What can you say about the Santa Barbara District Attorney and also Prosecutor, Tom Sneddon? Why would anyone take a case to trial, with so many obvious flaws? Even Attorney Andrew Cohen who analyzes legal issues for CBS News and CBSNews.com. states in an article dated June 13 2005,that it was beyond him, as to why Sneddon did, what he did (ref site: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/13/opinion/courtwatch/main701455.shtm). Sneddon knew or should have known that his clients had some pretty bad credibility problems; and he knew or should have known a few things that would affect the trial. Cohen refers to Sneddon as an old-school prosecutor putting his personal reputation on the line. I guess you can't really make excuses for him then, since he has been in the business of defending justice, for many years. He had many chances to win the case, but he simply did not have the evidence to support the claims being made. Even the chance to parade other alleged accusers before the jury, made no impact on the prosecutions progress. So why did he go ahead with the trial? Well, when you have the world media hanging on every word that you utter, it is easy to imagine that you are invincible. You might even think that you can bluff your way through the whole thing, or you might think that the opposition will fizzle in the face of alleged evidence. You might even think that it is only a matter of time, before victory comes. So, you ignore the obvious flaws of your case, and behave like an ostrich, and put your head in the sand and hope that when you pull it out, that your dreams have come true. They didn't come true, and his case fell apart, bit by bit. And the Jackson defence team were not "accidental winners" either. He was outclassed by a defence team that did the hard investigative work required to defend another person's innocence. Sneddon did NOT do the investigative work required. Had he done the work required, he would have realised that there was no case, and that the accusers were proven liars. Instead, he marched into oblivion, and was made to look ordinary and incompetent by the defense. I guess that is all there is to say. End.

Well written and well said! I couldn't agree with you more. Once Sneddon had an accusation, it was his responsibility to investigate. It was never his responsibility to persecute. With unlimited funds, he should have been able to unearth the obvious. A careful look at a calendar with a comparison of who was where when would have made clear that Jackson never had the opportunity to commit these crimes, and the case couldn't be won.