1 Comment

Selective, Malicious Prosecution?

Selective, Malicious Prosecution?

The district attorney of Santa Barbara, Tom Sneddon, has a perception problem partly because of his record for protecting his friends. What makes this perception more concrete is news out of Santa Maria yesterday (Jan 17). The Santa Maria Times is reporting that Sneddon has refused to prosecute a former deputy of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Dept. who admitted to fondling an under-aged girl and who may be guilty of doing more than that. The former detective, David Bruce Danielson, was arrested July 20 2002 on suspicion of child molestation. The report says that even during the investigation into his molestation case, he remained on “paid administrative leave until he retired.” According to Lt. Julie McCammon, his full pay was also applied to his pension. This supposedly thorough investigation into the charges against Danielson did not exonerate him, however. The only thing Danielson admitted to was “accidentally fondling the then 14 year old child in a one-time occurrence, according to Sneddon,” who said Danielson touched the girl “in areas people would consider inappropriate.” It is unclear if something more than “fondling” occurred. However, from her family’s urgency and her outrage, one could draw that conclusion. Mostly, the family is angry that Sneddon is going forth with prosecuting Jackson, with what looks to be only the accuser’s word. This is baffling to both her and her family, since there seems to be more evidence in her case than there does in Jackson’s. It would be interesting to know whether or not Danielson was involved in the 1993 Jackson investigation. However, this news does come on the hills of rumors saying that some of the police officers close to the current investigation of the Jackson case are disturbed about it being taken to this extent without any concrete evidence. This Danielson case immediately raises red flags. He actually admits to at least fondling this young girl and he isn’t prosecuted in any way? Couple this fact with the current sheriff of Santa Barbara’s admitting that an investigation did not exonerate Danielson, and you have a boat load of questions that beg to be answered. According to Sneddon, his reason for not pursuing the case against Danielson was because there was no “provable criminal intent.” Ah, the old “Oops, I molested you” defense! I guess that works every time! Or I guess it’s accepted if you’re a friend of Sneddon, who also works for the sheriff’s dept. The sheer ridiculousness of that excuse should be grounds for a look into just why Sneddon has chosen not to prosecute based on the word of the girl’s, along with an actual admission from the accused. Illustration of Corruption? Is this an illustration of corruption in the district attorney’s office? That remains to be seen. However, consider the information from Gary Dunlap (see Dunlap interview). Dunlap is the attorney currently suing the DA’s office for $10M claiming witness tampering, racketeering, and violation of civil rights. He has had many run-ins with Sneddon’s tactics and is not surprised the DA may be covering for members of law enforcement. Dunlap says in an extensive interview with MJJF Talk Radio (listen to the entire interview online) that Sneddon has a history or running rough-shot over the north county. So much so that the judge in Dunlap’s own case said there was “substantial governmental misconduct” on the part of the prosecution. Dunlap also discloses info about the close relationship between the DAs office and the sheriff’s dept. Apparently, the sheriff’s dept. builds up “a lot of indebtedness…to the district attorney’s office for having protected them” from any repercussions due to whatever alleged misdeeds any of their officers have done. This could explain why Jackson never filed a formal complaint with the sheriff’s dept. Sneddon would have been involved in the investigation and nothing would have been done, if we are to believe Mr. Dunlap’s assessments. This situation would be laughable if it wasn’t so seriously suspicious. Stay turned folks. I have a feeling this isn’t even half of what we may come to learn about Sneddon’s background and the sheriff’s department.

Written by the administrator of MJeol
source: mjeol.com


About zeromarcy

personalità poliedrica, complicata ma allo stesso tempo semplice. Ariete ascendente leone, amante dell'arte, della filosofia che si interessa anche a temi come la religione, la politica! Estremamente ottimista, credo in me stessa, e nel mio futuro... Politicamente scorretta, non sopporto gli egoisti, gli avari, ma neanche gli spendaccioni! Mi piace la musica e in particolare Michael Jackson e Renato Zero, non sono una che si beve tutto quello che dicono i Tabloids(i giornaletti rosa iper gossipati)anzi ne farei voeltieri carta straccia!! Mi piace l'essere fashion, amo collezionare cd e cose musicali, in particolare di MJ e Renato Zero, mi piace disegnare, cantare, fare creazioni grafiche , mi piace la pittura e i miei pittori preferiti sono la mia amica Cristina e il Caravaggio! Mi piace la natura, andare nei musei, in giro per roma...e fare shopping! Mi piace Viaggiare, scrivere racconti e poesie...cogliere l'attimo e non pensare poi "peccato potevo provarci"!

One comment on “Selective, Malicious Prosecution?

  1. This man indeed chooses who he wants to prosecute and since his friend is an unknown, then I guess he chose not to prosecute him since it won’t bring him the kind of attention from the media that he got by prosecuting Michael.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: