to show up in the 2005 court. However each time the prosecutors demanded a testimony from Jordan he left the country.5) Mr Jackson later regretted the Chandler case had been settled out of court, stating to several friends that he felt it made him look guilty in the public mindset.