Article published in Dropline.biz on June 20, 2005

“Michael Jackson: VINDICATED” Has Sneddon's Vendetta Come to an End?

By Dino M. Zaffina

On Monday, June 13, 2005, Michael Jacksonwas not dancing on top of a car; however, he had every reason to. A twelve panel jury unanimously voted “NOT GUILTY” on ALL 10 counts brought against him by the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office. At approximately 2:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time a large majority of people all over the world were listening to the verdicts being read by the Clerk of the Court.

Verdict

Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Barbara, Santa Maria Division, the People of the State of California, Plaintiff vs. Michael Joe Jackson, Defendant, Case Number 1133603.

Count 1 Verdict: We the jury in the above-entitled case find the defendant NOT GUILTY of Conspiracy as charged in count one of the indictment dated June 13, 2005, Foreperson No. 80.

Count 2 Verdict: We the jury in the above-entitled case find the defendant NOT GUILTY of a Lewd Act Upon A Minor Child as charged in count two of the indictment dated June 13, 2005, Foreperson No. 80.

Count 3 Verdict: We the jury in the above-entitled case find the defendant NOT GUILTY of a Lewd Act Upon a Minor Child as charged in count three of the indictment dated June 13, 2005, Foreperson No. 80.

Count 4 Verdict: We the jury in the above-entitled case find the defendant NOT GUILTY of a Lewd Act Upon a Minor Child as charged in count four of the indictment dated June 13, 2005, Foreperson No. 80.

Count 5 Verdict: We the jury in the above-entitled case find the defendant NOT GUILTY of a Lewd Act Upon a Minor Child as charged in count five of the indictment dated June 13, 2005, Foreperson No. 80.

Count 6 Verdict: We the jury in the above-entitled case find the defendant NOT GUILTY of Attempting to Commit a Lewd Act Upon a Minor Child as charged in count six of the indictment dated June 13, 2005, Foreperson No. 80.

Count 7 Verdict: We the jury in the above-entitled case find the defendant NOT GUILTY of Administering an Intoxicating Agent to Assist in the Commission of a Felony as charged in count seven of the indictment dated June 13, 2005, Foreperson No. 80.

Count 7 Verdict (lesser offense): We the jury in the above-entitled case find the defendant NOT GUILTY of Providing Alcoholic Beverage to Persons Under the Age of 21, a lesser included offense of that charge in count seven of the indictment dated June 13, 2005, Foreperson No. 80.

Count 8 Verdict: We the jury in the above-entitled case find the defendant NOT GUILTY of Administering an Intoxicating Agent to Assist in the Commission of a Felony as charged in count eight of the indictment dated June 13, 2005, Foreperson No. 80.

Count 8 Verdict (lesser offense): We the jury in the above-entitled case find the defendant NOT GUILTY of Providing Alcoholic Beverage to Persons Under the Age of 21, a lesser included offense of that charge in count eight of the indictment dated June 13, 2005, Foreperson No. 80.

Count 9 Verdict: We the jury in the above-entitled case find the defendant NOT GUILTY of Administering an Intoxicating Agent to Assist in the Commission of a Felony as charged in count nine of the indictment dated June 13, 2005, Foreperson No. 80.

Count 9 Verdict (lesser offense): We the jury in the above-entitled case find the defendant NOT GUILTY of Providing Alcoholic Beverage to Persons Under the Age of 21, a lesser included offense of that charge in count nine of the indictment dated June 13, 2005, Foreperson No. 80.

Count 10 Verdict: We the jury in the above-entitled case find the defendant NOT GUILTY of Administering an Intoxicating Agent to Assist in the Commission of a Felony as charged in count ten of the indictment dated June 13, 2005, Foreperson No. 80.

Count 10 Verdict (lesser offense): We the jury in the above-entitled case find the defendant NOT GUILTY of Providing Alcoholic Beverage to Persons Under the Age of 21, a lesser included offense of that charge in count ten of the indictment dated June 13, 2005, Foreperson No. 80.

It was a total victory for Michael Jackson and his defense team; a shutout!  “NOT GUILTY” read 14 times! Jackson is once again a free man, totally vindicated.  Of course, you didn’t have to be a genius to figure this verdict out.

Once again, as in the Robert Blake murder trial, a jury of twelve sensible adults determined that Michael Jackson was “not guilty” of the crimes of Conspiracy, Lewd Act upon a Minor Child (i.e., Molestation), Administering an Intoxicating Agent to Assist in the Commission of a Felony, and Providing Alcoholic Beverage to Persons under the Age of 21. Also, like the Blake jury, this panel reached its verdict after approximately 33 hours of deliberation, as similar to the 36 hours in the Blake trial. The lengthy time of deliberating (coupled with this just verdict) implies that these jurors took their obligation seriously and acted diligently while reviewing and considering the evidence or lack of evidence.

Fortunately, for Jackson, these twelve citizens of Santa Maria avoided the pitfall of emotions brought on by the deliberate false spin of the media (e.g., Court TV). They made their decision on good analysis and common sense, as opposed to the morons on the Peterson jury who decided “guilty” based on their disdain for Scott Peterson as oppose to following the law.

The only thing better than witnessing the United States of America’s justice system work, is seeing Court TV’s Queen of “False Spin,” Nancy Grace eat crow on national television. Prior to the verdict being read, Grace spewed out more of her self-serving BS by stating, “There is no way, and I will eat crow, if they don’t git [sic] this guy on something. And you know why? One witness, the youth minister; honey, he was scrubbed in sunshine.”

Grace was delusional when she thought that the youth minister was such a great witness because she thinks that he “is a devout religious youth minister, a newlywed, and can’t even say the anatomical terms in the indictment because he gets embarrassed.” There is no doubt that Grace turns a blind-eye to reality, but she must realize that what she hangs her hat on must be taken with a grain of salt. The reason for that is in four words, “Catholic Priest Child Molesters.”

Grace made more of an ass of herself when she arrogantly said, “I’ll meet you out on the end of the limb, I’m saying a guilty verdict. They may cut him loose on a couple of these possibly conspiracy and I’ll tell you why, Jack, I’ll find out if Kimberly agrees or disagrees. [sic] The conspiracy, obviously [emphasis added], the Jackson camp tried to keep the boy and the family there; it was in writing for Pete’s sake at the guard’s house. They took all their possessions away, put’em in storage, took their passport, took their Visa, wouldn’t give any of it back, tried to book a one-way ticket to Brazil, bye, bye. Problem!”

Well, “Wolf in Old Lady’s clothing,” start eating. Just when it appeared that Grace would do the honorable thing by stating, “I’m eating a crow sandwich right now, it doesn’t taste very good, but I’m also not surprised. I thought that celebrity is such a big factor. When you think you know somebody, when you have watched their concerts, listened to their records, read the lyrics, believed they were coming from somebody’s heart. Jackson is very charismatic, although he never took the stand, that has an affect on this jury....”

This douche bag couldn’t just admit that she was wrong. Grace had to try and make some excuse as to why the 14 verdicts were “NOT GUILTY.” She brought up celebrity status, stating, “I think this is, I’m sorry to say, another kind of example of “not guilty” by reason of celebrity” and of course tried to backpedal and say that she was not surprised. Sour grapes, loser, sour grapes!

Grace was so concerned about an ambulance for Jackson or his mother, but clearly Grace is the one that needed an ambulance after the verdict, once she realized that her and her cronies made asses out of themselves.

Jackson Family Attorney, Debra Opri said it best when she told Grace and the Court TV Jesters (i.e., Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom, Catherine Crier, and Vinnie Politan), “Bite the bullet [holding up the front page of the ‘Times’ which reads NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS] just bite the bullet. Now, Nancy I respect you and you know that, and I go head-to-head with you, but what you need to understand is the jury deliberated all this, they came out with their verdict and everybody is now saying, ‘okay, okay, the jurors did their best, they came out with a review, but they made a mistake, so let us tell you how he could have gotten convicted’  …  The evidence, is the evidence, is the evidence … the case stunk, it should never have been filed; end of discussion!”

Court TV Jester, Newsom made a fool of herself when she loftily asserted that “… The heart of the case is the molestation. I think that’s what we’re gonna see a clear verdict on; there could be a hung jury as to other counts, we don’t know yet. And, I think the alcohol and molestation go hand-in-hand; if you believe the accuser with respect to the molestation, I think you believe him on the alcohol. So, that’s what I expect to see in this case.” Newsom further stated, “I still have such a hard time thinking that a jury of twelve is going to walk Michael Jackson out of the door. (Grace interjected: “No way.”) In essence, ‘moon walk’ all the way back to Neverland in this case. I think the evidence was very compelling, and the fact that they ask for read-back, Nancy you know, as a prosecutor for a decade, that in fact that is something that they are focusing on; his creditability, his testimony. That to me is very telling.” Based on that rhetoric Newsom should be eating crow as well.

One of the only voices of reason at Court TV, Jami Floyd, a seasoned trial lawyer and legal analyst gave here prediction. She stated, “15 years of trying cases and covering them. I think they should acquit. I don’t think the case was made because it was based principally on very strong, and I admit it, very strong prior bad acts as alleged by various witnesses that took the stand. But, in terms of the allegations in this case and we saw it with the one area the jury asked about, the one read-back … was about the accuser. In the end, it really all hinged on that. It is a question of whether these jurors believed this accuser.”  Floyd was 100% correct!

After the smoke cleared, Santa Barbara District Attorney, Thomas Sneddon made a statement and answered questions by the media. Sneddon stated, “I’m very proud of our office, I’m proud of all the people who worked on this case.  I’m particularly proud of Gordon (Auchincloss) and Ron (Zonen), the team that we put together, and the Sheriff’s Department which did, I think, an outstanding job of investigating this case and assisting us in putting on the evidence before the jury here. So that’s the first thing that I want to say. The second thing that I’d like to say is obviously we’re disappointed in the verdict, but we work everyday in a system of justice, we believe in the system of justice, and I’ve been a prosecutor for 37 years, and in thirty-seven years I’ve never quarreled with the jury’s verdict and I’m not going to start today. So, basically that’s all we have to say.”

Gordon Auchincloss, Thomas Sneddon, and Ron Zonen

After spending over $4 million dollars of Santa Barbara County taxpayers’ money prosecuting Michael Jackson because of a 12–year long vendetta and obsession with the mega pop-star, only to conclude with a dismal end, Sneddon should gracefully retire “today” or at minimum the citizens of Santa Barbara County should call for Sneddon’s immediate resignation.

Sneddon may have been a prosecutor for 37 years and District Attorney for Santa Barbara County for 22 of those years, with only four losses out of hundreds of cases, but his legacy will be this defeat.

The 19 person jury, including 12 active jurors and 7 alternates, allowed questioning by the media. Present from the media were television, radio, and Internet news outlets. The jurors were originally scheduled for 10 minutes, which ultimately stretched to over one-hour. They were very gracious, both in accepting questions and their answers.

The jurors set the record straight, and stifled Grace’s ridiculous theory when they stated, “We looked at Jackson just as an individual, not as a celebrity.” They also assured the public that they, “…considered every piece of evidence equally.” Some jurors were convinced that there may have been some type of inappropriate behavior on the part of Jackson in the past, but all the jurors unanimously agreed that there was “NO” evidence presented for the charges in the present case. The jurors made it palpably clear that their verdicts were based on the evidence not proving the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

To add insult to injury, “Media Harlott,” Gloria Alred had to stick her horrific face in the Theatre of the Absurd. Alred told Grace, “I’m not going to join the total gloom and doom.” Clearly, she has not looked into a mirror lately. Alred, tried to analogize with the O.J. Simpson case in that there was a civil trial which followed the criminal NOT GUILTY verdict on both counts of murder. The civil trial was just another attempt to have another bite at the same apple. Alred tried to convince the public that the only reason that O.J. Simpson lost in the civil case was because he had to testify. What Alred failed to explain was that the civil verdict was based on pure emotion. Moreover, the plaintiffs never proved that O.J. Simpson committed the crimes that he was charged with in the criminal trial, but convinced a jury to find him liable because they felt that he may have had something to do with the deaths of the two victims (e.g., seeing the murders being committed).

Alred tried to assert that if the accuser in the lost ‘Jackson’ criminal case decided to file a civil action against Michael Jackson (which would be sure stupidity on the part of any sane lawyer), Jackson would have to take the stand and testify, which Alred believes (in her deluded mind) that the jury in a fantasy civil case, applying the lower standard of proof (i.e., preponderance of the evidence) could find Jackson liable.

Although anything is possible, Alred’s fantasy jury could find Jackson liable for “battery” and “false imprisonment” only (since there is no cause of action for molestation in California civil law) if that is what an attorney would bring a civil complaint for, but just as equally possible, Osama Bin Laden could walk-up to the White House and turn himself into President George W. Bush. NOT! Alred is a loon. Most people who have seen her and know what she looks like will agree she most likely has testicles, but not even this “Celebrity Wannabe” has the balls to bring a civil action on behalf of this alleged victim against Michael Jackson.

The man of the hour, day, week, year, and maybe the decade is Defense Attorney, Thomas Mesereau, Jr. He successfully defensed the prosecution, getting Michael Jackson acquitted of all charges.

In an interview with Larry King after the verdict, Mesereau told Larry, “I was confident. I thought that we really had destroyed their case.” In answer to King’s questions about Jackson as a client, Mesereau replied, “He was a wonderful client. He’s one of the easiest clients to deal with that I’ve ever experienced. He’s very kind, he’s very gentle, he’s very cooperative. He’s a very very honorable, decent person, and I thoroughly enjoyed representing him, and I consider him a friend.”

Mesereau all along intended on having Michael Jackson take the stand and testify, but as he said, “… as the case developed, it became clear to me that he did not have to.  The defense had cross-examined very effectively.” Mesereau was always confident.

Mesereau believed that, “The prosecution was not objective about this case. They were not objective about their witnesses, about the theories that they tried to prove, that were not provable because they were false.” Mesereau said, “There obsession really hurt them.”

In explaining to Larry, Mesereau stated, “First of all, they never thoroughly investigated the accuser and the accuser’s family. The police accepted the accuser’s story before they really knew who they were and their past. It was the defense who investigated and discovered all the problems with the accuser, his family, and witnesses, their history, their backgrounds. The prosecution and police turned a blind-eye to what was going on. In the middle of the trial they tried to deny reality and it caught up with them.”

Mesereau confidently stated, “Michael Jackson is not a pedophilia, he’s never been a pedophilia, the prosecution has spent years trying to put together a story which they hoped to prove and failed to prove. Michael Jackson is not a pedophilia, he has never molested a child, nor would he conceive of molesting a child. The notion that Michael Jackson sleeps with boys was a concoction by the prosecution. Michael Jackson said very openly is that he allows families into his room. His room is the size of a duplex, it is two levels. He’s had mothers sleep there, fathers sleep there, sisters sleep there, brothers sleep there. The prosecution concocted this little saying about sleeping with boys because they thought it would turn off the jury, but they failed.”

“Michael Jackson is a very creative spirit, a very gentle soul, a brilliant musician, a brilliant choreographer. Michael Jackson is a very sensitive person who is very concerned about the world and the problems in the world. He has a very childlike essence to him and he attracts children from all over the world.”

When asked if Macaulay Culkin was a factor for the trial.  Mesereau said, “Macaulay Culkin was a big factor for the trial. He was a wonderful witness for Michael Jackson....”

Mesereau was highly critical of the media and its coverage of the Jackson trial. Mesereau told Larry, “The media has developed an industry of would be experts, would be professionals, who are not experienced, who are very amateurish about their comments about what is going on in courtrooms, and who are willing to give opinions when they are not even there. It is becoming the theatre of the absurd. It reached its lowest level in this case.”

“A lot of the media coverage was just appalling. The factual inaccuracies; the obvious bias among people like Court TV, who I felt was really an arm of the prosecution through this case.  It was very amateurish and very unprofessional, and very disturbing.”

Mesereau really blasted Court TV, “Court TV is obsessed with celebrity trials. It’s become an industry of pundance who really are trying to be movie stars and not real legal experts. It reached the bottom of the barrel in this case. Fortunately, the jury was not affected; they did the right thing.”

When asked about Judge Rodney Melville’s performance, Mesereau had this to say, “The judge was an outstanding jurist. I think all the judges in America should learn a lesson from the way Judge Melville conducted this trial. He was determined from day one that this was not going to get out of control. He was determined that justice was going to be done, in and outside that courtroom. He employed some very creative procedures to make sure that order was kept throughout the trial. He did a masterful job and I have total respect for Judge Melville and his wonderful staff.”

As the verdicts were being read Mesereau grabbed Michael’s hand and Mesereau said, that Michael seemed to appreciate it. Mesereau wanted to show him his support, and to send a message that they were winning this case.

After all counts were read and the words NOT GUILTY radiated across the globe, Michael Jackson said to Thomas Mesereau, “Thank you, thank you, thank you!”  Mesereau said of Jackson, “His first reaction was gratitude to God, gratitude to his defense team, gratitude to his family and friends.”

Michael you are once again a “free man”; go on and continue being that Gentle, Charitable, Kind-Hearted, and Decent Person that people who know you, and people who have been the beneficiary of your generosity know you to be!

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________