Editor’s Note: This investigative piece was originally published on Medium in September 2024. It has been moved to our permanent archives as part of the lead-up to the August 2026 book release of “How Come Nobody Apologizes to Michael Jackson” *

Now it’s time to bring Tom Sneddon into the equation. I’ve thought long and hard about how exactly I should introduce Sneddon into Michael Jackson’s story, and I’ve decided his treatment and actions towards others should be what does the talking at first. To say Tom Sneddon had a personal vendetta and obsession with making Michael Jackson’s life a living hell for over a decade is a massive understatement, to say the least. Aside from that harsh reality, however, is the fact that Sneddon was horrible to a lot of other people as well, quite literally ruining lives, no matter how his colleagues in Santa Barbara try to spin it.

To understand how Sneddon could be capable of relentlessly persecuting (and prosecuting) Jackson, we have to show you his vindictive treatment towards others. So, without further ado, this is an introduction to Tom Sneddon, who, by various accounts, was “a very cold man.”

RELATED: How Come Nobody Ever Apologizes to Michael Jackson: An Introduction to the Chandlers

1993 Sexual Abuse Probe of St. Anthony’s Seminary

I’m going to start with what I believe is the most intriguing of Sneddon’s behavior outside of Jackson for several reasons. In November 1993, UPI published an article about an independent panel known as the St. Barbara Province of the Franciscan Order, concluding after an extensive investigation that 34 boys were sexually abused by a number of Roman Catholic priests from 1964 to 1987 at St. Anthony’s Seminary, which operated as a boarding school for aspiring priests in the county:

The investigation, which was launched in January 1993, identified the twelve offending priests who committed these crimes through an 11-month probe, which you can see in the screenshot above. Here is an additional excerpt from the article:

Twelve priests were identified as offenders. One had left the order, one died and another’s case is still open. A fourth was prosecuted for oral copulation with a minor in 1989 and sentenced to a year in jail. The other eight priests are currently being treated by therapists. It was after the conviction occurred that other boys came forward with allegations of sexual abuse and the investigation was launched. Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon said the remaining priests will not be prosecuted because the statute of limitations has expired. ‘Officially this case is closed,’ Sneddon said.

As you can see above, Sneddon elected not to pursue charges against the remaining priests, citing the statute of limitations as the reason for his decision. Well, that makes sense, right? The statute of limitations expired; therefore, he couldn’t legally do anything about it, right? Well…not exactly. A December 1993 article written by Andrew Rice of the Santa Barbara Independent revealed that some of the victims and their parents argued that the men could still be prosecuted for crimes committed (and that they could have still been committing in present day) after their stint at St. Anthony’s:

At the time of this reporting, it was confirmed by The New York Times that the St. Anthony’s Seminary investigation was one of the largest cases of abuse by a clergy ever disclosed, so it would make sense to look into the further actions of the remaining men…right? Well, Sneddon decided not to…perhaps because he was more concerned with pursuing Jackson’s case at the time, which ultimately went nowhere:

Even more ironic is the fact that Sneddon continued investigating Jackson (we’ll get to that later) in the years after the Chandler allegations. By that point, the Chandlers had stopped cooperating with Sneddon and Co. in the months after receiving the settlement (despite their original declaration that they would continue to be cooperative in the criminal investigation), so with the Chandlers officially out of the picture, what was he looking for? Ah, yes, other potential “victims” Jackson “may have abused.” And yet, he couldn’t be bothered to do the same for numerous confirmed victims of a whole child sexual abuse ring (again, one of the largest in history ever disclosed by a clergy at that point at least) that lasted for decades, which may have to led to the discovery of more “current” victims from these same individuals that did fit within the statues of limitations timeline. Hmm…

David Bruce Danielson

Next up, we have the case of Santa Barbara County Sheriff Deputy David Bruce Danielson, who was accused of inappropriately touching a 13-year-old child staying at his home in August 2002. During this case, Sneddon acknowledged that after a night of drinking, the then 49-year-old Danielson had crawled into bed with his wife, and inappropriately touched a child (who was a guest) that was also with the wife in their bed.

Here’s how Sneddon described this incident exactly:

He touched (the child) a few places (and) by what he was touching realized it wasn/t his wife,” Sneddon said. “He said, ‘Oh my gosh,’ and jumped out of bed.

Sneddon then described that incident as being a “one-time occurrence.” Despite Danielson admitting to touching the child, and the child saying that he’d (Danielson) previously told her that he had a crush on her, Sneddon elected not to charge Danielson because he said there wasn’t “enough evidence to prosecute.” Now, I’m going to revisit this situation more in-depth later on, but I want you to keep this in mind for when we get to the Arvizo allegations against Jackson because unlike this case, which had an admission from the accuser that they had, indeed, committed the crime, Sneddon had zero evidence of this kind against Jackson when he charged him in 2003. There’s no bigger piece of evidence than a person admitting to the crime they’re accused of, and yet, Sneddon let off an individual who also just so happened to be his Santa Barbara colleague (even if it was a lower level) because there “wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute.”

Another example of Sneddon caring soooo much about child abuse.

Gary Dunlap

In December 2003, roughly a month after Jackson had been arrested for the Arvizo allegations, Sneddon was hit with a $10 million lawsuit by Solvang attorney Gary Dunlap for the emotional and financial strain put on him as a result of six charges filed by Sneddon and his office:

An excerpt from the article states:

Dunlap was acquitted in June of six charges, including perjury, witness intimidation, filing false documents and preparing false documents stemming from a drug case against one of Dunlap’s clients. If convicted, Dunlap could have served up to 12 years in prison.”

“A 102-page complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles last month alleges that Sneddon and his office violated Dunlap/s civil rights. The complaint seeks, $10 million for compensatory and special damages and asks for punitive damages and attorney/s fees.

The complaint further accused Sneddon and his office of conducting illegal searches of Dunlap’s property, along with racketeering and witness tampering. Not to get too far ahead, but remember Jackson accused Sneddon of doing the exact same thing, specifically in his 60 Minutes interview when he stated that they (the Santa Barbara Police Department) had gone into places at Neverland that they did not have a search warrant for. This now removed article (surprise) detailed more of Dunlap’s complaint. Luckily, the article was captured in full by a couple of individuals before the removal:

Another excerpt showed Dunlap elaborating further:

There were a number of violations of my rights in the investigatory stage as well as during the prosecution stage. And we’ve additionally alleged, because of other cases in which I’ve been involved that in other cases that we have information that he has done the same thing in. We have alleged the civil RICO violations, which are essentially engaging in racketeering conspiracy by public officers.” Mr. Dunlap ought to be very careful because the DA’s office may very well claim that he is a kidnapper and an extortionist. It was supposed to be just a joke, but apparently, it’s true. The D.A. charged Dunlap with perjury and witness intimidation, and Dunlap exposed the hot air that motivates Tom Sneddon when he said, “We went to a jury trial and I was acquitted on all counts.” One would think that would be the end of a virtual extortionist like Tom Sneddon, but he evidently now thinks that he is so absolutely untouchable, that he can treat Michael Jackson the way he treated Gary Dunlap. Needless to say, Tom Sneddon is turning into the joke of the century.

Dunlap then spoke about Michael Jackson:

In the case of Michael Jackson, the only legitimate complaint is that Michael Jackson was a target of extortion. The illegal bugging and the routine, civil violations that Tom Sneddon’s office practices are extreme and extensive, and there is no question that all their targets, including Michael Jackson, have been victimized by their abusive conduct. It hasn’t been traced to Sneddon’s office yet, but given his history, it would be naive to ignore the probability that Tom Sneddon’s office was involved in the illegal videotaping of Michael Jackson and Mark Geragos, in a private jet.

Additionally, Dunlap gave an interview with the MJJForum, further expressing his mistreatment. These excerpts were captured and uploaded by The Michael Jackson Repository:

“Well, they engaged in a sting operation, which they manufactured and allowed to get out of hand, and it essentially became just a real witch hunt. There were a number of violations of my rights in the investigatory stage as well as during the prosecution stage.”

Dunlap also addressed how Sneddon stacked charges against him:

“I don’t know if you realize how difficult it is when they throw the kitchen sink at you, I mean, when they throw seven felonies against you, how difficult it is to get an acquittal on all charges. You know, I mean it’s one thing to be charged with one crime and have a trial and be acquitted on it, but the District Attorney in Santa Barbara has a policy that if they throw enough charges against you, the jury is bound to convict you on something.” Sneddon’s kitchen sink manufacturer must be working overtime, tossing sinks at the Michael Jackson case like friends toss Krispy Kreme donuts at Rosie O’Donnell.”

Now, in case you haven’t realized, Mr. Dunlap wasn’t some “ordinary person,” he was a practicing attorney in the Santa Barbara and Santa Maria area for four decades, meaning…Sneddon essentially did this to one of his peers. What’s more, according to a CBS report from February 2005, Dunlap joined Jackson’s defense in the months after filing his lawsuit. While Dunlap’s lawsuit was eventually dismissed in 2006 due to a lack of evidence, it’s important to note that Dunlap was acquitted of all the charges levied against him by Sneddon. At the time of the ruling, Dunlap stated he “wasn’t surprised” because he was “one plaintiff” against “the biggest defense firm in Los Angeles in addition to prosecutors from the District Attorney’s Office.” (It’s also worth noting that Sneddon had ties to the Los Angeles DAs, and even worked with them directly in the Chandler investigation against Jackson).

Santa Maria City Attorney Art Montandon

According to a July 2004 report from the Santa Maria Times (which once again was during Jackson’s trial), the State Bar of California was tasked with handling a complaint made by former Santa Maria City Attorney Art Montandon where he accused Sneddon and two other prosecuters of obstruction of justice as it pertained to a 2003 prostitution case against two Santa Maria sisters. Montandon claimed that Sneddon and Co. were “discriminatory, abusive, defamatory (and) negligent.” Sneddon and Co. claimed that Montandon was looking to drop the charges against the two sisters in exchange for a video allegedly depicting former Santa Maria Police Chief John Sterling making visits to the massage parlor where they worked:

As you can see, the prosecution claimed Montandon had no authority to drop those charges, calling it “bribery,” leading to his eventual departure. Below is Montandon’s side of things:

Now let’s back it up a second. In addition to the sisters stating they had evidence of John Sterling coming and going out of their establishment, one of the sisters (April) also claimed Sneddon had been a client of theirs as well:

Now, both Sneddon and the lawyer for Irene (the other sister) denied the claims (with Sneddon saying he was considering filing a lawsuit against April), but I want you to pay attention to this part below:

At the time of this article, in December 2003, it was stated that neither the sisters nor their lawyers had produced any evidence of John Sterling at their establishment. But by December 2004, however, it was revealed that the DA (Sneddon) had suddenly launched an investigation into Montandon after he had proposed that the charges get dropped against the sisters in exchange for that supposed video of John Sterling. Why would Montandon propose that if no such tape existed? 

And to “bribe” somebody as the prosecution claimed Montandon was doing, you, in turn, need to have something to offer and something you are getting back for the bribing. In this case, the exchange would have been Montandon dropping the charges against the sisters for the tape of John Sterling in return. From the reports, it appears as though Montandon was on to something deeper happening in regards to this massage parlor disguised as a prostitution ring, and was stopped before he could do anything about it.

As for the allegations that Sneddon was a client as well, this is what Irene’s lawyer had to say:

So…a man who looked like Tom Sneddon enough to confuse him for actually being Tom Sneddon, came to the massage parlor on the very day in question, and just so happened to be named Tom, but wasn’t actually Tom Sneddon? Hmm…

Slick Gardner

In September 2003, an article from the Santa Maria Times detailed a horse rancher named Slick Gardner, who was accused of not taking proper care of his horses, which resulted in a search of his property where some of his horses were seized. Gardner, however, countered that the horses taken were actually elderly/ill, and that he did indeed take good care of his horses. That September 2003 article linked above chronicles another incident in which Gardner’s property was searched again. Gardner told the publication:

It’s not illegal to own a sick horse. Some of them are 35 years old and aren’t going to live a lot longer. Horses are like people. They don’t look quite as good as they get older.

He further explained that people don’t understand the differences between how to handle tamed and wild horses, and that it was comparable to “the difference between dealing with a dog and a coyote.” As it turns out, Gardner’s horses being taken from him was only the beginning of his problems. While investigating, the Santa Barbara Police Department further claimed they’d found evidence of Gardner stealing his horses. The result? A dozen felony counts for allegedly stealing hundreds of horses, bouncing checks, and cruelty:

Gardner spoke of his charges (which were also around the time of Jackson being charged) in a June 2004 news segment covered by Jane Velez-Mitchell and uploaded by MJEOL in real-time. Here are some excerpts from the interview:

“Rancher Slick Gardner says just like his famous neighbor Michael, he’s being prosecuted, he claims persecuted by D.A. Tom Sneddon. The D.A.’s office calls it “ludicrous”, but Slick insists he and Sneddon had a run-in 30 years ago.”

Gardner told Velez-Mitchell:

“It just seems like it’s almost a vendetta deal. These guys are going so far out of their way to do things to me that normally wouldn’t be done and I see them doing that with Michael’s stuff too. They were headed for slaughter, so I stepped in and saved them. They would’ve been on a dinner table in Europe. Horse meat.”

Claiming to have spent $1 million on his horses within the previous year, Gardner added:

“When you have 400 other horses, you’re gonna have a few of them that don’t look good. I mean, when you got 400 people, you got some that are not feeling good.”

He then showed the reporter two recent letters from vets saying his remaining horses were in “good condition,” noted that he’d filed a petition challenging the horse seizures, and that his judge was the same one presiding over Jackson’s case, Rodney Melville, who concluded Gardner was responsible for the costs of the raid, sending him a huge bill that Gardner said at the time that he was going to fight. A September 2004 article from the Santa Maria Times stated Gardner decided to take a plea deal that would only find him guilty of the animal cruelty charge, which alleged that he had not properly cared for the 167 horses on his ranch that were eventually seized by authorities. As a result, the ten other federal charges that included check fraud and grand theft were dropped:

Believe it or not, there is more when it comes to Tom Sneddon, but I picked these specific stories as I feel they align best with what we’ll be covering in the future. This is where we (briefly) leave Tom Sneddon for now.

RELATED: 60 Minutes Australia, the Cascios, and the Michael Jackson Hit Piece That Arrived Too Late

Featured Photo: Sony Records

Author Bio

Jael Rucker is the founder of Decked Out Magazine. She has previously worked as the Associate Commerce Editor at PureWow, focusing on analytics and trends to pitch stories and optimize articles that build and engage their audience. Her work has also been seen in Footwear News and WWD. Prior to 2024, she was the style and pop culture editor at ONE37pm for over three years, contributing numerous product reviews, brand profiles and fashion trend reports, which included interviewing Steph Curry, Snoop Dogg and more.