The boys from a certain MJ haters’ site are on a march against Michael Jackson again. Judging by the number of readers’ questions about their lies disproved by us years ago these boys are quite successful in brainwashing the public and there is a need to start educating people about the most basic facts of Michael’s innocence all over again.
This education process seems to be endless as it has to be renewed with each new generation of readers, and starting everything anew is the last thing I would want to do, however it looks like at the moment I have no choice.
This is why I’m making this post which is intended to answer the very basic questions about the Jordan Chandler case again.
But first here is a couple of words about those who keep spreading lies about Michael Jackson’s despite a mountain of true facts testifying to his innocence.
WHEN MJFACTS ARE ACTUALLY MJLIES
One of the first questions arriving from a reader had the form of a statement:
“There is this website called mjfacts that says they only provide the truth and facts without opinion. They say a few things like that Jordie never actually stated the MJ was uncircumcised”
Yes, there is this website, only it isn’t facts but lies about Michael Jackson and these lies presented as facts about MJ are actually the best manifestation of their opinion, views and also methods.
They collect every speck of dust about Michael and simultaneously shut the door to anything that may clean him of the allegations. Every day brings new facts of Michael’s innocence to their door, but the truth does not stick to them in principle as their job is to archive and preserve lies about MJ.
When their own lies become too inconvenient for them they pretend they never told them and begin saying the opposite, like they did it with the “circumcision” issue.
While Michael was alive and no one knew whether he was circumcised or not, their official story was that Jordan Chandler called him circumcised (he indeed call him that way). But when Michael died and the autopsy report revealed that he was not circumcised and this was contradicting Jordan’s story the mjlies guys quickly got over the shock and are now claiming the opposite without batting an eyelid.
Now they pretend they never said anything different.
This constant renovation of lies to keep them up-to-date betrays the goal they are really working for and it is creating the image of Michael as a “boy-lover” no matter what.
While being extremely preoccupied with Michael Jackson these boys cannot care less about real pedophiles. Considering the number of horrid ped-lia crimes uncovered lately one would expect them to handle these cases too and launch a crusade against the phenomenon in general (like we are doing it, for example), however this is the last thing you can expect of them and why they are not doing it is the most intriguing question in the whole story.
It has also become an interesting tradition for these people to intensify their hate against Michael each time some highly unpleasant facts are uncovered about real or suspected pedophiles. This time is no exception as I have just written two posts about Dylan Farrow accusing Woody Allen of sexually abusing her at the age of 7 and see what an avalanche of questions about Michael it has suddenly provoked!
Here are some of the questions asked by readers and inspired by the mjlies:
“They say a few things like that Jordie never actually stated the MJ was uncircumcised. Is this true? Where did he actually say that in his description. They also say that Barnes said MJ “nuzzled” him (???), Jordie correctly identified a blotch no one could have known about without seeing it, and that Ray Chandler DID allow his book to be used in court? Would you mind explaining/debunking these supposed facts?”
And here are some answers to these questions.
1. JORDAN MADE A MISTAKE IN CIRCUMCISION
No matter what the mjlies say Jordan Chandler DID claim that Michael was circumcised.
This fact was stated in the official Santa Barbara’s Deputy Sheriff’s report known as “Deborah Linden’s report” described in this article (now in the archive). An excerpt from it is provided below:
Photos of Jackson’s body confirmed ’93 claims
|JANUARY 6–As search warrants go, you won’t find one more intrusive than the one executed on Michael Jackson’s, um, person in 1993. And the results of that intimate Kodak moment from a decade ago could resurface in the performer’s upcoming molestation trial.A detailed recounting of the criminal probe of Jackson is contained in sealed documents reviewed by TSG. An affidavit from former Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department deputy Deborah Linden was filed in 1993 to secure court permission to photograph Jackson’s private parts. Investigators sought the images in a bid to corroborate allegations made by 13-year-old Jordan Chandler. The boy told police that Jackson frequently masturbated him, adding that he could provide a detailed description of the star’s penis as a way of proving the pair had been intimate.….The boy’s information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson’s penis was erect, the length of the performer’s pubic hair, and that he was circumcised.|
If the article disappears again as it once did, there are also several books to confirm the story Jordan Chandler was telling. One of them is a manuscript by Michael’s worst hater Victor Gutierrez, published in 1996.
Here is an excerpt from its chapter called in line with the whole book “Privacy in Monaco”:
“Then he took off his clothes, and I noticed that he had very little pubic hair, and that his penis was circumcised.”
Yes, there can be no doubt whatsoever that Jordan DID claim that MJ was circumcised.
And the fact that the mjlies boys are denying even this totally undeniable fact will tell you all you need to know about their approach to truth in general. If they lie even here – where it is simply impossible to lie – how much more do they lie everywhere else?
2. JORDAN MADE A MISTAKE IN THE COLOR TOO
The story of the blotch allegedly identified by Jordan is also exactly the opposite of what the mjlies say.
The story of the splotch is thrilling but graphic. In her official statement the Santa Barbara Deputy Sheriff Deborah Linden wrote that Jordan had described to her Michael’s penis as having a “splotch a light color similar to the color of his face”.
The light splotch was Jordan’s guess considering that his father had seen Michael’s buttocks when making an injection for his headache. At the time Michael was suffering from terrible migraines as between January- June 1993 he was undergoing a new stretch of his scalp and new scalp surgery and on the weekend he visited Evan Chandler he had a splitting headache. Evan Chandler gave him an injection of Toradol, a poweful non-narcotic painkiller which sent Michael into a kind of a haze (the chance was never missed by Evan as he actually interrogated him in this state).
Ray Chandler’s book says this about the incident:
“Evan injected 30 mg, half the maximum dose, into Michael’s gluteus. But one hour later the star claimed he was still in a lot of pain, so Evan administered the remaining half and instructed him to lie down and try to relax.” [“All That Glitters”, p.47]
Gluteus is a medical term for buttocks, so Evan Chandler saw MJ’s gluteus at least twice. The buttocks had some light vitiligo splotches and after witnessing them with his own eyes nothing could be easier for Evan than assuming that MJ’s front private parts had a similar color scheme.
The assumption was that at least one light splotch should be on the penis too. This looked like a safe guess and being sure that at least one light spot would be found there Jordan ventured his description to the police. The location of the splotch was not that important – with time vitiligo spots can change their configuration and grow bigger or even disappear and thus change the whole picture.
Ray Chandler recalls Larry Feldman saying to Evan Chandler that it does not matter how Jordan describes Michael’s splotches. No matter what he says the situation is a “no-loser” for their case, which is a very telling way of how that false story was cooked in the Chandlers’ kitchen.
Lauren Weis, the Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney who was the first to record Jordan’s description on September 1, 1993 said to Feldman that vitiligo spots had a tendency to change and this is why it was not a decisive factor. This is why Larry Feldman assured Evan Chandler that whatever Jordan said anything would be okay:
Lauren Weis told me today that this disease Michael says he’s got, vitiligo, that it’s capable of changing anywhere you look, so that anything Jordie says is irrelevant. It can change very quickly with this disease.”
“Shit, these guys seem to have an answer for everything.”
“No, that’s good for us!”
“Because if he’s right, he’s right. And if he’s wrong, we’ve got an explanation!” “Ha!”
“Yeah, it’s a no-loser for us.”
[All That Glitters, p. 202]
The second time Jordan gave his description of Michael’s private parts was on December 1, 1993. This time it was to Deborah Linden, the Santa Barbara Deputy Sheriff and it was this second report that was quoted by the above Smoking Gun article.
The Deborah Linden report abounded in explicit details provided by Jordan. The full description was as follows:
With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson’s below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive “splotches” on his buttocks and one on his penis, “which is a light color similar to the color of his face.” The boy’s information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson’s penis was erect, the length of the performer’s pubic hair, and that he was circumcised.
Horrendous as it looks on second thought you begin realizing that it was not that impossible to claim the same without ever seeing those genitalia.
The “distinctive splotches” on the buttocks were seen by Evan Chandler after which vitiligo was correctly assumed to be everywhere on MJ’s body, the short pubic hair is typical of black people as I hear, the circumcision idea expressed by Jordan was already determined to be totally incorrect - and the only thing that remains to be looked into is “the light splotch” and its placement on what is called here an “erect” penis.
By calling it “erect” they are camouflaging the fact that Jordan Chandler made a mistake in circumcision and pretend that circumcision and erection are the same thing. They are absolutely not and we have a special post about it, including the animation on how the foreskin moves even during erection and showing the glaring difference between the two.
I understand your amazement and disgust at the graphic mode of this discussion, but please regard it as a medical issue or the necessary job to be done to clear the innocent man of horrible slander, and then the whole thing will sound less of a nightmare to you.
Now back to the splotch.
You will agree that with Michael’s vitiligo it was almost impossible to make a mistake in respect of splotches and this is why Jordan was so sure of his words.
However the fate played an absolutely unique joke on Jordan. It turned out that he and his father made a wrong guess of the color of MJ’s whole penis (sorry for being so graphic). They thought that it was black, but in reality it was white.
But how on earth do we know about it?
We know it from Sneddon’s declaration made on May 26, 2005 where he described the photos obtained from the strip search and some peculiarities of that description made us realize that the highly intimate part of MJ’s body had a different color from the one Evan and Jordan Chandler expected it to be.
After long beating about the bush in that document Sneddon finally says that there was a certain “dark blemish located at about the same relative location” as described by Jordan Chandler. Then he calls the “dark blemish” “a discoloration” and says that it was he who compared the photos with the description, and he believes that the photos “substantially corroborate the description” and he is making these statements “on information and belief” and that he “believes them to be true”.
The accuracy of this declaration is simply mind-blowing – it abounds in vague terms like a dark spot being called a discoloration and it being found “at about the same relative location” as described by Jordan and all this being Sneddon’s “belief” that it is true.
Though there is a lot more to say about this incredible document let me ask you to focus only on the dark blemish at the moment.
While Jordan Chandler’s guess was that Michael was supposed to have a “light splotch which was the color of his face” Sneddon is talking here about a dark blemish.
A dark one.
Am I missing something or can a dark spot be seen only on a light background and a light spot be seen only on a dark background?
And what will be your opinion on two cows – is it possible to take a white cow for a black one even if they have some spots on their skin? And what will be the first thing you will notice – the whole color or a certain spot on the background? Or will it be both as the background is inseparable from anything painted on it?
These simple reflections made me realize that Jordan didn’t actually know the whole color of what he had allegedly seen and didn’t know that it was predominantly white with probably some dark spots there. And he described it as dark with a light splotch on it.
So it turned out to be the opposite of what he and his father expected.
No power on earth (even vitiligo) can change the color of the skin into its opposite within a couple of months only, and all Sneddon’s later attempts to prove that Michael had undergone an operation to change the color of his genitals and bring back the foreskin went bust.
He went through all Michael’s medical records and approached all his doctors including those in England, but the mammoth efforts to prove that during the three weeks Michael was in a rehab he grew back the foreskin and changed the color of his genitals went nowhere because all of it is simply impossible.
So what do we have as a summary of this totally obscene discussion?
- The splotches on the buttocks were seen by Evan Chandler and this is why they were described correctly.
- The short pubic hair is nothing unusual for blacks.
- The erect penis is not the same as circumcision as the foreskin is highly noticeable and moves even during erection, however in all his statements and media performances Sneddon still tried to pass one for the other.
- And the only two distinctive details Jordan Chandler was counting on as his damnest evidence were both incorrect – Michael was uncircumcised and his genitalia had a dark blemish standing out on a light background (and not the opposite as Jordan described).
It is even funny that with male anatomy being more or less the same it was possible for Jordan to make so many mistakes!
As a final note on the above let me say that none of the officers or experts who were obliged to compare Jordan’s description with the photos had a chance to do it. Some saw only the photos, others saw only the description and everyone counted on someone else to say what the comparison showed. Actually all of they say almost in unison that “they were told that it was a match”.
The only person who made the comparison was Tom Sneddon. He stated it in his declaration himself and declared that everything he said there was true and correct except the things he only believed to be true.
6. I believe evidence of Jordan Chandler’s knowledge, as evidenced by his verbal description and drawing, when considered together with the photograph of Defendant’s penis, substantially rebuts the opinion evidence offered by witnesses for Defendant to the effect that he is of a “shy” and “modest” nature and so would not have exposed his naked body in the presence of young boys.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct except for those statements made on information and belief, and as to those statements, I believe them to be true.
Executed May 26, 2005, at Santa Maria, California.
3. NONE OF THEM WANTED TO TESTIFY AGAINST JACKSON – EVER
Now it is time to handle the next statement from a reader who reads too much of mjlies and says that “Ray Chandler DID allow his book to be used in court”. This is evidently supposed to convey to us that:
- the decision to allow or not allow its use depended on Ray Chandler and it was a sort of a favor on his part and
- the book was the next best thing to his testimony which could be used as a replacement for Ray Chandler’s personal presence
My answer is NO, the decision to use or not use the book did not depend on Ray Chandler, and it wasn’t a favor of his but his greatest desire to have his lies read out in court while he himself was not present there.
And the second is YES, the book could be regarded as part of his testimony but only if he himself testified in court.
This last point is very interesting. If the book could indeed be regarded as his testimony, why wasn’t it possible to use it in court in his absence – as a sort of a declaration on his part?
This was not possible because in accordance with Amendment 6th to the US constitution every accused person has the right to challenge his accuser in court – cross-examine him and ask him inconvenient questions there. And this is exactly what Ray Chandler absolutely didn’t want to do. He vehemently objected to testifying against Jackson as he had nothing to prove his lies with and this is why he fought Michael’s subpoena tooth and nail.
We have proof of Ray Chandler’s refusal to testify in the form of a series of motions sent back and forth which ended in Ray Chandler’s complete victory discussed here in great detail. He managed to prove that he was a sort of a journalist (a self-publisher of his book) and therefore could enjoy the immunity granted to journalists by the Shield Law.
In the recent blogtalk radio show with King Jordan Thomas Mesereau didn’t mention this episode as it was evidently another Michael’s attorney who subpoenaed Ray Chandler to the 2005 trial. But who subpoenaed him doesn’t matter – what matters here is that Ray Chandler refused to speak against Michael in court and preferred to spread his lies in the media where he didn’t face the danger of a cross-examination by Michael’s lawyers.
And when he chose not to testify there, this simultaneously meant that his book could not be submitted to court either as according to the 6th Amendment if you accuse someone of something you should go to court to prove it as the accused person also has the right to defend himself against the accuser.
But if the accuser is afraid of some questions and wants to send his book to represent himself in court, this won’t do as the book cannot answer questions which will naturally arise from the other side. So it is either this or that, and that fake “permission” from Ray Chandler to use the book while he himself will hide in the bushes means nothing, or rather shows Ray Chandler and his advocates for what they really are – falisfiers of the truth.
Of all Chandlers only June Chandler ventured to come to court while all the rest of them refused.
Jordan Chandler refused twice – first in 1994 (he cooperated with the police for several months after the settlement) and then in 2004 when he said that he would sue them if they insisted and in closing the conversation dropped a mysterious phrase that “he had done his part”.
Parts are usually played by actors in some theatrical performances which the Jordan Chandler case actually was.
And Sneddon was part and parcel of this theatrics himself.
4. SNEDDON’S BUFFOONERY WITH MICHAEL’S PHOTOS
Sneddon knew that Jordan would not testify at the 2005 trial as he refused to do so in September 2004, but despite that Sneddon still waved the photos of MJ’s genitalia in the courtroom teasing the jury and the public, frightening Michael out of his wits and impressing the media with this spectacular gesture, all the time knowing that he could not show the photos in court.
Why couldn’t he?
Exactly for the same reason why Ray Chandler’s book could not be used without his personal testimony in court. If there is no accuser to speak about the accused person’s genitalia no one can introduce the photos of them either – and this again in accordance with the great Sixth Amendment to Constitution for which I have a huge respect.
It was Tom Sneddon who didn’t have respect for the Constitution as he knew that he didn’t have his witness but nevertheless tried to introduce a piece of evidence about which only this witness could testify. It was a complete bluff on Sneddon’s part and its sole idea was to create the impression that the photos were a match to Jordan’s description.
Sneddon deliberately wanted to send shock waves about MJ throughout the nation and the world, and thus accuse Michael on the basis of this bluff alone.
The judge naturally didn’t allow the photos but the effect was indescribable. Everyone thought that Sneddon had some crucial evidence on his hands, but the judge was so “awe-struck” by the celebrity that he left this evidence out and thus allowed the “criminal” to get away with his crime.
But the stark truth of the matter is that Sneddon did not have a single shred of evidence against Michael.
The other prosecutor in the 1993 case, the Los Angeles DA Gil Garcetti had the decency to distance himself from Sneddon’s tricks and at the end of the 1993/94 investigation publicly declared Michael innocent “like all of the rest of us in this room”. However Sneddon continued prosecuting and persecuting Michael though all he had on his hands was “what the boy said”.
And “what the boy said” was a big lie.
Let us sum up why we are so certain about it.
We are certain about it because we’ve analyzed each detail of Jordan’s description with its splotch, circumcision and other crap and proved that he made every mistake that was ever possible to make there.
We are also certain that Jordan told a lie as the USA Today published an article on January 28, 1993 placing a tiny but crucial phrase there that the “photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy”.
We also know that Jordan lied from the fact that Larry Feldman didn’t like the photos to such a degree that he demanded to bar them from the civil trial. See the full story about it here please.
We also know that Jordan lied from the simple fact that Tom Sneddon did not arrest Michael then and there, and never brought charges against him in 1993 at all.
We also know it from the fact that two Grand juries looked into all the evidence in 1994 and found nothing to indict MJ for.
And we also know about it from Tom Sneddon’s own press release where he admitted that he had no evidence against Jackson – only he said it in so roundabout way that no one really noticed it.
5. SNEDDON ADMITTED HE HAD NO EVIDENCE AGAINST JACKSON
By some inexplicable coincidence Sneddon’s press-release i am talking about was made on the same day when Bashir’s film aired (February 6, 2003).
By an even more miraculous coincidence Jordan Chandler’s declaration from the year 1993 was leaked to the media and published for the first time also on February 6, 2003.
Jordan’s declaration was part of a confidentiality agreement and Michael Jackson issued a statement saying that “someone” had chosen to violate that confidentiality and use the boy’s statements to further sully his character.
I wonder who that “somebody” might be and how come all the three events happened on one and the same day?
In his press-release Sneddon addressed the issue of MJ “sleeping with boys” and spoke about the prior Jordan Chandler’s case.
Sneddon complained that in order to do something with this terrible Jackson he needed new, “credible” evidence or new “victims” willing to cooperate, and called on the public for help in finding those “victims”.
As a side note let me say that now that we know how dear a price the Connecticut State Attorney Frank Maco paid for using the word “victim” just once (for Dylan Farrow in the Woody Allen case), you will understand how big a misdeed Tom Sneddon was getting away with when using the same word for Michael Jackson.
There is also a very big difference between what Frank Maco and Tom Sneddon were saying.
Frank Maco used the word for the girl who was a very likely victim of sex abuse as all other evidence testified to it too, while Sneddon was using the same word for non-existent “victims” of MJ or people who had not yet even complained about anything!
As we know State Attorney Frank Maco was almost disabarred for just one word, and the Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon left the office with honors and the highest pension in the state. Equality, you know…
Sneddon’s February 6, 2003 press release opened with the status of the 1993 investigation and said that Sneddon was still waiting for credible evidence against Jackson. By the very definition of it this means that prior to that moment he had nothing credible to rely on:
1. The Status of the Prior Investigation. A number of years ago at a press conference in Los Angeles with the then L.A. County District Attorney, Gil Garcetti, we described the investigation as “open, but inactive.” It was stated that the case could be reactivated upon the discovery of new, credible evidence or victims willing to cooperate. Nothing has changed. The investigation remains “open, but inactive.”
In point 5 of the same press-release Sneddon explained why he couldn’t act against Jackson on the basis of Bashir’s film or Jordan’s declaration of December 1993.
It was because the California Law didn’t allow him to go forward if he had only a confession of a claimant, but didn’t have a witness OR other evidence:
5. California Law and a Child/Victim’s Right to Refuse to Testify and Cooperate in Investigations. Under California law a child/victim must voluntarily cooperate with law enforcement. Neither testimony nor an appearance in court can be mandated. Therefore, an investigation without a cooperative victim or a percipient witness to establish the corpus for a crime is not prosecutable. While it may seem strange that even if a person made an admission or a confession, under California law without a witness or other evidence to establish the corpus there is no case. See CALJIC Instruction 2.72.
Let’s get over it once again, guys, as you surely didn’t get the point.
First let us see what conditions needed to be met for the California law to allow the prosecution to move forward with a complaint.
If a minor complains of an abuse in a ‘confession’ of his, this is not enough for bringing charges against the accused person. The California law also requires a witness to testify OR other evidence to prove the case. Otherwise there will be no case.
Now let’s see what Sneddon did or didn’t have.
- A confession from a complainant he did have - it was Jordan’s declaration made to Larry Feldman (or something similar obtained from Jordan by the police).
- The witness Sneddon didn’t have as Jordan refused to testify (and twice too).
- But even if the witness refused Sneddon still had one more chance to proceed with the case. All he needed for it was the evidence to prove the minor’s complaint.
This alternative was given to him by the California legislators sometime in 1995 when the law changed and allowed prosecutors to bring charges against the accused on the basis of evidence alone, even in case minors refused to testify. It was an exception to the Sixth Amendment I admire so much and was made specifically for children and for sex abuse cases only.
However Sneddon still did not bring any charges against Jackson and in his press-release practically declared to the whole world that he had nothing credible against him – and this dots all the i’s and crosses all the t’s in this incredible story of Jordan Chandler.
Tom Sneddon had not evidence against Michael Jackson though he said the opposite on almost every media forum.
6. CHILD PROTECTIVE AUTHORITIES DIDN’T HAVE ANYTHING EITHER
Sneddon’s press-release of February 6, 2003 has one more important point.
Point 4 mentions that there were certain documents made by the Child Protective authorities which were confidential and were therefore not subject to disclosure:
4. Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 investigations are within the purview of the Child Protective Service Division of the Department of Social Services. By law those investigations are confidential and not subject to disclosure.
I practically see our mjlies boys grasping at a straw here – and what if these undisclosed documents have something terrible against Jackson?
To their disappointment the Department for Children and Family Services has made several statements to the effect and clearly stated that they had nothing against Jackson either.
Their recent May 5, 2011 information from the DCFS said the following:
the Arvizos case had zero credibility (the DCFS 2003 statement about Arvizos was leaked to the press and Larry Feldman even threatened to sue the authorities for the damage the truth did to the poor family).
- The 1993 similar statement from the DFCS is not available to us, but their information released in 2011 addresses both Arvizo and Chandler cases and says that in both cases Michael Jackson was cleared.
- The DCFS says they investigated MJ on an on and off basis for at least 10 years and during all investigations Michael was fully cooperative with the authorities and held nothing back.
- In the 1993 case an extensive investigation was carried out. Michael was subjected to a battery of tests and interviews and answered the hardest questions possible, and did it for hours. And all this in the absence of his lawyer.
Here is the article which broke the news that the DCFS investigated Michael Jackson in both cases and in all investigations they conducted he was fully cleared:
“With Katherine Jackson ratcheting up the debate about her son Michael Jackson’s relationship with children by saying he was no child molester, a well-placed government source tells RadarOnline she’s right.
The Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services absolutely agrees with Katherine that her son never molested any child in cases the department investigated,” a source told RadarOnline.
Michael Jackson was investigated by DCFS on and off for at least 10 years. The department undertook a first extensive investigation of allegations made by an underage accuser in 1993.
“Michael was fully cooperative during all of his interactions with DCFS,” the source said.
“Michael was interviewed for hours without his lawyer. He held nothing back.
He couldn’t understand why these allegations were being made against him. DCFS cleared him on any wrongdoing in all investigations.
“Did Michael put himself in precarious situations that most normal people wouldn’t? Absolutely . . . The questioning was very, very hard on Michael, he just couldn’t fathom that anyone could accuse him of being a child molester.”
Another accuser, in 2005, “had absolutely no credibility,” the source said. “There were differing accounts of what happened from the accuser and his family members.”
If there are no more questions on this issue let me go over to the other two questions which arrived from the mjlies.
7. ‘NUZZLING’ AND LISA-MARIE PRESLEY
One of the two questions was about MJ allegedly “nuzzling” Brett Barnes. I had to look up the word “nuzzle” and found it was something like “sniffing”. I asked the people who asked the question for proof that this terrible crime was indeed committed by MJ and while they are looking have checked some sources myself.What I found is indeed astounding.
Not only something that looked like nuzzling was indeed found but open embraces were found too - however not in respect of Brett Barnes or boys in general (with them it was mostly food fighting), but in respect of very many girls instead.
In fact there are so many photos of Michael embracing and hugging girls that these photos are the best proof of a saying that fathers always want sons to be born to them, but dote most on their daughers.
The way Michael looks it seems that he is simply dying of happiness and admiration for these little girls.
While I was coming across more and more photos of Michael admiring these little ones (the pictures posted here are just a fraction), one more question arrived and this one was about Lisa-Marie Presley:QUESTION:
“I have a question on Lisa Marie. She said in one interview she was sure Michael was innocent, but at another around the same time she said she often worried he was guilty. And of course there was the ambiguous Oprah answer that “only Michael and the kid know.” Why can’t she seem to make up her mind? Better yet, how could she be so close to him for so long and not know if he was guilty or not? What do you think she really believes?”
Oh, so Lisa-Marie Presley “often worried that he was guilty”? Really?
This is news to me as I have never seen or heard Lisa-Marie Presley “worry about his guilt” and do it “often” at that. She did speak at length about their differences and sometimes called him an idiot and other bad names, but each time she thought it necessary to clarify that it concerned only their relationship as a man and woman, and it was not in any way connected with children.
Here is a typical sample of what she usually says (the sample is taken from an interview with the Playboy Magazine in 2003):
PLAYBOY: Did you and he ever have children join you in your bed?
LISA-MARIE PRESLEY: Never. Never, never, never, never. I never saw him sleep in bed with a child, ever.
PLAYBOY: Did you ever see him with photos of nude children?
PRESLEY: Never. Never.
PLAYBOY: Do you have any reason to think he’s a child molester?
PRESLEY: If I’d had any reason to suspect that, I would have had nothing to do with the guy. I had no reason to, other than the allegations themselves. The only two people who know are Michael and that kid in the room. I’ve never seen him behave inappropriately. He was great with my kids. He does have a connection with kids, babies. He’s a kid, and other kids sense that in him.
Yes, sometimes Lisa-Marie does follow other people’s foolish ideas and repeats their usual mantra that “only that kid and Michael know what happened in that room”.
This silly statement is made by lots of people (including Aphrodite Jones, for example) thus showing to us that no amount of facts proving anyone’s innocence is enough for these people. The only way they think they can know the truth is to “be in that room”. Otherwise they will be groping in the dark, poor things.
Let me say to these people that “being in one room” with a molested kid and the abuser is absolutely not the decisive point here. Child abusers are extremely inventive and a child may be molested in front of everyone without the people around them noticing it. How do I know it? I do and please don’t ask me how I came to know it. I was also a little child once but still remember it like yesterday.
A much surerer way to know the truth is learn the system of values of a person, his beliefs, thoughts and ideas he is bringing into this world. If the person talks about child molestation in each of his films and spreads ideas like “half the country does it” this will be reason enough to prick your ears and stand on the guard of your children.
But with Michael Jackson who at age 35 would blush at profanities or run from dirty jokes said in his presence? Every person who knew him noted that Michael had the purest heart anyone could ever imagine.
If Lisa Marie keeps repeating that silly story about “not being there” I suggest that someone asks her to recall whether she ever left her children alone with Michael.
The answer she would give to herself will explain to her that if she had ever doubted Michael she would have never allowed her children to even come up close to him – whether alone or in her presence.
No, she never doubted him. Actually I don’t even know what we are discussing here. Lisa-Marie already said that she had never had any doubts about Michael:
- “If I’d had any reason to suspect that, I would have had nothing to do with the guy.
- … He was great with my kids. He does have a connection with kids, babies.
- He’s a kid, and other kids sense that in him.”
8. DID THE INSURANCE COMPANY PAY?
As an extra bonus to those who want some answers let me explore one more question often discussed by fans and non-fans alike.
During the recent King Jordan’s blogtalk radio show Thomas Mesereau was asked whether there is evidence that the Chandlers were paid by the insurance company:
QUESTION: “Was there any evidence that it was settled by an insurance company or paid by them?”
To this Thomas Mesereau said the following:
“My understanding was that the insurance company did not pay. Now the settlement agreement was written, and again, I was not involved in that settlement – you should ask Howard Weizman about that settlement, I was not involved, I didn’t even know Michael at the time, I got to know him eleven years later but my understanding was that the settlement agreement was written to permit the possibility that the insurance company would pay but I was also told that the insurance company did not pay. That’s my understanding. There are some people running around saying that an insurance company paid it and that’s why it was settled and my understanding is that it is not correct.”
Thomas Mesereau’s reply upset a lot of people.
To many it sounded like a complete disaster, though to me it absolutely didn’t. I really don’t care who paid what as I know the real reason for that settlement – it was simply because Michael could no longer stand the torture. He was so fed up with the whole thing that was ready to do anything to make it go away.
However to those who are super-sensitive about this issue let me say that I have found evidence that the insurance was indeed going to pay money in a settlement agreement and the dispute was actually not so much about the possibility of payment, but mostly about the sum they were ready to part with.
What the end result was I don’t know, but what I know for sure is that two weeks before the settlement the insurance company offered a certain sum to Michael’s team as a “one-time” offer only, but they didn’t accept it and three weeks after the initial offer their negotiations with the insurance company were still in progress.
All these details come from this article published in the New Sunday Times dated January 30, 1993:
Jackson ‘sought insurance help pay boy’
The New Sunday Times
January 30, 1993
London, Sat. – Michael Jackson asked his insurance company to the multimillion dollar payout to the teenager who filed a child molestation suit against the pop star, it was reported yesterday.
The newspaper Today said it has documents showing that the Illionois-based Transamerica Insurance Group was astounded by Jackson’s demand and told Jackson his personal liability policy didn’t cover sex allegations.
Despite the company’s position that Jackson wasn’t covered, Transamerica attorney Jordan Harriman made “a one-time only” offer to Jackson on January 13 to resolve the claim – but Jackson rejected it, according to the paper. Today said negotiations were continuing.
“Our client relationship precludes us from discussing it,” said Cheryl Friedling, spokeswoman for what is now known as TIG Holdings Inc. in the Los Angeles suburb of Woodland Hills.
Jackson’s lawyers announced an out-of-court settlement this week with a 14-year old who had filed a civil suit accusing the pop star of molesting him during a five-month campaign of seduction.
None of the lawyers involved would disclose financial terms of the settlement, but a source close to the case said that Jackson was paying US $15 million to the teenager.
Judging by the article the idea that the insurance company insisted on payment to the Chandlers is a overstatement of course.
But on the other hand this is what the insurers said to the paper while the fact that they offered money is suggesting the opposite.
It is obvious that when Michael’s lawyers approached the insurers they agreed to do something about it and even made an offer to Michael, and this means that Thomas Mesereau simply doesn’t know of the deal.
The details we get from the article are as follows:
Michael’s insurance company was Transamerica Insurance Group Holdings Inc. based in Los Angeles. Instead of defending Michael in a civil trial his lawyers (Johnny Cochran and his team) started working with both Michael and the insurance persuading them that the settlement would be the best way out in the circumstances. To Michael they promised that the insurance company would agree to cover the cost and to the insurance they evidently said that they would lose more in case Michael was unable to go on working.
The insurance company says that they weren’t especially happy but their deeds speak louder than words – they did make an offer of money.
The money was offered on January 13 which was two weeks before the settlement.
This initial offer apparently convinced Michael that the agreement with the insurance company was well on the way and the only thing that remained to be done was agreeing on the sum.
And indeed, though the offer was said to be “one-time” only three weeks later on January 30 the negotiations were still going on.
The sum of the settlement with the Chandlers is named here as $15 million (just as we thought). The amount offered by the insurance company is unknown, but even if their offer was much lower it was surely not rejected as one should be a complete fool not to take money from the insurance.
And this means that the insurance company did pay and that at least some part of the settlement amount was covered by the insurance policy.
So it looks like in this insurance situation everyone is right – Brian Oxman who said in his Motion that the insurance company had paid money, Michael who never spoke about it but who saw the first insurers’ offer and was right in hoping that they would eventually pay, and even Thomas Mesereau who says that it is his understanding that the company did not pay.
It is obvious that they did, only the amount was probably not big enough to cover the whole sum of the settlement.
However none of it matters of course. Michael was innocent anyway – irrespective of all this insurance business.
Will there be any other questions, guys?
9. ANOTHER QUESTION
As soon as I asked for further questions one more arrived and reminded me of a very important point. The question was:
Could they have been referring to the penis, that being “a light color similar to the color of his face”? The wording is not completely clear, and will probably give those who want to believe the description matched a reason to cling to their assumption. As far as I can remember, I’ve read a response to that somewhere on your website, but I don’t remember what you said.
I am really happy to be reminded of it as I completely forgot that the mjlies guys are now actively promoting the idea that Jordan’s words were simply misinterpreted and his description of a light color referred to the whole thing and not just a splotch on that intimate part of MJ’s body.
The mjlies said:
“It is the penis “which is a light color similar to the color of his face”, not the “splotches”. Fans are confused by simple sentence structure.”
By “fans” they meant me as I am the only one who ever talked about that issue. Naturally I took the idea seriously as English is a foreign language to me and to check whether I understood Jordan’s words correctly I needed someone else to look into the subject.
And I did find such a person. And he is not just someone for whom English is a native language – he is also a MJ researcher who claims to be a big authority on everything connected with Michael.
His name is Seth Clerk Silberman and he is a lecturer on gay and lesbian studies at Yale University who even arranged a two days academic conference on Michael Jackson in September 2004.
In fact Silberman may easily turn out to be one of the authors at the mjlies site as he is also propagating the false story of Jordan’s alleged knowledge of MJ’s non-circumcision state.
Silberman openly lies on this issue misquoting even his hero Victor Gutierrez and this way trying to adjust Gutierrez to the present state of affairs and making his story up-to-date.
However while lying on one thing Silberman doesn’t yet know that he needs to lie about the other thing too in order to make Jordan’s description fully consistent with their present understanding of it. When Silberman was making his “studies” no one yet spoke of the dark spot and light penis, so Silberman happily corrects Jordan Chandler in one thing but leaves the rest of his story intact.
This results in the following combination from Silberman:
Jordan described Michael’s penis, “not circumcised” with “blotchy-pink” patches like a cow.”
Silberman’s activity around Jackson is extremely interesting in and of itself , but the crucial fact which is of interest to us now is that this big university authority on Michael Jackson interprets Jordan’s words on the color point in exactly the same way as I did, and this means that I understood Jordan’s description correctly.
For details of this thrilling story please look up the post which I made two years ago when we first discussed it. It is called Rewriting History or Michael Jackson’s Unpredictable Past. Now it has been changed a little bit. The changes concern not the essence of the discussion but the way I now see people who are so dedicated to slandering Michael that they are even ready to change the past for him.
The point is that I no longer see them as Michael’s haters. These people simply have an agenda of their own and need Michael for their cause. This is why they spread lies about him at every possible forum including universities and are always ready to morph the facts of the past into their opposite when these facts become too inconvenient for them and no longer fit their agenda.
It is their agenda that matters and not Michael Jackson. For them Michael is simply a means to achieve their goals.
10. DIANE DIMOND KNEW THE TRUTH BUT LIED ALL ALONG
The next day after making the post brought another discovery and another confirmation that all of the above is true.
It turned out that Diane Dimond had always known of Jordan’s real description of Michael’s genitalia and had been simply fooling us all along.
Lynette sent us a revealing comment from Diane Dimond who in November 2009 wrote an article called “The Enigma that was Michael Jackson” and in one of her replies to readers said the following:
“Jordie Chandler was apparently confused about whether Jackson was circumcised. However, what he described about discolorations on Jackson’s penis was proven to be correct. In the opening chapter of my book I describe the day police went to serve a “body search warrant” on Mr. Jackson. They were looking to see if the boy’s description of Jackson’s ERECT penis as having pinkish splotches on it were correct.
This was important to prove or disprove…”
Forget about the “erect” penis crap and look at the pinkish splotches instead.
Oh boy, saying that was very reckless of Diane Dimond. Very reckless indeed.
By saying it she revealed that:
- Jordan Chandler imagined MJ’s penis to be dark and have some pinkish splotches on it, same as his buttocks
- she always knew Jordan’s description to be incorrect and was simply fooling us all along.
Why she is telling a little bit of truth now I don’t know. Probably she just forgot what she wrote in the past or simply knows that people are too lazy to compare what she says now with what she wrote in her book of 2005, and thinks that she can get away with both stories.
It is only with the nosy us that both stories don’t work and we are even nuisance enough to remind her of her earlier version.
And this is how Diane Dimond described the scene of Michael’s humiliating intimate inspection from the point of view of the photographer who was taking pictures of the event:
“While I was on Mr. Jackson’s left side, Dr. Strick asked Mr. Jackson to lift his penis. Mr. Jackson questioned why he had to do that, but he did comply with the request. When Mr. Jackson complied with Dr. Strick’s request to lift his penis, I observed a dark spot on the lower left side of Mr. Jackson’s penis.
It’s unclear whether Sergeant Spiegel actually had time to snap a photograph of the mark he saw. But law enforcement sources, as well as Chandler family sources, said that the dark patch on Jackson’s genitals was found exactly where young Jordan Chandler said they could find such a mark. It’s important to note that the dark spot was only visible when the penis was lifted – as during sexual arousal”.
See how many lies Diane Dimond manages to cram into so short a piece:
- The suggestion that the dark spot was not snapped is untrue as it was photographed and even described by Tom Sneddon in his declaration of May 26, 2005
- The penis was not just simply ‘lifted”. To see whether there were any spots below the foreskin Michael should have had to draw the foreskin back by some 5-6 or more centimeters (this is how long the foreskin is) because it is only after this procedure that the result may more or less resemble the state of “sexual arousal” she is describing. The resulting condition is absolutely not the same as “erection” but Diane Dimond naturally doesn’t elaborate on this point and this is where one of her most sophisticated lies is.
- And Jordan never spoke of a dark patch. Our good boy imagined the whole penis to be dark and therefore sent the police to look for a light splotch there. Imagine their amazement at seeing that the whole thing was so light that they could find just one (1) dark spot there – at least in “about the same relative location” that they were scrutinizing, according to Sneddon.
Of course it is very easy to confuse people’s minds with all this intricate information about spots and cook a simple story like that from Diane Dimond for the masses to consume – “there was a spot there and nothing else matters”.
But what doesn’t matter to the masses and public opinion in general, matters very much in court where experts will be closely examining every detail and where they will be able to tell a dark spot from a light splotch.
And by the way it is very nice of Diane Dimond to confirm that Jordan “was confused whether Michael Jackson was circumcised”. It once again effectively answers the question this post started with at all.
And after that you still doubt the outcome of a possible civil trial in 1993 if the parties had not settled?
Of course Michael Jackson would have been acquitted on all counts. He would have probably died in the process from the sheer humiliation of it, but he would have certainly been acquitted.
That’s for sure.
I’ve been closely following the Dylan Farrow story in order to equip myself with knowledge in case something of the kind arises in the MJ field and that Wade Robson beast raises his ugly head again.
If God wanted to educate us on the subject he is actually doing it now, well in advance, so I recommend each and everybody to familiarize oneself with the way to tell a true child molestation story from a fake one.
The majority of people are now saying that we will never know the truth of what happened between Woody Allen and his 7-year old adopted daughter which is a view I totally disagree with.
As someone who regards truth to be absolute like light, I think that truth is attainable in all cases, only you need to work hard enough for bringing out its light.
Some will say that a huge cloud of indecision still lingering over Woody Allen’s story is only for the better and if the public reacted in the same reserved manner to Wade Robson’s allegations against Michael it wouldn’t be that bad as it would give MJ at least the benefit of the doubt.
However Michael Jackson doesn’t belong among those whose innocence should be doubted and this is why I’ll go into Woody Allen’s case to show that it is still possible to reach for the truth even without us being ‘in the same room’ and will point to the glaring differences between Allen and Jackson though the accusations against them look similar.
These two people only seem to be sitting in one boat while they are absolutely not. Read more…
The second part of the post on Demerol will have to wait as very, very interesting news has come from Dylan Farrow about her stepfather Woody Allen. The 28 year-old Dylan says she was sexually assaulted by her stepfather almost twenty years ago when she was 7 years old.
Considering that a similar allegation is probably awaiting us in June this year (when Wade Robson’s lies about Michael Jackson may be resumed) it will be interesting to look into Dylan’s story to educate ourselves a bit on the subject before the Wade Robson wave comes upon us again.
Making judgment on Woody Allen even on the basis of a powerful letter like Dylan’s will contradict the basic law principle of “innocent until proven guilty”, so the only thing we can really do is tell the girl’s story and focus on the reaction to it from the media which, especially in comparison with what they did to Michael Jackson, will strike you by its incredibly considerate attitude towards Woody Allen as one of the Hollywood pillars.
The comparison of the manner in which the similar stories of Michael Jackson and Woody Allen were handled by the media will be all the more easier as the seven-year-old Dylan accused her stepfather of abuse right at the time when Jordan Chandler accused Michael Jackson of the same.
Dylan’s story started in 1992 and was over in February 1994 when the investigation against Woody Allen was closed without bringing criminal charges, and Michael’s case started in 1993 and the police investigation ended in September 1994 without bringing criminal charges against him too.
However this is where the similarity between the two cases ends as all the rest was completely different. Read more…
It always surprised me how quick and easy it is to tell a lie and how laborious it is to refute it. Look at this piece from the recent autopsy program on Channel 5 of British television, for example, and see how three big lies are crammed into so little a space:
- How did a 50-year old man with osteoarthritis, lupus, scarred lungs and an addiction to Demerol manage to turn it around? The clue is lying in Jackson’s body. He gets another narcotic.
- Extensive toxicological testing was performed on numerous samples taken from Jackson’s body. In the urine sample it was noted that a drug called ephedrine was present.
See how easy it is? People are told a pack of lies about Michael though he didn’t have an addiction to Demerol, Ephedrine is not a narcotic and Michael didn’t “get” but was given Ephedrine by another. However to prove all of it you need to do a long research and write a detailed post in several parts.
There wouldn’t be even a need for these posts if it weren’t for this autopsy program. But some people are absolutely adamant that Michael Jackson should never be left alone and this makes us do what they invite us to do – discuss Demerol (and Ephedrine), Dr. Klein’s medical records and whether MJ did or didn’t have any withdrawal symptoms from the Demerol injected by Klein during his cosmetic procedures. Read more…
Friends, below is the transcript of the false autopsy show from British TV on which Susannerb and me have painstakingly worked for the past few days.
I added to the transcript the description of background pictures to give you a better idea of what it’s like. Almost every sentence here requires a comment but I’ve tried to limit myself to a complete minimum which is still a lot, I’m afraid.
The comments come in the form of side notes. The notes for the second part of the transcript will be added later as the potential for them is infinite and I am struggling to choose.
Dr.Richard Shepherd is not as bad as the other participants but there are a couple of questions to him too.
At the end of the text there is a link to the video in case the transcript hasn’t been enough for you. Read more…
Channel 5 of British TV says that their autopsy program about Michael Jackson shown on January 7, 2014 is not available online “for technical reasons”.
The real reason is the fact that they are going to repeat it on January 12 and 14 until which time they are not planning to make it available online.
THE ESTATE HAD THEIR SAY
I am happy to learn that the Estate of Michael Jackson tried to stop the show – on January 6, 2014 they published a statement saying they had sent a letter to the broadcaster and station owner expressing the Estate’s disgust and asking Channel 5 to show good taste and common decency: Read more…
Now seven more jurors from the AEG trial also made their affidavits and are saying in unison that they did not look into Murray’s competency “at the time he was hired” only.
Earlier other four jurors said that they had been told to focus only on the moment of hiring Murray.
The situation is unclear and understanding what’s what may be crucial for the outcome of the trial as theoretically there is a possibility of a hung jury (when the jurors are deadlocked and can’t decide).
It is also absolutely crucial to know which side is telling the truth.
This is why I suggest that the Plaintiffs’ lawyers immediately contact Juror #27 (the one who spoke on the MJJCommunity forum) and get an affidavit from him.
This juror said he was also on the jury and elaborated in much detail on his views on the trial. His viewpoint is that they based their decision mostly on the time of Murray’s hire. He repeated it many times over and provided us with various examples to make us swallow and digest this point and remember it forever after.
And we didn’t forget it. This is why we know that now the Plaintiffs cannot find a better witness than Juror #27 himself about the way the jurors deliberated and how they came to answer “no” to question 2 on the verdict form. Read more…