The Shotgun Blog
« Take it with a grain of salt | Main | The Dance Continues »
Monday, June 13, 2005
Jacko's not the only wacko
Now that Michael Jackson has been acquitted, perhaps Tom Sneddon, the overzealous DA, ought to do some answering -- millions of tax dollars spent on a personal vendetta stretching back a decade. I bet Jackson has a wrongful prosecution suit; even if Sneddon hasn't done anything legally wrong, he's shown he cannot be trusted by the public to hold the awesome power of his office.
Here's what I wrote about Sneddon two years ago:
DON'T RUSH TO CONVICT; DA HARBOURS AN OBVIOUS GRUDGE AGAINST JACKO
The Calgary Sun
Monday, December 1, 2003
Page: 15
Section: Editorial/Opinion
Byline: BY EZRA LEVANT
Wait just a moment before convicting Michael Jackson in your mind. Before deciding he's guilty, look at the character of the District Attorney leading the mob. Look at the child who made the allegations -- and that child's family.
And remember that 10 years ago Jackson was the target of another noisy, showy investigation involving this same DA and an eerily similar "victim" with equally avaricious parents and lawyers goading him on -- a case that fizzled, but smeared Jackson's reputation and shook him down for a reported eight-figure sum.
Of course Jackson is weird -- after his life, who wouldn't be?
But realize that where most people look at Jackson and see eccentricity, a few see an easy mark for a con -- either politically, financially, or for media attention.
The District Attorney 10 years ago, and now, is Tom Sneddon.
Unlike Canada's prosecutors, Sneddon has his own website, where he talks about himself, gushes about himself, has pictures of himself and promotes himself for re-election as the Santa Barbara county DA.
It is very dangerous to get between Sneddon and a microphone.
Is his motivation here justice -- or winning elections? Is it not odd that Sneddon has set up a special website about Jackson, and sends out electronic press releases to the world, when the courts alone are supposed to try the case?
Sneddon has been hunting Jackson for a decade.
He's obsessed: He announced the warrant for Jackson's to precisely coincide with the release of Jackson's new album -- even though Sneddon had no plans to charge him with any crime for weeks to come.
When asked by reporters if his timing was deliberate, Sneddon laughed nervously and protested too much. "Like the sheriff and I are really into that kind of music," he spat.
Sneddon's obsession with Jackson might have landed someone else an arrest for stalking but, as DA, Sneddon would hardly arrest himself.
Jackson wrote a song about Sneddon: "They wanna get my ass/Dead or alive/You know he really tried to take me/Down by surprise/I bet he missioned with the CIA."
Sneddon is apparently a music critic, too. "I have not, shall we say, done him the honour of listening to it," he said.
Is it wise to allow a DA with such an obvious grudge to handle this matter?
Last time, Sneddon's investigators spent millions of tax dollars, questioned nearly 200 witnesses -- including 30 children -- and could not find a shred of evidence to back up the charges of molestation.
In one of law enforcement's finest moments, five Sneddon investigators flew to Australia -- nice work if you can get it -- to interview one potential witness.
So the DA is unseemly motivated. What about the alleged victim? Ten years ago, as an investigative report in GQ magazine detailed, the child accuser's father admitted his strategy on tape.
"Once I make that phone call, this guy (his lawyer) is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it.
"And I've given him full authority to do that. It will be a massacre if I don't get what I want."
He wanted money, of course. And he got it.
Today we have the same prosecutor, the same dubious family pressure, same sort of allegation -- and the exact same lawyer for the "victim."
This new "victim" and his mom are on tape, too, praising Jackson as kind and harmless.
But now there's money in the air, and political careers to make.
Looks like we might need an investigation into possible extortion, not child abuse.
Posted by Ezra Levant on June 13, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8342370f653ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Jacko's not the only wacko:
» MICHAEL JACKSON NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS from small dead animals
...Suggesting (to me, at least) that it is all but impossible to convict a celebrity in a high profile case in the US. The worst part in all of this? The accuser’s life is over. That, and we’ll be forced... [Read More]
Tracked on 2005-06-13 4:11:07 PM
» MICHAEL JACKSON NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS from small dead animals
...Suggesting (to me, at least) that it is all but impossible to convict a celebrity in a high profile case in the US. The worst part in all of this? The accuser’s life is over. That, and we’ll be forced... [Read More]
Tracked on 2005-06-13 4:12:09 PM
» JACKSON NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS from protein wisdom
...Suggesting (to me, at least) that it is all but impossible to convict a celebrity in a high profile case in the US. The worst part in all of this? The accuser’s life is over. That, and we’ll be forced to listen to a bunch of preening,... [Read More]
Tracked on 2005-06-13 4:17:31 PM
» What a shock, Jackson aquitted from Black Sheep Press
Who didn't see that coming? When's the last time a celeb was actually found guilty? [Read More]
Tracked on 2005-06-14 12:50:50 AM
Comments
Ezra - you've hit the bullseye with your observations!
Posted by: Jim F | 2005-06-13 4:35:13 PM
Thanks Ezra: I find Jacko difficult to take... I think he has a psychological problems, to say the least, and I really don't like his music. Yet, thoughout all of the allegations against him, I never for a moment heard anything that would convince me that he was guilty as charged. Rather, the accusers literaly oozed guilt.
I was unaware until now about the history of the DA involved. Now, things seem a little bit clearer.
I hope Jacko goes after the DA with everything he's got. The only way he'll keep a person like that away, is to go on the offense.
Posted by: PM | 2005-06-13 5:22:09 PM
Yah, a grown man sleeping with pre-pubescent boys. Nothing to see hear, move along. The U.S. justice system has spoken, that's okay, however, that being said Ezra, many pedophiles target children such as these, banking on the fact no-one will believe them. It surprises me, the position you take, given the fact that you may be voicing support for a pedophile. Tell me, how many secret bedrooms do you have? When is the last time you slept with a young boy who isn't your son? Do you have a children's amusement park in your backyard? How much have you had to pay a child to silence him from talking to the police? Maybe not enough evidence to convict, I'll grant that, but certainly enough information to keep me from running to his defense. Normally your journalistic standards are higher, Ezra.
Steve K
Posted by: Steve K. | 2005-06-13 6:03:18 PM
Gee Ezra you just shot down the argument for electing prosecutors and judges...what with al the shameless self promotion modern elected office requires, you may be to harsh on Sneddon.
Let's wait to see if Jackson is stupid enough to REALLY PO the state by suing....remember perverts in glass houses can't afford to be tossing stones.
Personally, I hope the next DA has a "vendetta" to nail this prancing pedophile as well....but with a far better case. At least Jackson knows he's being watched 7-24 and a slip up will slam his degenerate ass back into the inforgiving arms of the prosecutor's mercy.
Posted by: WLMackenzie redux | 2005-06-13 6:07:21 PM
BTW: what will they call the brilliant stage play that won the case?...the pajama defense. Hollyweird is so sick it's depressing just to think about what they consider normal.
Posted by: WLMackenzie redux | 2005-06-13 6:15:14 PM
The prosecution failed to make its case. I agree with the decision. By saying that I do not mean that I believe Jackson is innocent. The bar for conviction is high for a good reason. They failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jackson was guilty of the charges against him. Having said that I wouldn't let my children anywhere remotely near that person.
Posted by: Tim | 2005-06-13 7:16:50 PM
Agree completely, Tim.
Posted by: MikeP | 2005-06-13 7:33:41 PM
Steve K. nailed it...say no more...
Posted by: Mark | 2005-06-13 8:01:20 PM
I agree with most of Ezra's comments. The enthusiasm displayed by Sneddon from the start of this looked very suspicious. That guy loves the limelight and obviously had lost any shred of objectionism which would have allowed him to prepare and investigate his case before filing it.
Though I am not so sure about Michael's innocence , I have said from the start of this case that the mother should also be facing charges.
Where are the headlines " Mother Pimps Out Ill Child to Pop Star ". Would anybody in here let me hang with their children, sleep with them in my bed and say nothing for years ????
Someone should be going to jail here, I am just not sure who ???
Posted by: BDT | 2005-06-13 10:03:01 PM
All of them!
Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-13 10:38:35 PM
Michael Jackson must be a happy camper right now. My guess is he's celebrating his acquital with a big bag of Jesus Juice and a "Home Alone" film festival.
Well, either that or he's buying pitchers of Pepsi at the nearest Chuck-E-Cheese. One or the other.
Posted by: Grumpy Young Crank | 2005-06-14 1:10:03 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.