How credible is this fact?
Given a short period of time to attempt to verify or
at the least investigate the claims made by Sandram,
I am completely unable to find any evidence of his claims,
or even his existence, outside of one message announcing
the online interview posted to literally dozens of message
boards.
In the absence of an available transcript of the interview
to read, I made it through about 45 minutes or so of
the “interview.” It’s entertaining,
if you find a total absence of logic amusing. Sandram
runs through a laundry list of supposed offenses of
Tom Sneddon and the agencies and offices of the government
under his control — which, by the end of Sandram’s
narrative, seem to be not only every department of Californian
bureaucracy, but also the black helicopters of the New
World Order favored as boogeyman to militiamen.
He insists Sneddon had him falsely arrested, that his
phone was tapped, that policemen threatened to kill
him, that his office was vandalized, and that, my personal
favorite, the “licensing department of California”
(who knew they had all consolidated?) had conspired
to refuse his transfer of clinic license location.
This refusal might just be justified by a particularly
humorous exchange from the interview--Sandram adopts
an exasperated tone when stating that Sneddon charged
him with impersonating a doctor (i.e., practicing medicine
without the proper license), and carefully explains
he IS a trained dentist, he was trained in India--and
is not licensed in California.
In addition, the source of the information should definitely
be taken into account. As I explained, I was unable
to find any mention of Sandram other than announcements
of this interview, but I did find at least a few mentions
of Ron Sweet, the host of the online show (which, as
far as I can tell, appears to have had two broadcasts,
both about Michael Jackson).
Every mention of Sweet, save his self-written biographical
sketch on the website (which claims that he co-owned
a “telemarketing” (sic) company) refers
to him as a Michael Jackson fan--challenging a critic
who gave “Invincible” an unfavorable review
to a $10,000 bet on sales of the album, announcing a
boycott of NBC for hiring a reporter who broke the story
of the 1993 abuse allegations, and so on. Not exactly
an assurance of responsible, unbiased journalism.
What is this fact’s relevance?
For the time being, let’s put aside the obvious
inconsistencies and problems with the allegations themselves.
What impact would these allegations have upon the charges
to Michael Jackson?
I certainly acknowledge that police departments and
district attorneys are not unblemished figures of virtue,
and that there have been serious miscarriages of justice
perpetrated by them. But how much influence could Sneddon
have possibly had in Michael Jackson’s case? This
is a situation in which a grown man admitted himself
to sharing his bed with young boys, even after a previous
allegation of molestation in which Jackson settled the
case for a substantial amount of money.
In the current case, numerous details of the victim’s
account have been confirmed by people in Jackson’s
employ. These corroborating statements include several
of the facts from the accusers deposition that would
only have been known by those very close to Jackson.
How much import could Sneddon’s conduct have possibly
had?
Again, I was unable to verify any details regarding
civil suits against Sneddon, but I am wary of judging
a District Attorney as some figure of evil because not
all of his cases resulted in guilty verdicts.
I am as alert as the next liberal to abuses of power
by the executive branch, but the mere fact that Sneddon
is a district attorney is not sufficient evidence that
he is corrupt. Similarly, I fail to see the relevance
of allegations of brutality by Santa Barbara law enforcement.
Michael Jackson made a very brief claim of physical
abuse by the Santa Barbara police following his first
arrest, but swiftly backed off the allegations when
audio tapes of his ride to the police station and video
of himself exercising full, unhindered movement of a
supposedly dislocated shoulder clearly proved his claims
were baseless.
I am especially amused by the allegations, made by
one mysterious radio guest, that men in Sneddon’s
company used racial epithets — amused not because
using racial epithets is acceptable, but because several
members of Jackson’s camp confirmed in a Vanity
Fair article that Jackson refers to black people as
“spabooks,” a racial epithet of his own
invention.
And it is worth pointing out, of course, that Sneddon
has become a target for the very same people who now
accuse Sneddon of holding a grudge — Michael Jackson
himself wrote a song about a “very bad man”
whose name bears a striking similarity to “Tom
Sneddon,” and which is universally acknowledged
to indeed have Sneddon as its target. In the interview
which is the supposed “bombshell” revelation,
neither host nor guest miss a chance to take a juvenile
potshot at Sneddon.
First Sandram giggles that he recognized Sneddon “by
his squeaky voice.” Sweet responds maturely by
eagerly asking, “was he big and fat at the time?”
If this is what is meant by “bombshell,”
I can only imagine what they consider irrelevant to
a substantive accusation of wrongdoing.
Does this change relevant facts
of the accusations?
Absolutely not. The current prosecution appears to
be well-supported by corroboration by close members
of Jackson’s inner circle, strong similarities
in the accounts of the accuser from 1993 with the current
one, and physical evidence — bizarre arrangements
that seem designed to ensure complete isolation in the
strange anteroom to Jackson’s bedroom that seems
a shrine to young boys, personal letters to the accuser
referring to him as “Rubba,” and of course,
we cannot forget Jackson’s own proud declarations
of sharing his bed with young boys. None of that is
altered one bit by a supposed den of corruption in the
Santa Barbara justice system.
It is healthy for democracy for us all to be vigilant
about abuse of power by law enforcement. By the same
token, law enforcement is a vital governmental function
that must be effective to protect us from criminals.
We should complain both if the prosecution is too zealous
and if it is ineffective. But do not take what appears
to be an extremely strong case against a repeat offender,
with full scrutiny of the media and nearly unlimited
resources to defend himself, as an exemplar of persecution.
Let’s see what the jury has to say.
|
