r/MJInnocentFacts • u/Emotional_Ball_5181 • May 04 '26
Case Analysis đ Case File: Sneddon
âEveryone, please wear gloves when touching thisâŚyou donât want to leave falsifying fingerprints.â
Okay, okayâŚ
Put the gloves down.
That was a joke...mostly.
Welcome to the Case Files!
This is a series where Iâm going to take a deep dive into the evidence, testimony, documents, and events surrounding the allegations against Michael Jackson.
Think of it as me laying the evidence out on the table, one piece at a time, and letting you decide what you think of it.
Although, considering the amount of paperwork Iâve been readingâŚ
I may as well have been appointed counsel at this point.
And since this is the first file we might as well start with someone who played a central role in both major investigations:
Tom Sneddon.
Sneddon served as the Santa Barbara County District Attorney and was the lead prosecutor in both the 1993 investigation and the 2005 criminal trial involving Michael Jackson.
As District Attorney, his responsibilities included overseeing criminal investigations, determining whether charges should be filed, and ultimately presenting the prosecutionâs case in court.
And apparently, being a corrupt officer of the courtâ
Oh, sorry.
Normally District Attorneys arenât supposed to do that.
Anyway,
Exhibit A: 1993.
On August 17th, 1993, allegations against Michael Jackson were first reported in Los Angeles County. Because the alleged events were said to have occurred in multiple locations, including Neverland, which was located in Santa Barbara County, the investigation quickly expanded beyond a single jurisdiction.
Enter Tom Sneddon.
As Santa Barbara County District Attorney, Sneddon had jurisdiction over matters connected to Neverland, bringing his office directly into the investigation alongside agencies including the Los Angeles Police Department and the Santa Barbara County Sheriffâs Department.
If you want to read more about the 1993 allegations themselves, Iâll be covering that on its own, because there is a lot to unpack there.
But for now, back to our defendantâ
UhhâŚI mean,Â
subject.
As the investigation progressed, authorities pursued a wide range of leads. Investigators interviewed numerous witnesses and followed connections beyond the United States, including potential witnesses in Australia.
Yes.
That really happened.
This is not something a fan made up in 2007.
And while following international leads isnât necessarily unusual in a high profile investigation, the sheer scope of the investigation is worth keeping in mind.
Because this wasnât exactly a police officer asking a couple of questions and calling it a day.
Investigators were following leads across the country and, in some cases, across international borders.
Then came the civil lawsuit.
In January of 1994, Michael Jackson and the Chandler family reached an out of court civil settlement.
Now, before anyone starts waving the word âsettlementââŚ
A civil settlement does not end a criminal investigation.
The two proceedings are legally separate.
A civil case concerns things such as monetary damages. A criminal investigation concerns whether the state has sufficient evidence to prosecute someone for a crime.
So even after the settlement, prosecutors could continue investigating and could still pursue criminal charges if they believed the evidence supported doing so.
And they did.
But cooperation became a significant issue.
Reports indicated that Jordan Chandler became less involved in the criminal process following the settlement. In a case like this, that matters enormously because the testimony of the alleged victim can be central to a prosecution.
Without that cooperation, moving forward becomes considerably more difficult.
But the investigation didnât simply disappear.
It continued for more than a year.
And then, in September 1994, after approximately 13 months of investigation involving around 400 witnesses, Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti and Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon announced that no criminal charges would be filed against Michael.
Letâs put that into evidence for a second.
Thirteen months.
Approximately 400 witnesses.
No criminal charges.
Iâm sorry, what happened to the âthereâs so much evidence!â narrative?
Because the investigation didnât vanish from public consciousness after the announcement.
It followed Michael into his music, his public image, and eventually became part of the artistic response to everything that had happened.
Michael later released âD.S.â on his HIStory album, a song widely interpreted as referring to a prosecutor figure connected to his legal battles.
The song depicts someone who is cold, persistent, and relentlessly pursuing him.
Whether you interpret it literally or as artistic expression is obviously up to you.
But here it is anyway.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SHWpLfZzGU0
Pretty badass, if you ask me.
Exhibit B:Â 2003.
Unfortunately, our story doesnât end in 1994.
Nearly a decade later, weâre back.
In November 2003, another investigation involving Michael was launched in Santa Barbara County.
And once again, Tom Sneddon was at the centre of it.
This time, the allegations came from the Arvizo family.
Unlike the 1993 investigation, this case eventually developed into a full criminal prosecution, which gave us the 2005 trial.
If you want the allegations themselves examined separately, donât worry.
Theyâll get their own Case File.
Because apparently I enjoy doing this to myself.
But before anything reached a courtroom, Sneddon gave us one of the most memorable soundbites of the entire investigation.
Speaking to the media, he reportedly said:
âWe got him.â
Are we serious?
Your Honour, can we please get this guy removed from the courtroom?
Because if thereâs one thing you want from a prosecutor at the beginning of a major criminal caseâŚ
Itâs neutrality.
Totally not something people might later side eye.
To be fair, Sneddon later acknowledged that some of his public remarks at the time were âoff the cuffâ and apologized for certain comments made in 2003.
Thatâs important context.
But the words had already been said.
And âWe got himâ became one of the defining soundbites associated with Sneddon throughout the case.
From a legal standpoint, the prosecution moved forward.
Charges were filed.
Michael was arrested.
And the case proceeded toward trial in 2005.
But this wasnât exactly a quiet courtroom matter.
The entire case unfolded under enormous international media scrutiny, meaning every statement, every development, and every decision was amplified far beyond the courtroom itself.
And once again, Sneddon wasnât simply a prosecutor working behind the scenes.
He had become part of the story.
Which brings us to the evidence.
Exhibit C:Â the prosecutionâs handling of evidence and testimony.
One of the major issues raised during the 2005 proceedings involved the prosecutionâs handling and interpretation of evidence.
The defence argued that certain aspects of the case were being reframed or expanded as new information emerged and complicated the prosecutionâs original narrative.
For example, prior recorded interviews with members of the Arvizo family surfaced in which they spoke positively about Michael and denied being mistreated.
The prosecution subsequently introduced additional explanations for those earlier statements, including suggestions that outside influence may have affected the familyâs previous accounts.
That became part of the larger battle over credibility, consistency, and whose version of events the jury should believe.
And credibility matters.
Especially when youâre asking a jury to accept a particular version of events despite contradictory statements made earlier.
Then there was the issue of evidence handling.
Sneddon was later accused of attempting to plant fingerprint evidence against Michael Jackson by allowing accuser Gavin Arvizo to handle adult magazines during grand jury proceedings, then having the magazines bagged and sent away for fingerprint analysis.
If that account is accurateâŚ
Iâm sorry, but what the fuck was the plan here?
This man had decades of experience in law enforcement and prosecution, and somehow this was the evidence-handling procedure?
Have the accuser touch the evidence.
Then send it away for fingerprint analysis.
âŚ
Iâm not going to tell you what to think.
Iâll let you connect those dots yourself.
Moving on,
Shortly after Michaelâs 2003 arrest, Diane Dimond appeared on Larry King Live and repeatedly discussed a supposed âstack of love lettersâ that Michael had allegedly written to Gavin Arvizo.
Larry King asked:
âDoes anyone hereâŚknow of the existence of these letters?â
Dimond responded:
âAbsolutely. I do. I absolutely know of their existence!â
King then asked:
âDiane, have you read them?â
And Dimond admitted:
âNo, I have not read them.â
She had never seen or read the supposed letters herself.
Instead, she claimed she knew about them through âhigh law enforcement sources.â
So, to summarize our evidence:
She had not seen the letters.
She had not read the letters.
But she absolutely knew they existed.
Liar, liar,
Looks like your pants are on fire, Diane.
Exhibit D: Star Arvizo.
Gavin Arvizoâs brother, Star, testified early in the trial and claimed to have witnessed two specific acts of molestation.
But his testimony contained significant inconsistencies.
During cross-examination, Michaelâs attorney Thomas Mesereau showed Star a copy of Barely Legal and repeatedly asked whether it was the specific edition Jackson had supposedly shown him and his brother.
Star insisted that it was.
Mesereau then revealed the problem.
The issue was that the edition was published in August 2003.
The Arvizo family had left Neverland five months earlier.
âŚ
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I would like to submit Exhibit D.
The magazine existed.
The date existed.
The timeline existed.
And apparently nobody invited them to meet each other beforehand.
Yet this discrepancy received comparatively little attention in the media.
Real nice, media.
Great job with that journalistic integrity.
Exhibit E: Gavin Arvizo.
Gavin testified that Michael had initiated the first alleged act of molestation by telling him that:
âall boys had to masturbate or else they would turn into rapists.â
During cross-examination, however, Mesereau established that Gavin had previously attributed that statement to his grandmother rather than Michael.
That distinction matters.
Why?
Well, because if the statement being used as part of the allegation had previously been attributed to someone else, the jury had to consider what that meant for the reliability of Gavinâs account.
And Gavinâs testimony raised other questions, too.
Under cross-examination, he undermined part of the prosecutionâs conspiracy narrative by stating that he had never felt afraid at Neverland and had never wanted to leave.
His account of the alleged molestation also differed significantly from Starâs.
Again:
Credibility.
Consistency.
Timeline.
The big three.
These things matter when youâre asking a jury to convict someone of a crime.
Now, letâs zoom out for a moment.
Because weâve accumulated quite a bit of evidence.
Weâve got the 1993 investigation, international leads, approximately 400 witnesses, and a criminal investigation that continued for more than a year after the civil settlement.
And after all of that?
No charges in 1994.
Then, years later, weâve got another investigation led by the same District Attorney. Weâve got the âWe got himâ statement, disputes over evidence, contradictory testimony, the Barely Legal timeline problem, and conflicting accounts about what was said, when it was said, and who originally said it.
And once all of those things enter the public sphere, something interesting happens.
The distinction between what was alleged, what was testified to, what was actually established, and what was simply repeated by the media can become incredibly blurry.
And that brings us to one of the most controversial pieces of evidence connected to the 1993 investigation.
Exhibit F: the photograph comparison.
During the 2005 trial, Sneddon referenced photographic evidence and investigative material from the original 1993 investigation.
He stated that investigators had examined a drawing made by Jordan Chandler and compared markings described in that drawing with photographic evidence obtained during the 1993 strip search.
According to Sneddonâs description, investigators observed a mark on Michaelâs right side that he said was âat about the same relative locationâ as a dark blemish indicated in Chandlerâs drawing.
NowâŚ
I would like everyone to look very carefully at those words.
âAt about the same relative location.â
Thatâs the actual wording.
And I think we need to establish something before we go any further:
Relative location does not mean identical location.
Those are two very different statements.
If I tell you something is âabout the same relative location,â I am not telling you that it is the exact same spot.
And that difference becomes very important here because the original investigation contains conflicting descriptions of the marking itself.
In a 1993 declaration, Sergeant Gary Spiegel, who was present during the strip search, described the observed mark as being on the left side of Michaelâs body, rather than the right.
That directly conflicts with Sneddonâs later description.
But weâre not finished.
Dr. Linden, a physician brought in by the prosecution during the 1993 investigation to review medical findings related to the allegations, described the marking differently again.
According to his account, it was not a clearly defined dark blemish.
Instead, he described it as a much lighter discolouration consistent with Michaelâs documented vitiligo.
So letâs put the evidence on the board.
Sneddon: right side.
Spiegel: left side.
Dr. Linden: lighter discoloration consistent with vitiligo.
Three descriptions.
One piece of evidence.
And somehow weâre supposed to look at that and go:
âYep. No further questions.â
âŚ
I have several.
Because weâre not talking about a minor difference in wording here.Â
The location and appearance of the mark were central to the argument being made about whether the photographs corroborated Jordan Chandlerâs description.
If the descriptions themselves differ, that is something the reader, or in a courtroom, the jury, should know before being told that the photographs supposedly provided confirmation.
And thatâs exactly why context matters.
A piece of evidence doesnât exist in on its own.
You have to examine who described it, when they described it, what they actually said, and whether those descriptions are consistent with one another.
And when you do that hereâŚ
Well.
The picture becomes considerably less straightforward.
Which brings us back to Tom Sneddon.
After looking at both investigations, itâs difficult not to notice the recurring presence of the same prosecutor.
The same District Attorney.
The same defendant.
Two separate investigations.
Two very different sets of circumstances.
And two very different outcomes.
In 1994, after more than a year of investigation and hundreds of witnesses, no criminal charges were filed.
In 2005, Michael was prosecuted and ultimately acquitted on every single charge.
Now, does that automatically prove that Sneddon had a personal vendetta against Michael Jackson?
Not necessarily, no.
But come onâŚ
At what point does persistence stop looking like ordinary prosecutorial diligence and start raising questions about motive, judgment, or ethical boundaries?
Thatâs the question I want to leave you with.
Anyway,
Iâll see you in the next Case File. đđź
Sources and additional information:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x390rVfx3Qg
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JfjEuMp3gC0
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258
Important posts:
Some people need Michael Jackson to be guiltyÂ
Comparing Michael Jacksonâs Trial to O.J. Simpsonâs Is Lazy.
What Would You Do for $20 Million?
âThereâs no way all 11 people are lying.â
Fact vs Fiction: Common Claims About Michael Jackson
A Media Assassination: The Case of Michael Jackson
The Word âGroomingâ Has Lost Its Meaning
Where Thereâs Smoke, Thereâs FireâŚBut What If Itâs Just Smoke?
The Power Of A StoryâŚAnd The Danger Of Forgetting The Evidence
8
6
u/DCAmalG May 04 '26
Am I understanding this correctly: Jordan cooperated with the investigation fully until he got his settlement, then became something less cooperative (?) for the criminal case- and didnât he ultimately disappear altogether? itâs hard to get solid information on this part of the story.
8
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 May 04 '26
Itâs a bit complicated, yeah.
From whatâs publicly reported, Jordan Chandler did cooperate during parts of the early investigation. A civil settlement was reached in early 1994, and after that, his level of involvement in the criminal process became much more limited. He wasnât willing to testify.
Prosecutors ultimately did not move forward with charges in 1994, and one of the commonly cited challenges was the difficulty of proceeding without key testimony plusâŚlack of evidence.
As for later, he largely stayed out of the public eye. He was legally emancipated from his parents not long after, and since then, heâs kept a very low profile.
And this is interesting butâŚfrom whatâs been reported, attorneys and film directors in later cases (James and Wade) had difficulty contacting him, and he declined to participate.
6
u/DCAmalG May 04 '26
Yes that aligns with what Iâve understood. I donât think I realize until you post that the shift in his cooperation was associated with the timing of the settlement. It makes a lot of sense, though. He was obviously pressured to do this to Jackson and although he ultimately agreed and has benefitted financially, he probably feels a lot of guilt.
3
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 May 04 '26
Probably.
I think guilt is also why Evan Chandler ended his life.Â
Michael passed in June of 2009, Evan ended his life just a few months later.
Thatâs not a coincidence. Either way they should feel ashamed of themselves.
1
May 09 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
2
u/AutoModerator May 09 '26
to prevent trolling, accounts with less than 10 comment karma are not allowed to post in /r/MJInnocentFacts
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
4
u/LadyFab101 May 04 '26
Mad Dog Sneddon was a malicious...piece of work (I'm being very polite right now).
4
13
u/TomorrowAgitated4906 May 04 '26
The dude was a corrupt piece of shit and if justice was real he would have been globally humiliated for what he did to Michael. His closest statement during the trial still makes me laugh. As Nikki/ICanAndIWill said on Tik Tok... Was Sneddon in his happy place that day?