Dialdancer
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 78
- Points
- 0
If you visit other sites you may find this thread there.
I had not thought about it, how much he used his "evidence" from 93, but once it occurred to me it seemed to large an idea to not share to have us thinking about.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I am posting this in several places because I believe this to be seriously important and it also show the levels in which Sneddon and the Media goes to keeping the truth from being known.
For the past several weeks the same subject kept popping up even when I was looking for unrelated information, this would be a part of my search results or found in the search topic. It had mean something.
I was reading from the MJEOL Bullets when this topic came up again it had to do with Sneddon’s attempt to try Michael for the 93 allegation, using material and witnesses, the same witnesses that show up in 2005 to make his case. In fact he used seized material and (some) witnesses from 93 to get his indictment in 2004.
In 2005 Michael was tried for both allegations, they had no evidence, lousy Prosecution witnesses with little or no credibility and the Trial Jury like to two 93 Grand Juries gave him the same answer. NOT NO, BUT HELL NO…………
Tom Sneddon proved in 2005 that Michael was innocent in 1993
Sneddon Clandestinely Trying Jackson for 1993 Case?-Bullet #110
http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet...-trying-jackson-for-1993-case-bullet-110.html
Prosecutors Used 1993 Investigation to Get Search Warrants – MB #196
http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet...tigation-to-get-search-warrants--mb-196.html
Mr. Mesereau understood the significance of this use of witnesses and evidence from 93 in the 03-04 investigations and 2005 trial.
Read the below and pay close attention to (P. 6, Para 22-24)
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/090304notmotcompeldisc.pdf
But there seemed to have been something else going on that I was just made aware of. From the Vindicating Michael site.
lynande51
February 22, 2011 9:37 pm
"The one thing I found that could be proof of Malicious Prosecution was not available or known to anyone until the release of Michael’s FBI files. Zonen and Auchincloss went to interview Jordan on September 26th -27th in New York and they were told by him that if they pursued him with subpoena he would take legal action against them so in other word they knew he would not be testifying. They did not tell the defense or the court and kept him on their witness list until well into the trial."
http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/20...d-not-to-disturb/comment-page-2/#comment-7012
All those legal minds who shared their so professional opinion on what was what, what could or may be done by both teams had to know what was going on and none brought this up. It is not that Michael could not be legally charged if there had been sufficient evidence, but there is nothing within the initial or final set of charges against him in 2003 that even hint of this intent. Sneddon used the "prior bad acts" law and an unlawful grand jury to subvert the laws. But thanks to him we now know.
I believe there will be more information about the 93 evidence which will be made available. I am beginning to suspect there was some DNA testing done and the results were negative. (not fact just a suspicion I am looking into)
I had not thought about it, how much he used his "evidence" from 93, but once it occurred to me it seemed to large an idea to not share to have us thinking about.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I am posting this in several places because I believe this to be seriously important and it also show the levels in which Sneddon and the Media goes to keeping the truth from being known.
For the past several weeks the same subject kept popping up even when I was looking for unrelated information, this would be a part of my search results or found in the search topic. It had mean something.
I was reading from the MJEOL Bullets when this topic came up again it had to do with Sneddon’s attempt to try Michael for the 93 allegation, using material and witnesses, the same witnesses that show up in 2005 to make his case. In fact he used seized material and (some) witnesses from 93 to get his indictment in 2004.
In 2005 Michael was tried for both allegations, they had no evidence, lousy Prosecution witnesses with little or no credibility and the Trial Jury like to two 93 Grand Juries gave him the same answer. NOT NO, BUT HELL NO…………
Tom Sneddon proved in 2005 that Michael was innocent in 1993
Sneddon Clandestinely Trying Jackson for 1993 Case?-Bullet #110
http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet...-trying-jackson-for-1993-case-bullet-110.html
Prosecutors Used 1993 Investigation to Get Search Warrants – MB #196
http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet...tigation-to-get-search-warrants--mb-196.html
Mr. Mesereau understood the significance of this use of witnesses and evidence from 93 in the 03-04 investigations and 2005 trial.
Read the below and pay close attention to (P. 6, Para 22-24)
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/090304notmotcompeldisc.pdf
But there seemed to have been something else going on that I was just made aware of. From the Vindicating Michael site.
lynande51
February 22, 2011 9:37 pm
"The one thing I found that could be proof of Malicious Prosecution was not available or known to anyone until the release of Michael’s FBI files. Zonen and Auchincloss went to interview Jordan on September 26th -27th in New York and they were told by him that if they pursued him with subpoena he would take legal action against them so in other word they knew he would not be testifying. They did not tell the defense or the court and kept him on their witness list until well into the trial."
http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/20...d-not-to-disturb/comment-page-2/#comment-7012
All those legal minds who shared their so professional opinion on what was what, what could or may be done by both teams had to know what was going on and none brought this up. It is not that Michael could not be legally charged if there had been sufficient evidence, but there is nothing within the initial or final set of charges against him in 2003 that even hint of this intent. Sneddon used the "prior bad acts" law and an unlawful grand jury to subvert the laws. But thanks to him we now know.
I believe there will be more information about the 93 evidence which will be made available. I am beginning to suspect there was some DNA testing done and the results were negative. (not fact just a suspicion I am looking into)
Last edited: