Sneddon Clandestinely Trying Jackson for 1993 Case?-Bullet #110

Posted by

Sneddon Clandestinely Trying Jackson for 1993 Case? – MJEOL Bullet #110 Santa Barbara Newspress is reporting that current district attorney Tom Sneddon will call some of the same witnesses to this current grand jury as those who testified in front of the 1993 grand juries. The lame excuse of the day is that he is trying to show a “pattern.” I guess that “pattern” would be that Jackson only molests kids once every 10 years. Give me a break with that nonsense. This does give rise again to the notion that Sneddon has been lying in wait, trying to “get” Jackson since the 1993 accuser and father made a fool out of him by successfully extorting money from Jackson, while using the district attorney’s office to do it. Some have said all along that Sneddon wants to try Jackson for the ’93 case as well. Contrary to what has been reported, the case from ’93 did not crumble because the accuser and father took a pay off. It crumbled because the prosecutor had no case and no corroborating evidence. Since the only thing he had was the 93 accuser’s accusation, the case crumbled when he no longer had that accusation. Further, if he had corroboration that could withstand cross-examination during the 93 case, he still could have proceeded without the testimony of that accuser. The common sense questions should be kicking in right about now: Has there ever been a case where a 45 year old pedophile only molests 2 kids? Where is this avalanche of children with similar experiences? Why is he trying to re-live the ’93 case if this current case is as “strong” as we were told? Why bring into a grand jury an accuser whose father previously asked Jackson for $20 million to be broken down into 4, $5million movie deals as a means to extort him? If Jackson did molest that 93 accuser, why didn’t he give in to the 4 $5million movie deal scheme BEFORE any of this hit the courts?? As shady as that case was, why even bring it up at all? That last question is relevant because it’s known that some alleged witnesses from 93 were claiming to have “seen something” then, and were later completely discredited in front of the grand juries in 93. Most had admitted to never seeing anything inappropriate while others were busted for selling their stories to tabloids. One example of this is Blanca Francia. Francia was a maid who worked for Jackson a long time ago. On Dec 15 1993 she gave an interview to tabloid reporter Diane Dimond (yeah her…again), who worked for the defunct Hard Copy at the time. She claimed to have witnessed all sorts of untoward behavior between Jackson and children. Mary Fischer, who did an exhaustive article about the 93 case, says that a copy of Francia’s testimony to the grand jury revealed that she was paid $20,000.00 by Hard Copy for that interview. In a previous deposition given to Jackson’s attorney at the time, Francia admitted she never actually saw Jackson do anything even remotely inappropriate with any child. The story was a lie and the grand jurors never found her credible. Will she be called in front of THIS grand jury too? Probably not. It is common knowledge that there were a great number of things from Jackson’s 93 defense that didn’t get to see the light of day because Sneddon didn’t have enough evidence–nor a law designed specifically for Jackson—to get the case to trial. One of Jackson’s attorneys from the 93 case, Howard Weitzman, gave an interview with Geraldo Rivera (Fox) Jan 18 2004. He says he advised Jackson then that he did not want to settle the 93 case because he thought they could win. This was before another group of lawyers convinced Jackson that he probably couldn’t get a fair trial and he should settle the civil case so as to prepare for any pending criminal charges. When specifically asked if it would be a problem if the 93 accuser testified in this case, Weitzman says that if Chandler does testify, Jackson’s current lawyers will be able to successfully prove that Jackson did not molest him either. The people who appear to be making the biggest deal about this 93 accuser are the media because it doesn’t appear to be a problem at all to Jackson’s defense attorneys. Even the gossip columnists, who are usually anti-Jackson on all stances, are mum on this issue. Cindy Adams, however, ventured to speak on what she was hearing about this case:

January 9, 2004 — LOS ANGELES legal types are saying Michael Jackson cannot be found guilty. That two lawyers earlier refused this case believing it “not strong enough.” That it was shopped around for three months. That some in the Santa Barbara police community believed there wasn’t sufficient evidence to go on. That even attorneys who had opposed Michael in the first case determined they didn’t want in on this one. That forces behind the plaintiff were not motivated by familial or legal issues. That this indictment “could fall apart unless additional evidence is found.” Legal brains closer at hand are calling this “flimsy,” saying “they have nothing that’s triable.” I’m not siding. I’m just reporting. (see Tabloid columnist reporting about ‘flimsy case’ )

When you think about this case, you would have to ask yourself what incentive would the 93 accuser have to testify now? Jackson’s current attorneys aren’t bound by the confidentiality agreement from the civil case in 93 and have probably prepared a defense for that case as well incase Sneddon tries to inject the 93 accuser into this mix. But why would the 93 accuser want to take a chance on being cross-examined, or his testimony exposed to be untrue, at this late date? Some are already predicting that a snowball has a better chance in hell than the 93 accuser actively wanting to be a part of this current case. But we shall see. Stay tuned. -MJEOL :3pinned [url=]Comments?[/url]

Leave a Reply