Tom Sneddon Proved Michael Was Not Guilty Of 93 Allegations

The"official" threads posted during the trial

Moderator: Global Moderator

Post Reply
Dialdancer
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:24 pm

Tom Sneddon Proved Michael Was Not Guilty Of 93 Allegations

Post by Dialdancer » Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:39 pm

This deserves its on Topic.

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 go 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. That’s gotta mean something.

I was reading from the MJEOL Bullets when this topic came up again it has 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.c...bullet-110.html


Prosecutors Used 1993 Investigation to Get Search Warrants – MB #196
"http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/pro ... b-196.html"http://site2.mjeol.c...%96-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.sbscpubli...tcompeldisc.pdf
(http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ct ... eldisc.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.w...2/#comment-7012



Last edited by Dialdancer on Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest