MR. MESEREAU: What did Janet Arvizo tell you about her children learning to act?
HOLZER: She said she wanted them to become good actors so she could tell them what to say and how to behave.
The Independent (London), August 20, 1994
A ruddy-faced veteran prosecutor with a reputation for bloody-mindedness, Thomas Sneddon is not willing to accept that his case is hopeless without the testimony of its central figure – Jordan Chandler.
Michael Cooney, an attorney who knows Sneddon well, says: ”Tom Sneddon is a very determined individual who will go further than almost anyone to prove something which he feels needs proving. Once he decides action is worth taking, he will pursue it to the very end.”
Showbiz Today, September 22, 1994
GIL GARCETTI, Los Angeles County District Attorney: We have concluded that because the young boy who was the catalyst for this investigation has recently informed us that he does not wish to participate in any criminal proceeding where he is named as a victim, that we must decline prosecution involving Mr. Jackson.
TOM SNEDDON, Santa Barbara County District Attorney: Should circumstances change, should other evidence become available within this period of the statute of limitations, like Los Angeles County, we would re-evaluate the situation based upon what information is available to us at that particular point in time.
The New York Times, September 22, 1994
Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garletti and Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon announced that after a 13-month investigation in which 400 witnesses were interviewed, no charges would be filed against Michael Jackson.
The boy who had accused him of misconduct has declined to testify against him in court in any possible prosecution. The formal investigation concluded in September 1994 and the case is closed. However, under California law, cases involving minors expire six years after the date of any alleged accusation, and in this particular case the statute of limitations expires in 1999.
The Chattanooga Times, August 19, 1995
Meanwhile, Saturday’s Today newspaper said Santa Barbara, Calif., District Attorney Tom Sneddon had twice contacted Presley’s mother, Priscilla, for information about Jackson’s relationships with young boys.
The New York Beacon August 23, 1995
Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon told the magazine that Jackson has not been “cleared” of sexual involvement with two boys, as Sawyer said during his interview of Jackson on ABC’s “Prime Time Live.”
“The state of the investigation is in suspension until somebody comes forward,” Sneddon said to the “Vanity Fair”. In the June 14 interview, Jackson told Sawyer there was “not one iota of information that was found that could connect me to these charges” of child molestation.
But Sneddon told the magazine in its September issue that he has seen photos of Jackson’s genitalia, and “his statement on TV is untrue and incorrect and not consistent with the evidence in the case.”
The Advertiser January 27, 1996
“The reality is, no matter what he does, he can’t escape the fact that he paid out millions of dollars to prevent a 13-year-old boy from testifying against him in court,” says Santa Barbara District-Attorney Tom Sneddon, who originally investigated claims Jackson had molested the boy at his Neverland ranch.
Mr Sneddon says, contrary to popular belief, it would be “inaccurate” to say Jackson was cleared of all charges. “The state of the investigation is in suspension until somebody comes forward and testifies,” he says.
Broadcast News (BN) February 15, 2001
Sneddon tells the New York Daily News the case against Jackson was never closed and it can be re-opened at any time. He says the statute of limitations hasn’t run out because Jackson was living out of the country for so much time.
About the JC Penney case: 'Exaggerating isn't the same thing as being a liar'
He also adds 'If a Mother had even done something wrong you visit the sins of the Mother on the son'. Fair enough...
A couple of months ago I was shown some Facebook accounts belonging to some of Sneddon's children. It was interesting. There were some posts reflecting to when Sneddon died. They clearly did not like the mention of the MJ trial in articles. They only posted articles where the MJ trial wasn't even mentioned in euologies about their father (which is strange because it is a pretty big part of his legacy - it is the thing he is known for most people). One of the kids even said something along the lines they are fed up that people consider the MJ trial their father's legacy when he did so many other things otherwise and he praised the eulogy that did not mention the trial. You could see the MJ trial was clearly a sore spot for his family that they did not like to be reminded of.
I was kind of glad to see that because at least it seems Sneddon considered the trial the big defeat of his life and it was a sore spot for him.
It is also very telling that the so called "victims" have no problem of being reminded of MJ. They dance to his music, they smile at his mention, their family's praise him on FB and so on. How come that Sneddon and his family is more traumatized by the trial than Gavin? LOL. Very telling.
Those JC Penney guards were falsely accused of brutally beating the Arvizos and sexually abusing Janet. And Sneddon calls it just an "exaggeration"? If we go by that logic then you could call the false allegations of sexual abuse against MJ "just an exaggeration" as well. I mean you could say Gaving hanging out around MJ was just being a "a bit exaggerated" into a molestation story. The Arvizos finding MJ's porn could be "exaggerated" into MJ showing it to them. The Arvizos drinking alcohol on their own could be "exaggerated" into MJ giving it to them. And so on. If this DA has this liberal approach about lies you wonder how many of Gavin's lies he himself encouraged. After all he had no problem of significantly changing the timeline either.
How is a mother routinely coaching her kids to lie for personal and financial gain is not significant in such a case? What an idiotic thing to say.
My impression is that Sneddon and Zonen are stupid rednecks who had certain prejudices against MJ because of his lifestyle and because of who he was. And they just desperately wanted to bring him down. All objectivity went out of the window for them when it came to MJ.
Solvang attorney requests probe of Sneddon's actions
May 29, 2004 12:00 am • Mark Abramson/Staff Writer
Lawyers for Solvang attorney Gary Dunlap are pressing federal, state, and county officials to investigate Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon and members of his staff for alleged misconduct. Dunlap's Burbank attorney, Joe Freeman, sent a scathing 3-page letter to the California Attorney General's Office, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, the California State Bar, the Santa Barbara County Counsel and Grand Jury, and others, blasting the conduct of Sneddon and some of his subordinates. The letter was sent May 24, about two weeks after a federal judge upheld the bulk of Dunlap/s complaint against Sneddon, the county, and several officials in the district attorney/s office. The judge's action cleared the way for Dunlap to file a lawsuit against the county and Sneddon if a settlement is not reached. U.S. Attorney's Office officials could not be reached for comment. The request is being reviewed by the California Attorney General's Office, a spokesperson said.
Dunlap filed a complaint against the county seeking ,10 million in damages after his acquittal last June on six charges, including perjury, witness intimidation, filing false documents and preparing false documents. The charges were filed in connection with a criminal case in which Dunlap was the defense attorney.
Dunlap claims he was set up by the district attorney's office and that the district attorney's office illegally taped conversations between him and his client.
"In my opinion, the matters to be investigated are the possible criminal violations of several felony and misdemeanor statutes, including conspiracy, illegal taping, deceiving a court and a prosecutor illegally assisting the defense of a case," Freeman wrote. The complaint against the county named Assistant District Attorney Christie Stanley; deputy district attorneys Kevin Duffy, Jerry McBeth, Gerald Franklin, John T. McKinnon, Josh Webb; and district attorney investigators Mary Brizzolara and Tim Rooney.
"I don/t think it has any merit," Jake Stoddard, a county counsel attorney handling the case, said Thursday about the letter. "In (Dunlap's) criminal trial, he alleged outrageous government misconduct and it was denied."
Stoddard said Sneddon and his employees are immune from legal action on the basis of such allegations because they are prosecutors.
http://santamariatimes.com/news/local/solvang-attorney-requests-probe-of-sneddon-s-actions/article_b8097620-04be-58cc-9232-ddca1efaa716.html
His law license is currently active, but Dunlap was disciplined by the State Bar of California in 1999 amid allegations of financial wrongdoing involving two disabled clients. Additionally he was charged with witness tampering, conspiracy, perjury under oath and preparing false documentary evidence in an eight-count indictment issued in 2002 by a criminal grand jury. In 2003, he was acquitted of the charges and later filed a $10 million lawsuit against Santa Barbara County alleging civil rights violations due to wrongful arrest. A federal judge dismissed that lawsuit in 2006.
http://santamariatimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/softball-coach-pleads-guilty-to-sex-with-minors/article_9f5e60e0-f975-11e1-a96b-001a4bcf887a.html
Man Wrongly Convicted of Murder Sues Prosecutors
Law: Efren Cruz of Oxnard seeks $120 million. He served four years for a shooting in Santa Barbara.
December 13, 2001|TRACY WILSON | TIMES STAFF WRITER
An Oxnard man wrongly convicted of murder has filed a federal lawsuit against Santa Barbara prosecutors and police officers, accusing them of negligence and conspiracy to keep him in prison. After four years behind bars, Efren Cruz, 27, was freed Oct. 12 when a judge ruled that credible evidence suggests that another man pulled the trigger during a 1997 gang shooting in downtown Santa Barbara. Last week, Cruz filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles that accuses nearly a dozen law enforcement officials of violating his civil rights before and after his trial.
The lawsuit accuses Santa Barbara County Dist. Atty. Thomas W. Sneddon and three senior prosecutors of conspiracy and malicious prosecution for allegedly withholding evidence favorable to Cruz. Prosecutors and six Santa Barbara police officers are accused of negligent investigation for allegedly failing to pursue evidence that indicated that another suspect was the killer. The lawsuit also charges Senior Deputy Dist. Atty. Hilary Dozer, lead prosecutor on the case, with defamation for blaming Cruz in the media "when he knew or should have known that there was great doubt that [Cruz] was [the] actual shooter."
Cruz is seeking more than $120 million in damages.
"I think that my client is entitled to be compensated for 4 1/2 years in Pelican Bay," said Thousand Oaks attorney Richard Hamlish, referring to the maximum-security prison.
"To serve there and be innocent of a crime, the kid's life was ruined," Hamlish said.
Sneddon and other law enforcement officials named in the lawsuit could not be reached Wednesday. Dozer and Santa Barbara County Counsel Shane Stark said they had not seen the lawsuit and could not comment. The suit stems from Cruz's arrest after a shooting at Santa Barbara Parking Lot 10 on Jan. 26, 1997. Two groups of young men--some Oxnard gang members--exchanged taunts in the parking structure at Anacapa and Ortega streets, and one of the men pulled a gun.
Michael Torres, a 23-year-old Santa Barbara resident, died of a gunshot wound to the head. Santa Ynez resident James Miranda, 21 at the time, was seriously injured but recovered.
Cruz, the only one to not flee the scene, was arrested, and police found a chrome .38-caliber revolver. Forensic tests revealed that Cruz had gunpowder residue on his hands, and a driver leaving the parking structure identified him as the shooter. Prosecutors charged Cruz and three others--including Cruz's cousin, Gerardo Reyes--with murder. One suspect pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, and Reyes and the other suspect were released for lack of evidence. Cruz was the only one to stand trial. According to Cruz's lawsuit, Santa Barbara authorities had evidence favorable to Cruz before his trial, but failed to turn it over to the defense. That evidence included other witnesses' statements to police suggesting that Reyes was the shooter.
Although Cruz denied shooting Torres and Miranda, jurors found him guilty of murder and attempted murder, and in January 1998, he was sentenced to 41 years to life in prison. A year later, Oxnard Police Det. Dennis McMaster received a tip from an informant that Reyes was the Lot 10 shooter.
At the request of Santa Barbara authorities, Ventura County prosecutors investigated and arranged an undercover meeting between the informant and Reyes, who were members of the same Oxnard gang. During a conversation secretly tape-recorded, Reyes admitted to the shooting. Ventura County Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury wrote a letter to Sneddon stating that based on new evidence, "we have concluded that Gerardo Reyes, not Efren Cruz, killed Michael Torres."
However, Santa Barbara prosecutors stood by their conviction of Cruz.
But Superior Court Judge Frank Ochoa, ruling after a 26-day hearing, concluded that there was credible evidence that Reyes was the shooter, not Cruz, and ordered him released. According to the lawsuit, prosecutors abandoned their obligation to investigate the case after new evidence came to light. They also conspired to discredit Reyes' confession and keep Cruz in prison, the suit says. As a result, Cruz suffered humiliation, depression and emotional distress requiring psychological counseling, according to the lawsuit. Cruz was out of town and could not be reached for comment. But Adela Reyes, his mother, said the lawsuit was not about money as much as sending a message to Santa Barbara authorities.
"People make mistakes," Reyes said. "They had the opportunity to say they made a mistake. But they are still saying Efren was the real shooter. Hopefully this will open their eyes."
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/dec/13/local/me-14410
Cruz later filed a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging that prosecutors and police withheld evidence from his trial lawyers. That included evidence that a Santa Barbara police officer had failed to disclose notes of interviews with a woman who said she heard her brother and Reyes talking about a gun being hidden under a car in the parking lot after the shooting.
The lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge who ruled the failure to disclose this information did not prejudice Cruz.
http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3938
Commentary: All the little voices deserve equal attention
January 21, 2004 12:00 am • Steve Corbett/Times Columnist
While the world watches Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon prepare to make his case against superstar Michael Jackson on charges of child molestation, the Santa Maria parents of another alleged molestation victim wonder why Sneddon abandoned them in their search for truth. David Bruce Danielson retired last year from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff/s Department, where he worked as a detective until his July 20, 2002, arrest on suspicion of child molestation.
In August 2002, Sneddon decided not to prosecute Danielson, of Orcutt, who was then 49, married and a veteran forensic investigator who had worked on some of the county/s most serious criminal cases.
During a subsequent internal investigation into the molestation allegations, Danielson remained on paid administrative leave until he retired, according to sheriff/s Lt. Julie McCammon. Citing confidentiality, Sheriff/s Department officials declined to release specifics about how long Danielson collected his paycheck while on administrative leave or how much money he received when he retired June 17, 2003. Danielson received full pay during the time he did not work and applied that time to his pension, McCammon said. Danielson did not return to partial duty because of the seriousness of the child molestation allegations, she said.
The completed internal investigation did not exonerate Danielson, Sheriff Jim Anderson said Monday.
"He retired in lieu of termination," Anderson said.
Danielson could not be reached for comment.
Sneddon did not respond to a request to discuss the difference between freeing Danielson and prosecuting Jackson. But the district attorney has previously said that Danielson/s lack of provable criminal intent figured prominently into the decision to release the detective. Although Sneddon has offered few details about the charges against Jackson, the veteran prosecutor obviously believes Jackson acted willfully. But Danielson admitted only to accidentally fondling the then 14-year-old child in a one-time occurrence, according to Sneddon, who said in an August 2002 interview that the deputy admitted touching the girl "in areas people would consider inappropriate."
Sneddon said Danielson came home after a night of drinking and crawled into his wife/s bed where the child, who was a guest in the home, was sleeping.
"He touched (the child) a few places (and) by what he was touching realized it wasn/t his wife," Sneddon said. "He said, /Oh my gosh,/ and jumped out of bed."
Sneddon said the subsequent investigation into the girl/s claims did not provide the required evidence necessary to file a formal charge and prepare for court.
The child/s parents, whose names are not being used to protect the identity of the alleged victim, believe that a provable case existed against Danielson.
The girl/s mother and father also wonder why the Sheriff/s Department 7 and not an outside police agency 7 conducted the investigation. One of the detectives even identified himself as a friend of Danielson, the child/s mother said shortly after Sneddon declined to prosecute.
The child/s father said last week that the Jackson case seems to depend on the word of a child who, like his daughter, cooperated with Santa Barbara County law enforcement officials. But Sneddon didn/t take his daughter/s statements seriously enough to go to court.
Jackson/s alleged victim, however, is expected to testify as Sneddon/s star witness. Shortly after Sneddon decided not to prosecute Danielson, the child wrote about her feelings, her father said.
"When I came clean I expected to be set free from the burden I had been carrying for so long, however, the only person set free was David Danielson," the child wrote.
"I am astounded at the stupidity the DA showed by allowing this man to be released of all charges. David Danielson may be free, but I am still emotionally trapped. There is not one day that I don/t wish I wouldn/t have come clean…"
"This happened to me when I was 14," she wrote. "I am now 16. I am a junior in high school, and I feel alone in this. I am asking the community to please help me to bring this man to justice. I don/t want this to happen to other young girls. Santa Barbara County, please HELP…"
The child signed her letter "The "IGNORED/ Teen.
The girl/s father describes the now 17-year-old high school senior as bright, busy and sensitive. Yet, he worries that she will feel even more alone now that Sneddon has taken the word of another alleged child molestation victim more seriously than hers.
"Maybe it/s because it is high profile, higher profile, but still, in her mind it/s the same situation," he said. "She/s still angry."
Although the child is "over what actually happened," the child/s father said "her anger stems toward Sneddon." Although the girl/s family dealt with an assistant district attorney in Santa Maria, "it all boils down to Sneddon/s hands" in Santa Barbara, he said.
Despite Danielson/s shocking admission to several people, Sneddon judged the evidence to be weak.
Maybe so. But, in this uncelebrated case, even the best legal judgment does little to convince a still-vulnerable child that trust and truth matter.
http://santamariatimes.com/news/traffic/commentary-all-the-little-voices-deserve-equal-attention/article_316a3c46-2ccf-51df-baeb-f143118e81a8.html
Bad7;4125212 said:Yup, there were quite a few cases. Another tactic Sneddon often employed, as seen with MJ, was to charge people with a lot of counts in the hope a jury would be swayed by the number of them counts against the defendant.
5 Q. Do you remember testifying your nipple was
6 squeezed 10 to 25 times?
7 A. Yes. Again, it was he wanted me -- to
8 humiliate me, like he’s trying to do at this moment,
9 and making me to say it millisecond per millisecond.
10 Q. You testified to these facts to get money,
11 true?
12 A. It was a civil lawsuit, yes, it was.
A couple of months ago I was shown some Facebook accounts belonging to some of Sneddon's children. It was interesting. There were some posts reflecting to when Sneddon died. They clearly did not like the mention of the MJ trial in articles. They only posted articles where the MJ trial wasn't even mentioned in euologies about their father (which is strange because it is a pretty big part of his legacy - it is the thing he is known for most people). One of the kids even said something along the lines they are fed up that people consider the MJ trial their father's legacy when he did so many other things otherwise and he praised the eulogy that did not mention the trial. You could see the MJ trial was clearly a sore spot for his family that they did not like to be reminded of.
I was kind of glad to see that because at least it seems Sneddon considered the trial the big defeat of his life and it was a sore spot for him.
It is also very telling that the so called "victims" have no problem of being reminded of MJ. They dance to his music, they smile at his mention, their family's praise him on FB and so on. How come that Sneddon and his family is more traumatized by the trial than Gavin? LOL. Very telling.
Those JC Penney guards were falsely accused of brutally beating the Arvizos and sexually abusing Janet. And Sneddon calls it just an "exaggeration"? If we go by that logic then you could call the false allegations of sexual abuse against MJ "just an exaggeration" as well. I mean you could say Gaving hanging out around MJ was just being a "a bit exaggerated" into a molestation story. The Arvizos finding MJ's porn could be "exaggerated" into MJ showing it to them. The Arvizos drinking alcohol on their own could be "exaggerated" into MJ giving it to them. And so on. If this DA has this liberal approach about lies you wonder how many of Gavin's lies he himself encouraged. After all he had no problem of significantly changing the timeline either.
How is a mother routinely coaching her kids to lie for personal and financial gain is not significant in such a case? What an idiotic thing to say.
My impression is that Sneddon and Zonen are stupid rednecks who had certain prejudices against MJ because of his lifestyle and because of who he was. And they just desperately wanted to bring him down. All objectivity went out of the window for them when it came to MJ.