Lies, Evasive Answers and a Squirming DA on Stand MJEOL Bullet #181 New information about Sneddons testimony reveals questionable antics from the current lead prosecutor in the Michael Jackson case. After making excuses so asinine youd think they were concocted by Scott Peterson, the DA both confused and angered some observers in the courtroom during an August 16 2004 hearing. Sources inside the courtroom say Sneddon appeared peevish, bratty and evasive. He also admitted to defense attorneys and in front of his own prosecution team that he knew private investigator Bradley Miller worked for Mark Geragos, then tried to feign ignorance when it became convenient to do so.
The prosecutor was forced to take the stand to testify about what he did in this matter. It is very unusual for a lead prosecutor, who is also the district attorney, to take the stand in a case he/she is prosecuting. Although not totally unheard of, it is not something judges routinely do. So the mere fact that DA was allowed to be grilled on the stand today by Judge Rodney Melville shows that there are issues the judge would like answers to. Those answersat least believable answerswere in very short supply at the August 16 hearing yesterday. The bombshells started dropping when defense attorney Tom Mesereau presented irrefutable evidence that the prosecutor was lying at some point in this case. He was either being completely untruthful in court papers filed with the court, or he was telling a bald-faced lie and being evasive on the stand yesterday (August 16 2004). At issue is whether material taken from Millers office can be used by prosecutors. Sources say this material includes a videotape where the accusing family actually exonerates Jackson; saying nothing happened between the singer and the accuser. Prosecutors are trying to take that defense evidence and claim the accuser was made to essentially clear Jackson of molestation allegations; alleged molestation which supposedly only took place AFTER the tape was ever made. No, thats not a typo. MSNBCs Mike Taibbi reported yesterday that Sneddon testified he told Jacksons attorneys, in front of his own prosecutors, that he knew Miller was hired for by Geragos. Sneddon further told defense attorneys that he would sign an affidavit admitted to it. The next day, according to reports, Sneddon then told the defense team that he was mistaken, and that he didnt know. Taibbi reports, in a very rough, unofficial transcript:
Mesereau: In a conference call back on July 8 when you and your entire prosecution team were talking to the entire defense team, did you or did you not say that you knew Bradley Miller worked for Mark Geragos? Sneddon: Yes Mesereau: Did you say you would write an affidavit to that effect? Sneddon: Yes I did. Mesereau: Did any of the 3 prosecutors that were with you qualify or interject, contradict or interrupt what you said? Sneddon: No.
What does Sneddon say about that? He says he was mistaken, he was mad at a fellow prosecutor, he was fatigued, etc. Most observers simply arent buying those ridiculous excuses. During that conference call, not one of the other prosecutors spoke up that Sneddon was mistaken. Not one of them so much as interjected that Sneddon could be wrong. They were all in agreement they knew Miller was hired by a Jackson defense attorney. So, were they ALL mistaken? Were they ALL fatigued? Were they ALL too mad to know what they were agreeing to? Or is this a lie worthy of Scott Peterson?? How in the world could a prosecutor be mistaken about whether he invaded the defense camp? Regardless of how fatigued he is, is it really believable that he would have agreed to making a career-ending mistake? How in hell could you have been so mad about other issues that you mistakenly made a concession that you broke the 4th amendment rights of someone you are prosecuting? There are too many inconsistencies for this to be a simple mistake. The judge would have to believe that Sneddon made a mistake over and over again about knowing, then not knowing, then knowing, then being mistaken, again, about knowing he was breaking attorney-client privilege. Confused yet? Defense attorney Mickey Sherman sarcastically called Sneddons excuse one notch below the dog ate my homework. Sherman isnt the only commentator who sees massive problems with the behavior Sneddon engaged in. A source inside the courthouse says that Mesereau caught Sneddon in these types of lies more than once. Mesereau pulled the admission out of Sneddon in court yesterday (Aug 16 2004) that he knew Miller worked for Geragos as far back as December 2003. The defense attorney then presented a motion filed by Sneddon after December 2003 in which he then claimed not to know Miller worked for the defense team. So either Sneddon was lying in legal documents filed in court, or hes lying now on the witness stand. This would be the 2nd time hed claimed to know, then claimed not to know. He was tripped up in these types of inconsistencies numerous times by the defense attorney. Not to mention, in an earlier hearing and from numerous sources, we learned that the police were told Miller worked for the defense WHILE they were ransacking his office. They didnt stop the search and call in a special master. They continued because they wanted to know what the defense had. They certainly knew about this situation before the police sought a 2nd search warrant after coming up empty-handed from the first one. This second search warrant was obtained, again, without informing the issuing judge that Miller was working for Geragos:
And that storage locker, by the way, was discovered during the initial search. And then a second search warrant was obtained compounding the problem because they again didnt mention that Brad Miller was Mark Geragoss investigator. And Brad Miller was there and told them that before they went and got the second search warrant ( :camera see FoxNewsLive: Sneddon Admitted to Knowing Miller worked for Geragos Aug 15 2004 )
As with the familys tall tale of what happened while at Jacksons Neverland Ranch, the inconsistencies in this story have now expanded to include those by the very people trying the case against Jackson. So what possible results could come from these hearings? One observer commented in disbelief when asked if Sneddon would be able to get out of this saying, The judge would have to be a member of the prosecution team for there not to be any repercussions for the prosecution. Indeed. And still other observers of yesterdays proceeding have conceded that this was absolutely not a good day for the prosecution. They have said that Sneddon looked like a fool on the stand. Some even report of being inside the overflow room where some reporters where openly very skeptical about the answers being given by Sneddon. How can one get out of committing perjury? Well Senddon seems to think its as simple as denying everything. Pretending you didnt know doesnt absolve one of their blame, especially when its been shown that a person has admitted to the truth then recanted. You could tell how much trouble this prosecutor is in by the sheer desperation to get him off the hook by those in the media who are spinning this story into the stratosphere. Why, Diane Dimond alone would probably excuse Sneddons behavior if he was caught on tape admitting the truth. For all we know, maybe he was. And the more these apologists mislead the public, the more suspicious we all become of exactly what happened. The judge could decide to either completely toss out the indictment against Jackson, drop the conspiracy charges, make material taken from Millers officelike a tape of the family exonerating Jackson–off-limits to prosecutors, or a combination of events that will come as a serious and well-deserved blow to prosecutors. Stay tuned for further updates about what happened today, August 17, during the continuation of these hearings into misconduct by the prosecution team. -MJEOL