ABC- News Has Evidence of Sneddon Secret Meeting with Mother
-----
Alleged Vendetta
abcnews.go.com/sections/Entertainment/GoodMorningAmerica/Michael_Jackson_Tom_Sneddon_040429-1.html
Memo Raises Questions About Prosecutor's Role in Case Against Michael Jackson

ABCNEWS.com
April 29— ABCNEWS has exclusively viewed documents that raise potentially troubling questions about the investigation into the child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson as the "King of Pop" prepares to face his arraignment on the charges brought by a grand jury.




Jackson, 45, faces seven counts of performing a lewd act upon a child for alleged inappropriate conduct with a now-14-year-old cancer survivor who spent time at his Neverland ranch. Last week, a grand jury hearing evidence in the child molestation case against him decided to indict him and he is scheduled to be formally arraigned Friday in Santa Barbara county court.
Jackson has professed his innocence and claimed the allegations against him are false. He and his defense have said that Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon has a vendetta against him and is determined to convict the pop star legend at any cost — a charge Sneddon has denied.

ABCNEWS has seen documents — including a memo apparently written by Sneddon himself — that will likely add to the controversy about the district attorney's role in the case.

Alleged Personal Stakeouts and Investigation

A memo that bears Sneddon's name and is dated last November says Sneddon personally investigated aspects of the case against Jackson. Jackson defense sources told ABCNEWS that Sneddon took on parts of the investigation that are almost always handled by police investigators or junior prosecutors.

According to the memo, Sneddon drove to Los Angeles and met alone with the mother of Jackson's alleged victim in a parking lot behind a federal building. The memo says that Sneddon took pictures of the office of a private investigator who worked for Jackson. Sneddon, the memo claims, handled all these matters by himself, without the presence of a law enforcement officer or an investigator. Sources close to Jackson told ABCNEWS that Sneddon also executed his own stakeouts.

In addition, a Santa Barbara County police report says that Sneddon met alone with Jackson's alleged victim's mother on another occasion.

‘Way Too Personal’

Linda Fairstein, a leading sex crimes prosecutor, said this alleged personal sleuthing by Sneddon was unusual.

"It's way too personal. It's way out of line," Fairstein told Good Morning America. "If he does any substantive parts of an investigation, he may become a witness in the case."

Fairstein added that Sneddon's close involvement in aspects of the investigation could be grounds for a mistrial and gives Jackson's defense team ammunition to attack the prosecution.

"It lets these very talented defense attorneys take him apart before the jury and explain that it's not his place to do that," she said. "He creates trouble in and out of the courtroom for himself by taking on that role."

Legal experts also believe jurors are more likely to question the case against Jackson they sense it is motivated by a personal grudge from the district attorney.

Citing a gag order in the case, Tom Sneddon declined to comment on the memo and charges of a personal grudge against Jackson. He has said the evidence will speak for itself in court.

The specific charges that the grand jury decided to bring against Jackson are under seal, but will be revealed publicly when Jackson is arraigned Friday. He remains free on $3 million bail.


Reported by ABCNEWS' Jessica Yellin on Good Morning America.

Why not open a new MJ thread every minute, just to be sure, we're still aware of him.

No, seriously, isn't that a article which would perfectly fit into some of the others threads around (today)?

BlueNote
[This message was edited Sat May 1 3:49:31 2004 by BlueNote]
[This message was edited Sat May 1 3:49:47 2004 by BlueNote]

C'mon thats why i opened th mj llegal thread so no more POST C'mon now!

love4 about a week ago u stated that we should have just the 1 mj thread then a day later u were makin more mj threads if u cant take your own advice then why should we
[This message was edited Sat May 1 5:38:38 2004 by riverdean7]

riverdean7 said:

it wasn't wasn't official then now it is'
in the words of lil jon
YEAAAAAH!

whatever i dont think it will work anyway

riverdean7 said:

your probably right
but it never hurts to try
and i suppose we'd get less complaints

yeah but u know its easy just to not click on a topic if u dont want to i think if u keep replying to the silly or noninformative mj topics then i think the mj topics will continue just dont respond then they might slow down
just a thought anyway

good point

This disturbing story makes me angry. At Michael Jackson. Let me tell you why.

If what this article says is true, the prosecutor overstepped his customary bounds, to say the least. It may not be illegal misconduct per se, but it is certainly improper. It is well known that he bore a personal grudge against MJ. Make no mistake. This guy wants MJ convicted in the worst way.

But MJ handed Sneddon this case on a silver platter by hugging up with that boy on television for millions across the world to see. Even if MJ didn't do anything wrong, the creepiness of that episode was enough for Sneddon to mount up and go after him one more time. Any DA worth his salt would AT LEAST investigate after that. A prosecutor can't see that kind of thing happen in his backyard and choose NOT to do so.

Sneddon was out of line. But even if he's innocent, MJ STILL brought this on himself.

namepeace said:

Don't give me that crap
this country is about freedom
not for a Dirty D.A. trying to prosecute innocent men
for notiriety or fame
hell MJ Could say he sleeps with children ontop of a truck
the Amendments of the constintuition protects him to do so
just because it seems "Improper" or "Weird"
doesn't sanctify anything
this is not about the kid
this is about FAME
Jackson would make a nice trophy for a retiring D.A.

thats whats going to happen Luv4oneanotha dont worry:
[This message was edited Sat May 1 8:22:51 2004 by LightOfArt]

Luv4oneanotha said:

I can understand namepeace, but I have to say...

PREACH IT, Luv4oneanotha!

I say: REVOLUTION OF THE (so called) FREAKS!!!

BlueNote

Yeah, but Namepeace is cool, tho'. He's just giving his opinion.

Cloudbuster said:

Of course, as I said, I can understand it. Sometimes I have the same thing in mind. But MJ seems to stick to his thing, which I admire, but it has brought him a lot of trouble. He wouldn't be the first who would go down for what he believes in.

BlueNote

BlueNote said:

Agreed. And rather than thinking of the sleepovers as being creepy I prefer to view them as naive. At least I hope nothing sinister really did happen.

Cloudbuster said:

Do you like Gary Glitter too?

Cloudbuster said:

So do I. I'm confident, that he is innocent, after all those 'creepy' charges, which I find more amusing, it just seems unbelievable.

I wouldn't do the sleepovers, but I wasn't raised that way. As long as it is just sleeping in the same room, like he said, I don't mind, it is his right, to do whatever he wants, as long as it is legal. I don't think it is creepy.

BlueNote

Luv4oneanotha said:

No one is giving you anything. I am simply stating my opinion, as you have done many times on this topic. If you want to support MJ unconditionally, then that's fine, but I think you're missing the finer points of my opinion.

You're right, kind of, as to MJ's constitutional rights. But as you might have learned in law school, there are exceptions to and distinctions from those rights to which you refer.

1. Even expression has its limits. Your expressions or associations cannot be criminal in nature. If the charges against MJ are true (and I am not saying that they are), his association with the alleged victim is criminal. And not even MJ has the freedom to commit criminal activity.

(Oh yeah, if you think you could go on national television and admit you sleep with children anywhere, and you also think you could escape investigation by the cops or the local prosecutor after doing so, you're one bad so-and-so!)

2. Even MJ's free expressions have consequences. Even if he did nothing nothing wrong, the manner in which he carried on with that boy on national television invited Sneddon to open up the can of worms again. He may have the right to freely express himself, but he doesn't have the freedom not to be investigated, arrested, or even indicted. Happens to innocent people all the time. Even if he is ultimately proven innocent at trial. So MJ caused his own problems by choosing to give off the impression that his relationship with this boy might cross the line.

3. Nothing MJ did absolves Sneddon if he overstepped his bounds as the DA. If Sneddon did something dirty, he deserves sanction, and it may well result in the charges being dropped. But then again, MJ basically dared Sneddon to go after him during that TV appearance. There would be no prosecution today if MJ hadn't gone on TV with the boy. It is my love for MJ's music that makes me mad at him for doing that in the first place.

P.S. -- this excuse that MJ "loves the kids" doesn't fly either. Jerry Lewis loves the kids. Bob Geldof loves the kids. Princess Di loved the kids. Mother Teresa loved the kids. None of them have conducted themselves around kids the way MJ has. You can love the kids and set the boundaries, or at least don't act in such a way where people can question your motives. MJ has failed horribly on both counts.

"eliminate repetition" edit
[This message was edited Sat May 1 15:26:54 2004 by namepeace]
[This message was edited Sat May 1 15:33:08 2004 by namepeace]

namepeace said:

Thats right - he wants MJ brought to justice.
This does not make him corrupt.
He did not break the law.
What some people call a personal grudge
other people may call it a
determination to see justice prevail.
And if MJ is found guilty
that will be what they say about Sneddon -
that he stuck with the case when others
wanted to look the other way
& blindly believe a pop star.

riverdean7 said:

Don't quote me on this, but it has always been my understanding that it's not entirely unusual for a prosecutor to conduct an interview with a person invoved with his case whether it is in his office, a restaurant, or even yes, in a parked car in Buttbackwoods, Egypt . Same thing goes for handling investigative aspects of the case that we assume he'd normally give to a junior prosecuter that works for him; not entirely unheard of and not illegal on his behalf....

....we need an "org.legal-eagle" in here to clear this one up- it's too late for me to call anybody to get the legal skinny on this one!

thedoorkeeper said:

I hope you're right about MJ being exonerated. After re-reading the article, Sneddon may have an evidentiary problem. If he did the stakeouts, he's the only witness to the investigation. That may mean that he's the only one that could take the stand. There's a problem with that. He's the prosecuting attorney. Either way, if what's alleged is true, Sneddon has tained the whole proceedings.

Someone should send the link for this thread to BanishedBrian or TheFrog for their thoughts. They may know the relevant legal and evidentiary issues better than I do.

namepeace said:

I think nobody here would support a molester, thats for sure.



I know, it was stupid, but what could you do, he doesn't see anything wrong with that. But I guess, it was the last we saw MJ holding hands with a minor.



co-sign, he invited Sneddon.



But it wasn't all his fault. Society has only problems with men in these kind of situations and they have a even bigger problem with this very Michael Jackson. He has a record in this department, even if it is not true, Sneddon wants him so badly, because he didn't get his chance ten years ago.

BlueNote

BlueNote said:

If you limit this to a ten year window, I'd agree with you. But this thread causes me to aska question similar to the one Solozzo asked Tom Hagen in the Godfather Part I.

Twenty years ago could Sneddon have gotten to him?

No.

Why?

Because Michael's image was beyond reproach. He was the ultimate untouchable celebrity. It wouldn't have even occurred to anyone that Michael would be capable of the things he's accused of. Even when he carried Emmanuel Lewis around everywhere. Even when he befriended Macaulay and Kieran Culkin. He was Michael-by goodness-Jackson. Weird, but beyond all reproach. It is still breathtaking to see this come out now.

namepeace said:

Mj Seriously needed some dirt on him
Cause Mj's Image Was Impeccable
even with all the wierd headlines in the tabloids,
you never had any real dirt on him
people always seen him with kids and never really raised an eyebrow
that cloud darkened in 93
thats when we question actions
We think since it happened twice, the second charge has got to have some truth to it
Thats the way people think...
when it could simply be that it would be easier to Pinn MJ
cause his image is already nearly Destroyed
Its very easy to say Pin it on the "freak"
the skin bleaching nose job obsessed freak! gotta be a child abuser!
any normal terapist or child psycologist knows that
it isn't the freaks that are Currupting your children
its the people that seem "Normal" who are
Your Doctors,Teachers,Fathers,Uncles,aunts
Pinning it on the Local Freak is just a cop out

Luv4oneanotha said:

That's the impression I get when I discuss the case with MOST people.

the media seems to always try to dig up dirt on michael by looking into his past well how bout they check out the mothers past the mother of the alleged molested boy shes a snake

Family of Jackson's accuser has long history of legal woes

By Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) - The family of the boy accusing Michael Jackson of child molestation has already been involved in two previous cases that involved abuse allegations: a lawsuit in which the family said they were battered by mall security guards, and a divorce fight in which the father pleaded no contest to spousal abuse and child cruelty.

In November of 2001, J.C. Penney Co. paid the boy's family $137,500 to settle a lawsuit alleging security guards beat the boy, his mother and his brother in a parking lot after the boy left the store carrying clothes that hadn't been paid for, court records show.

The mother also contended that she was sexually assaulted by one of the guards during the 1998 confrontation.

A month before the settlement, the boy's mother had filed for divorce, beginning a bitter fight that would include criminal charges of abuse. The father's attorney, Russell Halpern, said the mother had lied about the abuse and had a "Svengali-like" ability to make her children repeat her lies.

The family's past legal cases could be critical in the current molestation case, if Jackson attorney Mark Geragos can show the mother or the accuser lacks credibility, said Leonard Levine, a defense attorney who specializes in sexual assault cases.

"It sounds like music to a defense attorney's ears - that there have been other cases where they have sued and there is at least an argument that the allegations are similar to the ones here," Levine said, referring to the claims of physical abuse.

Halpern said the father once showed him a script his wife had allegedly written for their children to use when they were questioned in a civil deposition.

"She wrote out all their testimony. I actually saw the script," Halpern said. "I remember my client showing me, bringing the paperwork to me."

Halpern said it may have been from the J.C. Penney case, but he wasn't sure. J.C. Penney lawyers did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

"Once you can get evidence in that there's previous evidence that either the child or the parents have fabricated evidence or testimony, you're 90 percent to an acquittal," Levine said.

The Associated Press does not identify alleged victims of sexual abuse. The child's mother has an unlisted number and could not be located for comment.

Jackson was released on $3 million bail after his surrender Thursday and immediately returned to Las Vegas, where he had been filming a video. Santa Barbara County authorities said Tuesday they now expect to file formal charges sometime in mid-December rather than soon after Thanksgiving.

Jackson's spokesman, Stuart Backerman, declined comment about the past lawsuits involving the accuser's family. Geragos said Tuesday that Jackson's accusers were motivated by money.

In 2002, the boy's father was charged with four counts of child cruelty, and one count each of injuring a child, making a threat and false imprisonment. He pleaded no contest to one count of child cruelty but it was unclear from court records which of his children was involved. The other charges were dismissed.

The father also pleaded no contest to spousal abuse in 2001.

In a court document describing the alleged abuse, the boy's mother said that on Sept. 29, 2001, her husband grabbed her and shook her, hit her in the head and pulled her hair. When she fell down, she said, he kicked her.

"He said he hated me and hated our kids and that he was disowning us," she said in the statement. "He said if I ever told anyone about this that he would kill me and the kids would have no mother."

Halpern said the mother made up the abuse allegations and that his client had only pleaded no contest to avoid going to trial. He said that in the case of the threat charge, the mother had encouraged her daughter to falsely accuse her father.

"The allegation was that my client had come to the girl's school and told her he was going to kill her mother. That's what she claimed to the police," Halpern said. "And then when she was in court talking to the judge alone, without the mother around, she changed her story dramatically and said he picked her up from school, talking to her but never threatened anybody.

"She didn't say her mother made her do it, but that's obviously where it came from."

Halpern said the father is now considering seeking custody of the children because, if the allegations against Jackson are true, the mother put their son at risk by letting him be close to Jackson.

If the allegations are untrue, Halpern said, the boy's mother is putting him at legal risk by asking him to lie.

The mother's attorney in the divorce, Michael Manning, declined to comment through his secretary Tuesday. On Monday, Manning told The Associated Press that she had never indicated to him that the singer had sexually abused the boy, and that he remembered the mother saying positive things about Jackson as recently as April or May.

"'He was really good to us' - that's what she said at the time," Manning said.

But on Tuesday, his secretary said the mother had asked Manning to stop talking to the media

And the plot thickens...

On a related note....On the news yesterday,I heard that some of MJ's personal items were seized by cops and they found some chemical skin-bleach!! I guess this pretty much proves that he doesn't have that disease after all.He bleaches his skin!

DavidEye said:

They're doing DNA testing on his underwear now. Apparently to find out if the "DNA" on the sheets of his bed is his and/or the kid's. Methinks there's a lot of evidence we're not privy to.

Police have seized two pair's of Michael Jackson's underpants to ascertain whether stains found on the pop star's mattress came from him or boys he shared his bed with. Authorities, who will DNA test the underwear, also took several documents written by Jackson relating to the 'Rubberhead Club' he created for the children he entertained at his Californian Neverland Ranch, from memorabilia collector Henry Vaccaro's New Jersey warehouse. Jackson was charged with ten counts relating to child sex offences at Anta Maria Superior Court, California on Friday. The singer denies all charges.
[This message was edited Mon May 3 7:15:49 2004 by VoicesCarry]