All you wanted to know ABOUT IT but were afraid to ask. Part 2. JORDAN’S DRAWING
To finish with the circumcision subject let me ask you pointblank – is your sexual partner circumcised or not? Who says they don’t know? NONE??? Well, now that you’ve admitted that it is impossible not to know, let’s move on…
How could Jordan Chandler learn of any splotches on Michael’s body?
Easily. On February 10, 1993 Michael Jackson spoke to Oprah Winfrey and disclosed to 100 mln. people watching the show that he had an extensive case of vitiligo which had started about the Thriller time. After such a revelation it was no problem to assume that Michael had blotches all over his body including genitalia.
Jordan Chandler also said to Anthony Pellicano, who asked him how much he had seen of Michael’s body, that Michael had once lifted his shirt to show his vitiligo (evidently on his chest or back). [Update Feb. 28, 2012] This notable conversation is described by Maureen Orth in one of her filthy articles:
- According to Pellicano, Jamie told him a lot in 45 minutes. “He’s a very bright, articulate, intelligent, manipulative boy.” Pellicano, who has fathered nine children by two wives, says he asked Jamie many sexually specific questions. “And I’m looking dead into his eyes. And I’m watching in his eyes for any sign of fear or anticipation—anything. And I see none,” Pellicano says. “And I keep asking him, ‘Did Michael ever touch you?’ ‘No.’ ‘Did you ever see Michael nude?’ ‘No.’ He laughed about it. He giggled a lot, like it was a funny thing. Michael would never be nude… . ‘Did you and Michael ever masturbate?’ ‘No.’ ‘Did Michael ever masturbate in front of you?’ ‘No.’ ‘Did you guys ever talk about masturbation?’ ‘No.’
- “‘So you never saw Michael’s body?’ ‘One time, he lifted up his shirt and he showed me those blotches.'”
From the book by Evan’s brother, Ray Chandler we also learn that the night Michael Jackson stayed in Evan’s home – when he allegedly saw MJ in one bed with Jordan – Michael had such a terrible headache that Evan made an injection in his buttocks of a drug which immediately made Michael dazed, sleepy and almost unconscious. He said it was Toradol, but the reaction to it was totally untypical ( which makes you wonder what drug Evan actually gave him. It also makes you wonder whether Michael could get into bed by himself after that). Whatever the case Evan surely saw the splotches on Michael’s buttocks.
What description did Jordan Chandler make of Michael’s genitalia? Did he draw a picture of them? The Smoking Gun gives the following answer:
“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 and the length of the performer’s public hair”.
The same thing is repeated by Yan Halperin in his book “The Unmasked” where he adds:
“Jordan even drew a picture of Jackson’s genital area. Beside it he wrote: “Michael is circumcised. He has short pubic hair. His testicles are marked with pink and brown marks. He has brown patches on his ass, on his left gut”.
Then Halperin explains how the boy could see the splotches on the singer’s buttocks and why the police needed something more substantial than that:
“There was a swimming pool at Neverland where Jordan often swam. It was quite possible that the boy had seen Jackson undress when he was changing into his trunks. So the prosecutors were searching for details that the boy couldn’t have simply spotted during these routine periods of nudity.” As Jordan described where “the splotch lay on the singer’s penis when he was erect” a humiliating strip search of Michael’s genitalia was made during which Michael was asked to raise his penis”.
“By then a number of tabloids reported that the exam confirmed Jordan’s description. Diane Dimond even disclosed that ‘sources’ told her the dark patch on Jackson’s genitals “was found exactly where young Jordan Chandler said they could find such a mark”.
USA Today and Reuters reported that there was no match. The headline says it “may” contradict, while the text is absolutely definite that there was no match. The full article is (of course) missing now, however you can BUY this document from the USA Today if the short of it does not suit you.
Let me remind you that in January 1994, USA Today and Reuters cited law enforcement sources confirming that “photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match description given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct”. However the news was reported the NEXT day after the financial settlement with the Chandlers had been announced, so no one really paid attention…
Up till now the haters fuss about a picture allegedly drawn by Jordan for his father Evan on October 23, 1993 as a piece of damning evidence against Michael (source: http://www.collegehumor.com/picture:158780).
Let’s have a look at it.
Well, the scraps of the text you can read there are more or less repeating Jordan’s words. However the handwriting looks to me more typical of an adult than of a child.
On the other hand the drawing is so bad that it was apparently meant to create the impression it was drawn by a 13-year old. And the small spot shown in the picture is something which can be easily found on the skin of any vitiligo patient …
Can the picture be true? Judging by the “College humor” name of the website one would expect it to be just a bad joke. However an attentive Michael’s fan remembered seeing this drawing in a book written by Victor Gutierrez who claimed his dirty story was based on Jordan’s diary (which incidentally, Jordan never kept).
Michael Jackson sued this author for slander in 1998 and won the case on April 9, 1998. The book was not allowed for sale in the USA and its author fled to Chili not to pay Michael 2mln. in damages. This man’s hatred towards Michael is so overwhelming that he recently bragged on Chilean TV that he is relieved that Michael is dead as he doesn’t have to pay the money he owes him….
The guy who recognized the drawing (Oldschoolfan) says about it:
“That picture is from a book called ‘Michael Jackson Was My Lover’ which was written by an ‘investigative reporter’. How do I know all this? Because I had that book, that’s why. The biggest load of bullshit I’ve read in my life.
If this book had so much information about everything, right down to conversations, and every detail of the sex they apparently had, why didn’t they make a case of it? If there is THAT much evidence that someone could make a book like that then surely he would have been locked up years ago.
As soon as I saw that picture I recognized it straight away. When you read something like that at first it can be greatly convincing, but once you start to analyze it you can see the whole thing just makes Michael look even MORE innocent”.
So the source of information is not credible at all – however this is the only picture which is attributed to the 1993 case and is circulating in the internet as the evidence over which Michael Jackson was prosecuted for so long by the police.
Whether it is a fake or not, it actually doesn’t matter. If the drawing is fake, now you know the true worth of the book the drawing comes from. If the drawing is genuine, now you know over which scrap of paper Michael Jackson was humiliated beyond belief, his life ruined and turned into a complete massacre…
Now let’s see what Dr. Richard Strick has to say on the subject.
Who is Dr. Strick?
Dr. Richard Strick was representing the authorities during the strip search (Michael was represented by another doctor, Dr. David Forecast) and was to make the final determination as regards the possible match. In October 2009 he was interviewed by Craig Rivera where he said:
- “The genitalia were very oddly colored with dark skin and light skin and I was told later that the deposition and the photos that were taken absolutely matched what the child had described”.
Wait a minute – it was his job to make the determination, and the media reported that he did do it, however now he says he was TOLD that the description and photos matched? Even “absolutely” matched? Though he doesn’t actually know it because he didn’t compare the photos and the description himself?
WHO made this determination then? WHO WAS IT???
While we are looking for an answer to this crucial question please watch the above episode from Dr. Richard Strick’s interview with Geraldo Rivera:
(to be continued)
Here is the link to part 3 of this series, and here is the link to part 1.)
Vindicating Michael 
Probably a pure lie. Or maybe Jordan just happened to pass the closed bathroom door while Michael was showering,Jordan on his way to fetch somethíng of his own belongings. I would think few people shower with the door to bathroom open in order to prevent steams coming out of bathroom.-Whatever if the shower was on nobody could make out any details with water streaming + steam created from shower.-
LikeLike
I don’t believe this story very much. It sounds artificial – like a version someone thought of to explain why Jordan gave a certain description of MJ’s private parts to the police. However the crucial matter here is that Jordan made numerous mistakes and his description was incorrect.
So we don’t need a story offering an elaborate explanation for what was actually all wrong. Jordan didn’t see anything except what he saw when his father Evan was giving Michael an injection of Toradol in his buttocks. Over there he could see enough of Michael’s back (and probably even a glimpse of the front) to be able to describe it later. And even despite that opportunity the description didn’t match the photos made by the police.
But this story about the shower near the pool took my thoughts in a different direction. I hope to share my views on it in the next few days.
LikeLike
Check out this story I found by Taymoor Marmarchi that a Mexican worker on Neverland told him about Jordan getting caught spying on Michael taking a shower. How true do you think it is, if at all? Was this pool party documented or mentioned anywhere else? This certainly is intriguing, but what I find odd is the supposition that June used her son to conspire against MJ. Correct me if I’m wrong but that doesn’t sound like her character based off what’s known about her? She always supported MJ until she was threatened into joining Evan.
“On one of my trips to Neverland, a Mexican worker who took care of the grounds of Michael’s main residence, confided to me in Spanish and shared a fascinating story that both shocked and clarified how people in Michael Jackson’s life take advantage, manipulate, twist the truth and create malicious lies about him, all for the sake of money.
The worker began to whisper to me, afraid he may be overheard and questioned why he was revealing such confidential yet incredibly important information that must be shared with the rest of the world.
He began telling me that one day back in 92/93 before Michael’s heavy scheduled Dangerous tour, there was a BBQ and swimming pool party that Michael hosted for a group of friends, both youngsters and adults at Neverland.
After a couple of hours, Michael got out of the pool and went to shower and dry off. The worker noticed that a young boy also excused himself from the pool after Michael. He went to look for him and followed him to discover that the boy was in the bathroom where Michael was showering. Not in the shower with him, but rather shockingly spying and scanning Michael’s naked body through the shower, from a corner of the bathroom. The worker immediately shouted at him and asked, ‘What the hell are you doing up here?’ Michael heard the worker yell, discovered the boy in his bathroom and told him to take the boy back down to the pool, thinking nothing of it.
When the boy returned to the pool he glanced over at his mother, who was present and sunbathing by the pool, and gave her a sign of acknowledgement, as if he had accomplished whatever he set out to do. In fact, the worker said that he had seen the woman signal to her son that Michael had left the pool, as an indication to exit.
That same boy later claimed in Aug ’93, that Michael Jackson had sexually molested him, his name was Jordie Chandler.
Chandler infamously told police vivid details of how Michael Jackson’s genitalia appeared, as a certain guarantee to the world, that Michael must have been guilty of these heinous accusations.
Of course he knew how to describe the different skin shades and colour blemishes in Michael’s private parts, he was spying on him in the shower that day to prepare for an incredible extortion attempt for millions of dollars, meticulously and carefully planned by a family of professional con artists and scammers.”
~~
Editor’s Note: Chandler’s description was not 100% accurate. One example is that he described Michael as having been circumcised, when he was not. I do not bring this up to further exploit Michael and I feel horrible even having to mention it, but it does matter because this is very telling about the falseness of Chandler’s description of Michael in this case.
LikeLike
this whole family confuses me;sometimes I wonder if ATG is complete trash(in regards to Evans’ version of the story).I personally believe we should not use this book for research as this book seems a pathetic try at cashing on a nephew’s claims of abuse.I wonder if he talked with Evan at all; considering his paranoia and the fact that he did not attend his funeral and if he just sugar coated MJWML and published it
LikeLike
“I still believe Evan obtained the info through sources close to MJ. ”
Wouldn’t these sources know if Michael was circumcised or not? And these people [the Chandlers] were Jewish (or so I’ve heard), so wouldn’t they know what cirumcision was better than the rest of us, assuming he saw Michael naked?
Have you guys ever seen the mockumentary, “Michael Jackson: What Really Happened’? It was on Canadian TV (I’m from Toronto) a lot after Michael’s passing. Total trash. Has Dimond and Bob Jones in it. And they said “Jordan’s description was accurate.” That kind of sparked my research into the allegations and when I found out the whole circumcision thing, I relaxed a little. That was back when I thought everything on the news was factual. Silly me. 😉
LikeLike
Benoquin is not a bleach first of all. It is something all together different. It removes pigment cells. Second it cannot be used on the genitalia at all. It is onlyused to remove the pigment cells on exposed areas.
LikeLike
I doubt that, Hilary. The kid had to say whatever he was told by Evan, or whoever else they were involved with.
I still believe Evan obtained the info through sources close to MJ. They were others out there who were only to happy to **** on Michael for money.
But didn’t Michael only start bleaching his privates later on? So no doctor could have seen him beforehand?
LikeLike
Sometimes I wonder: maybe Jordan only said Michael was circumcised to prove Michael was innocent. He was probably trying to make himself sound like a liar to protect Michael, since he had denied for months anything happened. That makes sense to me, considering he filed for legal emancipation from his parents and hasn’t talked to his mother since ’94.
LikeLike
And is that the handwriting of a 13 yo? To me the drawing looks more like a mushroom than any kind of penis.
LikeLike
Some tabloid reports may indicate otherwise but keep in mind that the District Attorney brought his “evidence” in front of two grand juries and charges were not filed. If the photos matched the boy’s description, the case would have gone to trial.
LikeLike
Jordan never accurately described the marks on Michael’s genitalia. In fact, he wasn’t even the one who drew it in the first place; Evan did. In January 1994, USA Today printed an article confirming that, “photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct.”
LikeLike
Considering how many paparazzi have gotten nude shots with their long lenses of other celebs, you would think someone would have finally gotten something on Michael. Supposedly Michael had the habit of peeing in jars if anything from his sleazy, patient confidentiality breaking “doctor” is to be believed (and I think not by much). I see that possibility as it would be really unsafe for him to use just any public bathroom. I also read somewhere he had the habit of covering mirrors in hotels for fear they were rigged. Really, I don’t see how the man ever felt comfortable anywhere relieving himself or taking a shower or talking in a room for fear of plants and bugs. I just read today there is a back shot of him and his long time manager Dileo standing side by side at a urinal in Dielo’s possession with some comments written above their heads by Michael. I know men peek. Dileo stands behind Michael’s innocence. Bottom-line if Michael penis matched the description, Sssneddon would have had it blown up and projected on the walls of the courtroom for everyone to see. I don’t see why there is conjecture. If it there was a match, the prosecution would have sought to have the picture shown in court. I believe the judge was quite lenient in what he allowed the prosecution to present (the judge had allowed prior bad acts to be submitted, didn’t he? At least I read he allowed heresay testimony) , which was throwing in everything and the kitchen sink at Michael. The whole thing has just become legend. What the police (and I heard an ex-cop say once that police reports are nothing but works of fiction) told Dr. Strick cannot be believed at all. And shame on him for repeating heresay.
LikeLike
@vindicateMJ…well for me as an adult woman part of my shock was that I didn’t recognize that my husband was not circumcised and that it took me so long, duh, to recognize that. It also looked quite strange compared to a circumcised one. I was responding to your first point at the beginning of what you wrote, that someone would instantly recognize one. I was saying not necessarily so when you’ve had no basis for comparison, unlike Jordie who at the very least had his own to compare with. I think we are on the same page. I don’t believe he saw Michael’s penis either.
LikeLike
@ lynande51
Thank you for pointing that out.
I remember Helena once wondered why did they examine and photograph his anus when there was never a claim of penetration. They were out to humiliate him in every possible way, weren’t they?
It’s totally clear that all these whinings by the Chandlers about how the authorities would be too lenient to Michael because of his status, are unfounded. If anything, he was prosecuted with ferveour like no other because of his status and the jealousy it brought on him.
Our latest hater guest likes to claim too that he got off only because of he was rich and famous, but the interesting thing is that these haters never elaborate on this claim: how?
Fact is the prosecution spent more money on this case than they spend on murder cases (from tax payer money, of course). They didn’t leave a stone unturned. They turned over computers to the FBI, they set up websites and spent officeres to tour the world for more “victims”, they sent as many as 70 sheriffs to Neverland, they also got involved in legally dubious practices in order to frame Michael (fingerprint “evidence”, for example) and, if the above claims, are true, they also denied Michael of some of his basic rights. And on top of this they did everything to humiliate him! Remember how he had to walk in handcuffs? Now, compare this to how they spared Conrad Murray of that humiliating walk in handcuffs. He was allowed to walk in without them. So why did they have to put cuffs on Michael? It’s not like there was a danger he was gonna flee. He turned himself up voluntarily. But they did everything they could against him – and even sometimes things that they couldn’t have done by the law…..
And haters have the nerve to claim he got off because of his status. Incredible!
LikeLike
In Randy Tarraborrelli’s book he writes this about the strip search:
Upon Michael’s return to the United States, he was immediately served with a warrant for a long threatened strip search by the Police. According to the order, officers expected to examine, photograph and videotape Michael’s entire body, ‘including his penis, anus, hips ,buttocks and any other part of his body.Michael Jackson should be notified,’ according to the order, ‘that he has no right to refuse the examination and photographs. Any refusal to co operate with the order will be admissable in a court and an indication of his guilt.’ Also it was explained to his attorneys that if he did not cooperate, the police would probably just arrest him on ‘ probable cause’ and take him away in handcuffs, in front of photographers. This scenerio was more than anyone in his camp could even fathom.
If this is true they basically took away his 5th amendment right not to provide testimony or evidence against himself with the threat of arrest.The police are not supposed to gather evidence in a civil case and yet it would seem that they were . There were no charges against him yet.If this is the truth he was never given a choice by police authorities to do anything but settle that case out of court. You know what the odds of recieving fair treatmetn were stacked against him in this case. And the chandlers have the nerve to say that the police were afraid to charge or try a big celebrity like Michael Jackson. What nerve.
LikeLike
“If I am remembering correctly, there is a vid of Geraldo with a Dr. Strick who he says is his father-in-law. He asks him on tape about the drawing and the Dr. says he was *told* they matched”.
Yes, Paulie, you remember it correctly – Dr. Strick WAS TOLD that the drawing and photos matched.
Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxyRGJ1latc
We discussed it in the comments to part 1 of “All you wanted to know – circumcision or erection” post:
Dr. Strick NEVER made the determination (whether the drawing and photos matched) HIMSELF.
The determination was made by TOM SNEDDON as he admits in his declaration – see “All you wanted to know – the telling blemish” post:
LikeLike
“About whether he would know circumcision when he saw it…I’m not so sure…I was a grown married women and didn’t realize my husband was circumcised until one day it hit me that my son’s penis (he was 3 by then) was different from my husband’s and was quite shocked..”
Paulie, why are you not sure? You have just proved it YOURSELF that a person who has never seen an uncircumcised male before will have a SHOCK when she/he sees it for the first time.
SHOCK is EXACTLY the reaction Jordan would have had IF HE HAD REALLY SEEN MICHAEL that way.
He would have remembered it FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE.
HE DIDN’T SEE MICHAEL’S PRIVATE PARTS and that’s that.
LikeLike
The reason why they said Michael was circumsised is because that appeared to be the safest bet, since, according to statistics in America the vast majority of men are circumsised (anf not just the Jewish or the Muslim). So statistically that seemed to be the more probable.
Well, too bad for them that Michael didn’t belong among the majority of American men from this respect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Pauline
Jordan was most likely circumsized since his father was Jewish. So I think he knew the difference between circumsised and not circumsised. (And if he wasn’t sure then why didn’t he say that?)
According to his police testimony he must have seen Michael naked a lot of times with erect and unerect penis as well. In his testimony he says after a while sex was all that they were doing. He also talks about occasions when Michael appeared naked in front of him before going to the bathroom. So with all that alleged sex and seeing Michael’s naked body so many times, I really don’t buy any excuse for him.
He got it wrong because he never saw Michael’s penis!
LikeLiked by 1 person
About whether he would know circumcision when he saw it…I’m not so sure…I was a grown married women and didn’t realize my husband was circumcised until one day it hit me that my son’s penis (he was 3 by then) was different from my husband’s and was quite shocked when he told me he was not circumcised (my son had been – without my permission I might add). Now having said that. I don’t own a penis. So until I had access to one (*one*), I didn’t really know what they looked like, it wasn’t until I saw another one that I saw the differences. So Jordan whether he had seen one or not or if he was or not, would I think either see no difference (they are both circumcised or not) or seen a difference because one is one or the other.
LikeLike
If I am remembering correctly, there is a vid of Geraldo with a Dr. Strick who he says is his father-in-law. He asks him on tape about the drawing and the Dr. says he was *told* they matched. He does not say he saw or examined or had compared Michael with the drawings. Then Geraldo makes a nasty remark about Michael’s nose. I was really surprised because up until I viewed that vid, Geraldo had always defended Michael. Basically, the drawing and Michael’s penis have become something of legend. But why all the conjecture? LMP saw Michael’s penis erect (and quite a few times from what I’ve read) around this time. If anyone could describe it and say if there is a match it would be her. She’s knocked him in the press and not once has she said, I slept with Michael (and it was hot…okay I just had to throw that in there) and the pictures match…’nuff said…they don’t….
LikeLike
Since we’re on the topic of MJ’s vitiligo, I wanted to include a clip from the Dr. Oz show, where he discusses a new treatment for victims of vitiligo.
The patient, a dark-skinned African-American, had an absolutely HORRIBLE case of vitiligo across her face and forehead, but she was treated with a new treatment called “microskin”, which is a simulated “second skin”, and it looks phenomenal!
It is sprayed on your skin, similar to a spray tan, and it is sweat proof, swim proof, and even shower proof! It won’t run off at all, even if you hug someone!
If this treatment had been around in the early 80’s, it would have saved MJ from so much pain and humiliation! And on a positive note, Dr. Oz confirmed to his audience that MJ really did have vitiligo, and that it was noted in the autopsy report.
Part 1, Beginning @ 4:33
Part 2
LikeLike
I think for anyone who has EVER questioned MJ’s innocence of something like this (especially my family) they did to read this site-READ all in detail, that should change your mind & if it doesn’t…then you are just in denial over seein’ the truth!
LikeLike
Hm, if this drawing was also in Ray Chandler’s book than I would guess this is really the drawing that Jordie made and which the media claims to be a “total match” with how Michael’s man parts looked like. And if that’s the case then it’s a total joke! The drawing is a joke, as well as, the words like “my theory” are a joke!
LikeLike
My long-time correspondent Lynande has made the following comment on this picture which I would like to quote here:
“I have been thinking more and more about the 2 books by Victor Gutierrez and Ray Chandler. Both books contain the same drawing that supposedly was done by Jordan Chandler for a description. If this drawing is in fact the one they submitted to the police I have to ask the police why they would accept a drawing with the words “My Theory” on it. If this was rock solid evidence as they have been claiming all these years why would Jordan have a theory about anything to do with Michael’s penis if he had seen it. Just those 2 words make it appear as if the person was guessing about it.
Some of the other things that are on that drawing as well like the Orietta bleach. There is no such thing as Orietta skin bleach not now, not ever. I don’t know if it will surprise you or not to know that Michael had a former employee whose name was Orietta Murdoch and yes she was fired. You can Google her name and see what you come up with. Someone probably found her for Evan to find out if she had ever seen any bleaching creams or maybe even if she had seen Michael without his clothes. My guess it was Diane Dimond.
[When Michael’s lawyers] petitioned the court for the photos of Michael’s private parts Tom Sneddon said no, he was keeping them in case someone else came forward and said he didn’t have those pictures they were locked up in evidence somewhere. The fact is he could never let anyone see the photos and the drawing because he perjured himself when he signed the declaration stating that he had determined that they were a match. It is also funny to me that of all the evidence out there to be found about the case Michaels photos have never been leaked to anyone other than the police and a few very select press people. I don’t think for one second they would have kept them under lock and key if there had been a match; I think they would have been on every website they could possibly get them on.
One last thing, their drawing and the evidence of discoloration patches (blemish) versus circumcision. Vitiligo is an autoimmune disorder. It changes all the time, It can change every month or so. Sometimes it goes into remission or it stabilizes and doesn’t spread anymore. Sometimes it can get worse as was Michael’s case. Do they think the patches of depigmentation were still there 13 years later? They were lucky if they were still the same 6 months later.”
LikeLike
He wouldn’t have seen whether he was circumcised or not necessarily. If he was spying on MJ he would have to have been far enough away for MJ not to have noticed him, so unless he had a zoom function in his eyes he wouldn’t have seen things clearly
LikeLike
Emma, it was quite possible, but in this case Jordan would have also seen that Michael was not circumcised, wouldn’t he? All the evidence I could find in the internet convinced me that Jordan never saw Michael’s man parts – non-circumcision was his crucial mistake and he did not know the real color of Michael’s genitalia either as Tom Sneddon’s declaration reveals it – Jordan spoke of a light spot on a dark background while the pictures showed a dark spot on a light background (please look up https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/all-you-wanted-to-know-about-it-but-were-afraid-to-ask-part-3/)
But you are right – he could very well see the rest of his body (buttocks, etc.) when Michael was changing clothes or getting out of the bathtub. With all those windows around his bathroom I REALLY DON’T KNOW why he didn’t have crowds of scoundrels who would first spy on him and later blackmail him with whatever they saw there.
Michael was the object of a really BIG HUNT – do you remember him saying in one of the interviews that he once heard a camera clicking from somewhere below the toilet when he was there? They were taking pictures of him when he was in a toilet! It shows that the people who were playing against him were capable of doing things which were unbelievably nasty…
LikeLike
There is another possibility of how Jordy saw Michaels genitalia. I have seen footage of the Neverland Ranch and the bathroom has windows everywhere. Who is to say that Jordy, or even Evan, wasn’t spying on Michael while he used the bathroom?
LikeLike