Skip to content

All you wanted to know ABOUT IT but were afraid to ask. Part 1. CIRCUMCISION or ERECTION?

April 19, 2010

Americans seem to be grossly underestimating the importance of Jordan Chandler’s big mistake – he described Michael as circumcised while in reality he was NOT. I racked my brains about “Why they don’t understand the crucial importance of it?” until I came across a medical site which explained that the overwhelming majority of American men were circumcised.

So this is the answer…  Males (and females) in the US have practically never seen what non-circumcision is like and don’t know the difference. And probably think that the matter is as minor as the eyelashes just being longer  than usual.  No, dear me,  it is much more than that… Let me explain.

  • Is it possible to mistake someone with a scarf on the head for a person whose head is bare?
  • Will you be able to still see the difference if the scarf  is the same color as the hair?
  • Well, if you can’t see it – will you still feel it if your hand touches it?

See what I mean?

The medical site I visited explains the difference in the following way (I know it is no pleasure to read it, but just imagine that Michael had to go through this for some 15 years of his life and it will make things easier for you):

“The fold of skin (the ‘foreskin’) covers the head (glans) of the penis. The amount of it may be so considerable that it may droop down from the end of an un-erect penis. Thus in some men, during erection, the head of the penis peeks out from the loose foreskin that surrounds it. But in men with a lot of foreskin the head of the penis remains covered, either partially or completely.

Circumcision compared with non-circumcisionA questionnaire-based survey conducted in Sydney, Australia found that among men with a foreskin, in 67% the extra foreskin was hanging off the end, in 15% it just covered the glans, in another 15% it half covered the gland and in 4% of the glans was bare.

In the erect sate these numbers were 15% extra skin, 22% still covered, 32% half covered and 41% glans bare.

Racial differences exist. For example, in Malaysia, New Guinea, Sri Lanka and southern India the foreskin is very long and ends in a narrow extension that acts like a muzzle. A shorter foreskin is seen in Whites of the northern Mediterranean and many Asians (Chinese and Japanese).

In uncircumcised males the head of the penis is pink. This becomes more apparent when the head of the penis emerges during an erection, giving the overall penis a “two-toned” look”. http://www.circinfo.net/what_is_circumcision.html

Further detail is provided by a professional in medicine:

  • “In Black males the color of the glans penis is lighter but more of a brown, not pink color. [With both White and Black males] the glans becomes darker following circumcision due to the keratization of the skin. The glans penis loses its natural lubrication and the skin becomes “toughened” because of this. When erect the foreskin does slide back to make the glans penis more visible. The foreskin slides back unwrinkled to approximately midshaft so it moves during intercourse to help stimulate the male and the female”.

Yes, the foreskin remains loose during erection and moves back and forth even in the erect state.

So non-circumcision is something totally different in color and texture, and in movement of the skin too? Impressive picture, isn’t it? Something which is impossible NOT to notice once you see it? Something to be NEVER forgotten after you see it? Especially by a boy who is probably circumcised himself and who is not used to seeing things like that, as his father is Jewish and is circumcised too?

Well, a woman who saw the non-circumcised man for the first time described her impressions this way:

  • “The first time I ever touched an uncircumcised man I nearly jumped out of my skin. The only possible way you can mistake an uncircumcised erect penis for a circumcised one would be if you never saw it and never touched it… In other words if you’re lying!”

Yes, Jordan Chandler was LYING.  He never saw the ‘real thing’  and made a GUESS about Michael Jackson’s private parts and his guess turned out to be WRONG.

This settles the matter once and for all, making all those Jordan’s horror stories about Michael an invention of someone’s perverse mind or the result of the schooling the boy got from his father,  ‘adult’ books, magazines or films.

CASE CLOSED.

‘Wait, but can erection be taken for circumcision?’, some haters still doubt.

The answer is NO, unless the man has an erection 24 hours a day, has virtually no foreskin, it does not move (which is hard to imagine) and the color of his glans isn’t lighter and surface isn’t more tender than the rest of the skin.  All of the above is simply impossible, so there may be only one answer to that – erection can never be taken for circumcision.

Oh, you don’t know what the surface of the glans looks like? Same as the inside of your mouth – this is what it’s like. Is the feel of the tender inner surface of it the same as on the outside of your cheek? NOW you see?

‘But could Michael have an operation to restore his foreskin when he was treated in Europe sometime between November 11 and December 20, 1993?’ the haters insist.  Tom Sneddon, the Santa Barbara District Attorney, also thought along these lines and confiscated Michael’s medical records soon after Jordan spoke to the police. This is how Lisa D.Campbell describes it in her book “Michael Jackson: The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour, 1994:

“On November 26, the Los Angeles Police Department raided the offices of Michael Jackson’s dermatologist, Dr. Klein, and his plastic surgeon, Dr. Steve Hoefflin. They hoped to compare information, or photos, contained in the files with the description of Michael’s body Jordan had given to police. They confiscated Michael’s medical records but did not reveal what they contained. But apparently they did not contain the information they were looking for as a warrant for a body search was obtained for Michael Jackson” (which took place on Dec.20, 1993).

In March 1994 (2 months after the financial settlement was reached) the criminal investigation was still going on.

“Katherine Jackson having been subpoenaed two days earlier, testified before the grand jury in Los Angeles on March 17.  She was reportedly questioned about Michael’s appearance in an attempt to determine if Michael had altered his appearance so it wouldn’t match the description his accuser had given to police”.

Tom Sneddon evidently suspected that Michael had undergone cosmetic surgery while he was out of the country for four weeks in late November-December 1993 and that is why he later raised the question again by filing a motion in court to obtain Michael’s medical records – evidently the very latest ones. This was denied following the request of Michael’s lawyers who wanted to save him from further humiliation.

Well, today we can pass the final judgment on this issue – the Coroner’s report not only confirmed that Michael Jackson was not circumcised, but it said that the 13 various scars found on his body did not include any scar on his foreskin or whatever…  He was just the way mother nature made him and that’s it.

Oh, and one more point.

District Attorney Tom Sneddon knew that the there was NO match – otherwise he wouldn’t have looked into the medical records to check whether Michael had undergone any surgical or bleaching changes, wouldn’t he?

*  *  *

UPDATED August 18, 2011

Almost a year and a half has passed since this post was written but some people are still thinking of various ways to explain why Jordan got the description so terribly wrong. Now they say that a non-circumcised man may retract his foreskin and will look like a circumcised one – and this is why Jordan made a mistake and took one for the other.

No way, guys.

First, it is next to impossible to keep the foreskin retracted all the time – it keeps sliding back due to the frenulum (frenulum is “elastic tissue under the glans that connects to the foreskin and helps to contract the foreskin over the glans”). In circumcised men the frenulum is usually cut.

Second, the frenulum per se is such a sight that those who have seen it once will never forget it. The faint-hearted are requested not to look at the photo provided by Wiki, however if you see it just once you’ll remember it forever:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenulum_of_prepuce_of_penis

Third, Jordan alleged that “he masturbated” MJ – but if this was the case he should have noticed the frenulum, the much tender texture of the penis head, the foreskin and the fact that on a non-circumcised penis the foreskin moves, even during erection.

The most decent illustration of the described process I have found is a medical animation provided below (over here you see screen shots from that medical site).

It explains that the only difference in the movement of foreskin between the usual and erect states is that the foreskin will not collect in wrinkles when penis is erect – but this is all there is to it.

Otherwise it looks and moves the same in either state.

For those who didn’t get it let me repeat – even in the erect state the foreskin will move anyway as nature has made males that way!

If you do not believe me please check up the animation on this medical site: http://www.circumstitions.com/Works.html

*  *  *

Now that you have seen the animation, please answer my question – could Jordan have overlooked all those details if he had really seen what he said he did?

And he alleged that he masturbated MJ (see the transcript of his interview with Dr. Gardner on October 6, 1993:

– But he had me masturbate him.”
– On how many occasions?”
– About ten.

And during those “ten times” he didn’t notice the foreskin and didn’t see it moving back and forth? As well as the extremely tender texture of the glans typical for all non-circumcised men? And even the frenulum didn’t make him wonder what it was and why he, a circumcised boy, was missing it?

Let us not be ridiculous, guys.

All this nonsense NEVER HAPPENED and this is why Jordan made such a terrible fool of himself.

(Here is the link to part 2 of this series and to part 3.)

*  *  *

Updated January 6th, 2017

For more on this seemingly inexhaustible subject see a post made six years later: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2017/01/02/michael-jacksons-body-search-by-gutierrez-dimond-taraborrelli/

87 Comments leave one →
  1. December 27, 2016 1:44 am

    “If you prefer it, I’ll just keeping using this name in the future.” – Riro (Sonja)

    I don’t mind you calling yourself Riro, S., Sonja, Ja Ja or whoever. What I mind is having to do with four identities of one person. I also mind this person asking me questions on several posts simultaneously and thus sending me in several different directions all at once.
    So I hope you won’t mind if I group these questions under one post for easier handling. For example, under this very post about “circumcision” as this subject seems to be the most burning issue for you.
    If you have any other questions please list them under the same post as Question 4, 5, etc.
    Due to the forthcoming New Year celebrations I will be a bit busy, but will try to get back to you as soon as I can.

    Like

  2. Riro permalink
    December 26, 2016 5:16 pm

    Helena, I’m sorry if that confused you. It doesn’t have any deeper meaning. I used my real name once (which is Sonja) but I don’t really like using my real name on the internet, so I use all types of different names. I don’t have a pseudonym that I frequently use, I just keep making up new ones for some reason. As I said, it doesn’t have any deeper meaning. I wasn’t aware that you would be able to associate all the different names with my e-mail address and might be confused because of it. I thought nothing of it. If you prefer it, I’ll just keeping using this name in the future. 🙂

    Like

  3. December 26, 2016 10:22 am

    Dear Riro, before I answer your question could you answer mine – why do you constantly come here under different names?

    The ones I’ve noticed are: Riro – S. – Sonja – Ja Ja.

    Knowing who you talk to is the first step to a conversation, right?

    Like

  4. Riro permalink
    December 26, 2016 7:30 am

    I have found the guts to research this circumcision issue some more, and I’ve stumbled on some forum and a website dealing with it which might be of interest. (Warning: This might get disgusting; it certainly was to me.)

    Here’s a forum entry of guys discussing their short foreskins, the person making the thread stating: “And a soon as I start to get hard [the foreskin] disappears completely.” https://www.lpsg.com/threads/anyone-else-with-a-short-foreskin.26821/

    Here’s a website dealing with the lengths of foreskins which also states that uncircumcised men might appear to be circumcised: [VMJ: SORRY RIRO, BUT THIS IS NOT A PORN SITE, SO THE LINK WAS DELETED]

    The question would still be whether it would be possible to mistake someone as circumcised while masturbating him, because – quite obviously – these websites do not deal with mutual masturbation. Another question would be why the coroner would come to the conclusion that Michael’s penis appeared to be uncircumcised if it had been that hard to tell.

    Some people believing in Michael’s guilt like bringing up Taraborrelli’s description of the strip search which goes as follows (in the 2004 edition):

    “Crying softly now, Michael slipped off the boxers and stood, naked, stripped not only of his clothing but of the one illusion he’d always had: that of his invincibiliy. All eyes went straight to his penis, which did not appear to be circumcised.
    ‘Is the subject circumcised?’ asked the doctor. Everyone stepped in for a closer look.
    ‘Yes, he is…’
    ‘No, he’s not…’
    ‘Yes.’
    ‘No’
    ‘Oh my God’ Michael whimpered. He looked dizzy, as if about to faint.
    ‘You don’t know?’ asked one of the detectives of Michael’s physcian.
    Michael’s medic became indignant. ‘Sir, I have never seen his penis before now.’
    ‘Well the subject is clearly NOT circumcised’ decided the other doctor, finally. He made a note of his finding.
    Yes, he did have patchy coloured skin on his buttocks, as Jordie described.
    Yes, he had short pubic hair.
    Yes, his testicles were marked pink and brown.
    However, no matter how many ways they looked at it, all seemed to agree that his penis was uncircumcised. But, did that matter? In fact, an uncircumcised penis can look circumcised when aroused. If Michael had been sexually excited when seen by Jordie, would anyone, let alone a thirteen-year-old boy know if he was circumcised or not? But there was now doubt about the identity in question.”

    They understand the “yes”, “no” conversation as uncertainty. However, the ongoing text shows quite clearly that they were not uncertain about it. I think Taraborrelli might have added the “yes”, “no”, “yes”, “no” remarks for suspense or maybe because Michael was expected to be circumcised, as Jordan’s description stated, but eventually everyone concluded Michael was NOT circumcised. This will usually be left out by those believing in Michael’s guilt. Fair enough, I think Taraborrelli’s depiction might be different in the 2003 edition, that this previous edition does not clarify that everyone involved was certain Michael was uncircumcised, only the “yes”, “no” remarks. However, the 2004 edition is definitely more specific and clearly states that everyone agreed. If they had actually been fighting about this, I think Taraborrelli would have explicitely stated that they couldn’t agree on the subject, not that the penis “appeard to be uncircumcised” in the first place.

    Sorry for this long comment, but I really wanted to contribute this to the discussion, and I would like to hear some other opinions on it.

    QUESTION 2:
    I’d like to point out that Macaulay stating that he didn’t regularly share a bed with Michael (or Frank stating that Michael usually slept on the floor) contradicts what Wade Robson is claiming about being manipulated into lying about his relationship with Michael. How Michael used to call him everyday, “role-playing” with him, telling him what to say. Yet, as far as I can remember, Wade did say that he regularly slept in Michael’s bed, as did Brett. If Michael had manipulated those kids, “role-playing” with them, so they would give certain answers to questions about their relationship with him, don’t you think he would’ve been a lot more consistent in the kind of things he wanted them to say? Don’t you think he would’ve taught ALL of them to deny sleeping in his bed on a regular basis?

    QUESTION 3:
    When Dr. Strick says that he was told it was a match, wouldn’t he know? If they had the description at hand, they could and would have compared it right then and there. So, if it was a match, why wouldn’t he say: “The photos and description matched?” instead of: “I was told […]”?

    Like

  5. February 19, 2014 2:54 am

    “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.” – jay

    This site is a pack of lies which is run by Topix people who themselves have a strong flavor of ped-lia around them.

    The undeniable facts of Jordan Chandler’s case are:

    1) Jordan DID say that Michael was circumcised. It was stated in Santa Barbara’s deputy sheriff’s report known as “the Deborah Linden report” mentioned in this article (now in the archives): http://web.archive.org/web/20090630025648/http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jacksonsplotch.html

    Jordan’s words about Michael being “circumcised” are also mentioned in Victor Gutierrez’s book of 1996.

    This alone should explain to you who the people allegedly writing “facts” about Michael Jackson are. They are LIARS who deny even the most undeniable facts.

    2) The story of the splotch was the exact opposite of what Jordan was saying.

    If you read the above article you will see that besides the penis being “circumcised” Jordan also said that there was “a splotch a light color similar to the color of his face”.

    This was Jordan’s guess considering that his father did see Michael’s buttocks when he was making an injection of Toradol to him. He saw some light splotches there and assumed that with Michael’s vitiligo he should have at least one light splotch they could safely guess without making a mistake. The assumption was that one way or the other but with Michael’s vitiligo at least something of that kind could be found.

    But the irony of the situation is that the guess was totally wrong. They actually made a wrong guess about the color of MJ’s whole penis (sorry for being so graphic). The photos obtained from the strip search showed a totally different color scheme there. We know it from Sneddon’s declaration made in 2005.

    There, after long beating about the bush Sneddon finally said something about a dark spot located at approximately the same relative location as mentioned by Jordan Chandler. “Approximately the same relative location” and “a dark spot”.

    A Dark spot. And Jordan Chandler’s guess was that Michael was having a Light spot there.

    But a dark spot can stand out only on the light background and a light spot stands out only on the dark background.

    So Jordan thought that the penis was black while in reality it turned out to be predominantly light. It means that he never saw it.

    3) Sure Ray Chandler allowed his book to be used at the trial, lol. It is going to the trial to prove his statements that he resisted very much.

    Anyone can write a book and say there whatever their fantasy tells them. It is proving lies which is difficult and this is why Ray Chandler avoided testifying at the trial like the plague.

    4) As regards Brett Barnes I don’t know and need to check the source these people are citing. Please provide one.

    However even the first three points should tell you more than enough about the “credibility” of the site you mentioned. This site is spreading lies about Michael and from your account I see that they are quite successful in what they do.

    P.S. Sorry for the initial misspelling. The correct is: Jordan Chandler did say that Michael was CIRCUMCISED.

    Like

  6. jay permalink
    February 18, 2014 6:36 pm

    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. 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?

    Like

  7. kaarin22 permalink
    March 31, 2012 11:19 pm

    Why was the body exam on Michael´s private parts done in the most humiliating manner.
    It should have been done in a clinical setting,something that most people who have had physical exams are familiar with..Seems the purpose was to humiliate and demean him.

    Like

  8. kaarin22 permalink
    March 31, 2012 5:59 pm

    Why on eath if this circumcised or not was so crucial did they not call in an urologist as witness,who could have examined Michael in his office?I doubt Michael would have had any ojection to that.Maybe Sneddon had his reasons for not asking such a witness.

    Like

  9. Mona permalink
    February 26, 2012 5:22 pm

    I’m no expert, but I can tell you this: I was for a long time with a man with a circumcised penis and I haven’t seen any others beforehand, so I thought that was what they all looked like. When we broke up and I went out with someone else and saw his penis for the first time I was shocked! It looked totally different! And the skin was a lot softer! It was so weird to me for the first few times! There was no way that could have gone unnoticed, it looks like the penis from a totally different species! It’s like saying a light splotch and a dark one are the same thing!
    Come on, Sneddon, you made your case on fragments from your own imagination and so called facts that were the exact opposite of the truth.
    I’m sorry for the very graphic description and I hope neither of you guys is offended, but I just wanted everybody to know that I still remember to this day seeing an uncircumcised penis for the 1st time and there’s no way to mistake it for a circumcised one. They were all beating around the bush, those liars!

    Peace.

    Like

  10. Marina Aparecida permalink
    February 12, 2012 11:26 pm

    We can read Jordan’s description in Bob Jones’ book: “Michael Jackson: The Man Behind the Mask: An Insider’s Story of the King of Pop” (Chapter – “ Afterword: The Current Case”):

    “The earlier Rent-a-Wreck Family investigation gave the LAPD a roadmap to Jackson’s below-the-waist geography, which, the accusing boy said, includes distinctive “splotches” on his buttocks and one on his penis, “which is a light color similar to the color of his face”. This lurid description 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. Soon after the law enforcement’s photo session with the King, he settled the Rent-a-Wreck Family’s civil claim for more than $20 million.
    More recently, Tom Sneddon said that the Rent-a-Wreck Family’s pre-search description and drawing “corroborated” photos taken of Jackson and observations made by officers who examined the body of evidence.”

    On the one hand, I do not advice Michael’s fans to buy products from Michael’s haters. MJ’s fans should feel guilty doing this.
    Aphrodite Jones points out in her book “Michael Jackson Conspiracy” that the Bob Jones book “made attempts to knock Jackson in every chapter”. We can read this in the chapter: “People make the world go round”, as well as:
    “To Michael, the Bob Jones book was an act of ultimate betrayal, regardless of the feeble attempts to appear fair and balanced.”

    On the other hand, I appreciate adding proof found in the haters’ material to support Michael’s innocence. Michael Jackson autopsy report says he was uncircumcised. We will also observe that when Bob Jones refers to Tom Sneddon’s affirmation, he does not mention the “dark blemish” Sneddon introduced in his declaration.

    We can read a detailed and excellent explanation of Sneddon’s declaration in this blog.

    Like

  11. February 9, 2012 12:15 pm

    “The photographs reveal a mark on the right side of Defendant’s penis at about the same relative location as the DARK blemish located by Jordan Chandler on his drawings of Defendant’s erect penis. I BELIEVE the DISCOLORATION Chandler identified in his drawing was not something he could or would have guessed about, or could have seen accidentally. I BELIEVE Chandler’s graphic representation of the DISCOLORED area on Defendant’s penis is substantially corroborated by the photographs taken by Santa Barbara’s Sheriff’s detectives at a later time. (…)
    I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true EXCEPT FOR THOSE STATEMENTS MADE ON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, AND AS TO THOSE STATEMENTS, I BELIEVE THEM TO BE TRUE.”

    Marina, as regards the last statement from Sneddon I think Lynette gave a very good explanation of that, which I repeat here:

    When someone swears based on information and belief it is a way of qualifying what they were told.They also don’t want to be held to a charge of perjury if they are wrong so they basically say that this is what I was told and I believe it. You can’t be held for perjury just because someone else told you something that wasn’t true and you believed it. Being foolish doesn’t make someone a deliberate liar when the information is wrong.

    And the paragraph of Sneddon’s declaration describing the “blemish” is a total triumph of lies, insinuations and double talk.

    – he starts with something vague “about the same relative location”

    – then he mentions a DARK blemish (which was on the photos and could be only on a light background)

    – then he says the dark blemish was “located by Jordan” (though Jordan described a LIGHT blemish “which was the color of his face”, so he thought it was a dark background)

    – then Sneddon speaks of an “erect penis” (which is a roundabout way of LYING that erection and circumcision are one and the same thing – they are absolutely not!)

    – then he suddenly makes a U-turn and speaks of a “discoloration” “identified by Jordan though a minute ago he said it was a dark blemish (the idea is to fuse together totally opposite descriptions, doing it somewhat in passing and saying that he himself “believes” this fallacy)

    – then he insinuates that all this mess is a match about which Jordan “could not guess about” (if he had not seen it). BUT from the way Sneddon himself is describing the whole thing we see that the photos were the exact opposite of Jordan’s description!!!

    – then he pronounces the usual mantra that “the photos substantially corroborated Chandler’s graphic description” though he did NOT provide real Jordan’s words (how can anyone decide that the photos “corroborated” anything at all if Sneddon lied or was extremely vague about what Jordan initially said? We could make a determination ourselves if Sneddon quoted Jordan’s real words – but he did not!)

    – and finally he says he “believes” all this to be true, except for those statements made “on information and belief”!

    Now look, why all this vagueness about him “believing” this and that and all these exceptions? Could there be anyone else more informed than Sneddon on this issue? No?

    Sp does this final reservation mean that he is simply covering up for his outright lies about the description? And does it mean that all others told him it was NOT a match but he still insists on it, defying the truth? And who else could say anything to him if NOBODY else was asked to make a determination?

    Because everyone else said that “they were just told that it was a match”?

    Like

  12. lynande51 permalink
    February 9, 2012 6:46 am

    I think you do understand it Maria. When someone swears based on information and belief it is a way of qualifying what they were told.They also don’t want to be held to a charge of perjury if they are wrong so they basically say that this is what I was told and I believe it. You can’t be held for perjury just because someone else told you something that wasn’t true and you believed it. Being foolish doesn’t make someone a deliberate liar when the information is wrong.

    Now is it a light spot or a dark spot or is it even in the right spot because he says it is around about the relative location. Any statement like that doesn’t sound very convincing to me and it probably wasn’t convincing to him either that is why he added all that confusion in his statement and would not actually risk perjury when he based it on information and belief.

    Another thing that is in the document is the statement they were not offering it for the truth of the matter asserted. It is hearsay testimony because he wasn’t going to offer the affadavit that held Jordans actual description just the photos. Well you can’t cross examine a photo so that makes it hearsay.To introduce hearsay you have to have an exception to the hearsay rule unless you introduce it not for the truth of the matter otherwise it is inadmissable at trial because like I said you can’t cross examine a photo. Then it is offered not for the truth of the matter asserted but for another reason so he would not have to introduce the affadavit to prove that it was a match.The truth of the matter asserted would have been that the photos did match the description. Were they a match? Not by the sound of it.

    “‘[I]f evidence is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, the evidence is not hearsay and no exception to the hearsay rule is necessary to introduce that evidence at trial.’”

    If it wasn’t offered for the truth of the matter what was it offered for? I have only ever come up with 2 answers to that. One that he wanted to humiliate Michael and two he wanted to shock the jury by showing them Michael’s photos in the last few days of testimony. I also think he was looking forward to putting those photos up on the overhead screen. In my opinion that was probably one of the most diabolical things he tried to do and believe me he did a lot of them. I also think he did it as a play for the media because that was all the talk that day when they judge wouldn’t allow those photos in.

    So when someone uses this document as proof that Sneddon said it was a match and why would he risk perjury just tell them to first look up the terms “information and belief” and “not for the truth of the matter asserted” because nothing in that document held him to perjury or says it was a match except his very biased opinon.

    Like

  13. Marina Aparecida permalink
    February 9, 2012 5:14 am

    I am Brazilian, my native language being Portuguese. Am I understanding well? I cannot believe what I read:

    “The photographs reveal a mark on the right side of Defendant’s penis at about the same relative location as the DARK blemish located by Jordan Chandler on his drawings of Defendant’s erect penis. I BELIEVE the DISCOLORATION Chandler identified in his drawing was not something he could or would have guessed about, or could have seen accidentally. I BELIEVE Chandler’s graphic representation of the DISCOLORED area on Defendant’s penis is substantially corroborated by the photographs taken by Santa Barbara’s Sheriff’s detectives at a later time. (…)
    I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true EXCEPT FOR THOSE STATEMENTS MADE ON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, AND AS TO THOSE STATEMENTS, I BELIEF THEM TO BE TRUE.”

    My questions:

    1- Is the dark blemish the same as the discoloration (the absence of color)?

    2- Is the discolored area on Michael’s penis the same as the dark blemish?

    If I have well understood, the boy identified a mark on the right which was discolored. The penis had a discolored area, that it, the rest of it was dark color.

    Moreover, Tom Sneddon declares under penalty of perjury the trueness of his declaration, EXCEPT FOR THE STATEMENTS HE BELIEVES TO BE TRUE.

    Do I understand it right? When he says “I believe”, we should not take it for true.

    Can you help me?

    Like

  14. December 8, 2011 11:39 pm

    I wonder who the hell saw those picture and determined that it was a match because from what i see everyone claimed that “they were told” something.

    Ares, the answer to your question is found in Tom Sneddon’s declaration made in 2005: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf.

    Over there Sneddon mentions all departments involved in the investigation. Now I realize that there were THREE of them:

    – Tom Sneddon’s Santa Barbara D.A. deparment;
    – Jim Thomas as Santa Barbara Sheriff and his Detective Deborah Linden (she evidently interviewed Jordan Chandler);
    – Gil Garcetti as Los Angeles District Attorney, Laureen Weis as his Deputy and Detective Rosibel Ferrufino (they had an interview too after which Jordan made his drawing).

    1) As we know Jim Thomas “was told” it was a match (and so his employee Deborah Linden – I doubt that she was more informed than her boss).

    2) With Laureen Weis (and her detective Ferrufino) the situation is even more interesting – our old friend Gutierrez claims that it was Laureen Weis who practically closed the case against Jackson. She must have seen the photos and realized she had nothing factual against Jackson, but in Gutierrez’s interpretation she simply “didn’t want to file charges against him as Michael Jackson was too powerful for her”.

    A word about Laureen Wies. She took 40 violent felony cases to the jury trial and worked specifically on sexual assault cases as Acting Head Deputy of the Sex Crimes and Child Abuse Division. After working for 23 years at the District Attorney’s office she became one of the Superior Court Judges. Here is her biography:
    http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcInglewoodJudgeBirnsteinBio.html

    I doubt very much that she could have overlooked anything in a case like Jordan Chandler’s.

    3) So this leaves us only with Tom Sneddon and his department. Actually Tom Sneddon does not even hide the fact that it was personally him who decided that the photos matched the description. In his declaration he says:

    I have reviewed the statements made by Jordan Chandler in his interview on December 1, 1993. I have examined the drawing made by Jordan Chandler at Detective Ferrufino’s request and the photographs taken of Defendant’s genitalia. The photographs reveal a mark on the right side of Defendant’s penis at about the same relative location as the dark blemish located by Jordan Chandler on his drawing of Defendant’s erect penis….I believe Chandler’s graphic representation of the discolored area on the Defendant’s penis is substantially corroborated by the photographs taken by Santa Barbara Sheriff’s detectives at a later time”.

    So it always him and no one else. And he never mentions the non-circumcision issue (trying to produce the impression that an erect penis is the same) and speaks of some dark blemish instead of the light splotch described by Jordan. However he remembers that Jordan said it was light – so to confuse everyone even more Sneddon mentions both a “dark spot” and some vague “discoloration”.

    I bet no one is able to understand what this description is all about.

    It was in this manner that Tom Sneddon fooled everyone into thinking that it was a match. He didn’t show the photos to the Sheriff and the doctor as Jim Thomas and Dr. Strick admit it. Tom Sneddon simply decided everything himself and waggled his evil tongue about this falsification all over the world.

    Like

  15. lynande51 permalink
    December 8, 2011 7:28 pm

    Here’s the thing. I like I said have seen many and of both kinds. Men without foreskin have no idea what foreskin is or what it does. Therefore they think that there is no difference between them and a man that is uncircumcised. They have no idea because their’s was removed at birth. They were told later, if they ever inquired, that it was a flap of skin that did not matter. That is why you have people like our visitor saying things like I pulled mine back and left it like that. Well I highly doubt that person had foreskin or did such a thing. He has forgotten what I have repeated over and over again regarding engorgement. That visitor does not have foreskin plain and simple what he said was a lie. The end of the foreskin has a band that is like a rubber band. If the foreskin is retracted it is tight anound the glans penis cutting off the circulation in a matter of minutes. When the circulation is cut off the head becomes engorged. Simply put the whole thing about a match is a lie. The only men that think they are the same are the men that don’t know what they are missing.Based on what I know about human anatomy I can tell you without a doubt that Sneddon is circumcised. I wonder how he would like it if he knew I could tell that about him because of his ignorant statements about a match. He is either circumcised or he knows the truth and is blatantly lying about it.

    Like

  16. ares permalink
    December 8, 2011 6:20 pm

    I wonder who the hell saw those picture and determined that it was a match because from what i see everyone claimed that “they were told” something. How the hell do they make this kind of statements when they don’t have first hand knowledge on the matter? Are they so incompetant, so stupid or what? And if they knew that it was a match or they have heard it was a much don’t they wonder why Mike was not arrested or why none of those two grand juries didn’t decide to take the Chandler case on trial? How in the hell can they play with a guy’s reputation and basically destroy it by making this kind of serious yet totally frivolous and unsubstantiated comments? Those comments of theirs just demostrate how incompetent and unprofessional those people are.I surelly hope they don’t work on this kind of cases anymore.

    Like

  17. December 8, 2011 5:49 pm

    With regard to the Chandler case the dates of all those descriptions, statements and photos are very important. A mere enumeration of them can be the basis of a good post. See for yourself:

    1) Sometime in September 1993 Deborah Linden interviewed Jordan Chandler and made a report which goes down into history as the Linden affidavit. None of us have seen the document but all of us have heard of it. It was reported by the media and said that Jordan described Michael as “circumcised and having a light splotch there which was the color of his face”. The description was pressed on the public for hours, days, weeks, months.

    2) On December 21, 1993 Tom Sneddon had Michael Jackson’s genitals photographed.

    3) After this strip session, on December 28, 1993 Larry Feldman obtained a declaration from Jordan Chandler, however this time Jordan’s statement did not contain a single word describing Michael’s genitals. Not a single word.

    4) And on January 5, 1994 Larry Feldman demanded that Michael Jackson should provide them with the photographs and submit to the second strip search AFTER they see their copies or the first pictures should be barred from the civil trial:

    “Feldman said he filed a motion in court that is a “multiple choice” request: Jackson may provide copies of the police photographs, submit to a second search, or the court may bar the photographs from the civil trial as evidence.” http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-05/local/me-8514_1_michael-jackson

    5) The police made vague comments that “the description was a match”, however no one arrested anyone and no charges were made.

    6) The doctor (Dr. Richard Strick) who was supposed to make a determination said that “he was told it was a match”.

    7) Jim Thomas, Former Santa Barbara County Sheriff said that “he heard” it was “almost identical”. “He didn’t know it for a fact” but “it was his understanding”:

    “Well, what I hear from my investigators from back then is that it was almost identical. I don‘t know that to be a fact, because I didn‘t view them. But I understand they were very consistent.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8044583

    Isn’t it a marvelous picture of no one knowing anything – or rather knowing that there was no match – but all of them telling complete lies?

    Like

  18. Suzy permalink
    December 8, 2011 5:09 pm

    There is a principle for scientific theories, which is that the simplest explanation is usually the most likely to be true. This principle works pretty well in science.

    So I find it funny when people come up with complicated and twisted explanations for why Jordan’s description didn’t match. Well, the simplest explanation is that it didn’t match because he didn’t see MJ’s genitalia. Period. I think people should try to live with this fact at last.

    Like

  19. December 8, 2011 2:11 pm

    “Let me also suggest an idea that you have probably seen yourself only and I have seen several men in my life, all of them uncircumcised – so my testimony is more valid.” – VindicateMJ

    That was PRICELESS icon smile

    “I am a nurse so like VMJ I have probably seen many more than both of you combined”. – Lynette

    That was even MORE priceless icon smile

    Like

  20. lynande51 permalink
    December 8, 2011 8:59 am

    “But it´s likely that Jackson kept his foreskin retracted all the time to look like an American.”

    But who would he be showing that he was an American? I am a nurse so like VMJ I have probably seen many more than both of you combined. The interesting part about the circumcision issue is that MJ supposedly TOLD Jordan that he was circumcised and Brett wasn’t and then explained the difference to him. Knowing that makes one wonder once he was told by someone what the difference was, how did he make that mistake when describing him? He made that mistake because Michael never talked to him about it and he never saw Michael masturbating himself. That is the only logical explanation. Now if you take into account the pure logistics of masturbation how would Jordan see any kind of a spot light or dark when an adult male is performing that task. His hand would cover that which he says he saw and if he is intact the movement of the all over skin would displace any kind of spot that he says that he saw. There was no way that the circumcision doesn’t matter when you know that the story actually is that Michael told him what he was. Getting it wrong after that makes it a nothing more than an elaborate lie. The description was something dreamed up by Evan to offer a proof of some sort and to humiliate Michael or frighten him into settling the case because he did not know what the description was until he was stripped in front of photographers. Their big problem came when they guessed wrong by not remembering Michael’s origin as a poor Black boy born in a time of segregation. VMJ I apologize for the graphic account but sometimes that is all that works.

    Like

  21. Teva permalink
    December 8, 2011 3:17 am

    “Let me also suggest an idea that you have probably seen yourself only and I have seen several men in my life, all of them uncircumcised – so my testimony is more valid.” – VindicateMJ

    That was PRICELESS 🙂

    Like

  22. December 8, 2011 12:29 am

    “I do agree that chandler should have noticed Jackson´s foreskin when he was masturbating him. But it´s likely that Jackson kept his foreskin retracted all the time to look like an American.”

    Dear gourmanden, as far as know it is impossible to keep the foreskin retracted during masturbation. It moves and is therefore impossible not to notice.

    Let me also suggest an idea that you have probably seen yourself only and I have seen several men in my life, all of them uncircumcised – so my testimony is more valid.

    Like

  23. gourmanden permalink
    December 8, 2011 12:04 am

    I peronally kept my foreskin retracted almost all the time for over 2 years and it actually worked fine, it stayed in place almost all the time. It was a bit dry when I checked it and it started to itch a bit so I pulled it back in place so it covered the head again. The foreskin now covers the head completely while soft and there is no damage at all.

    I do agree that chandler should have noticed Jackson´s foreskin when he was masturbating him.

    But it´s likely that Jackson kept his foreskin retracted all the time to look like an American.

    Like

  24. October 9, 2011 6:46 am

    “When the trial was drawing to an end Tom Sneddon brought up the matter of Michael’s photos also taken in 1993. The Smoking Gun evidently updated their article and included Tom Sneddon’s affidavit into it – not noticing that Sneddon was talking about a dark spot (on a light background)”

    In May 2011 I saw one of DD’s older articles on Michael (who else) it looked to be revised from its original format as seen in Dec 2009. She brought up the spots and said it was obvious JC was confused. So JC was wrong or confused, because TS was the only one btw the two to have seen Michael by viewing the pictures?

    Like

  25. lynande51 permalink
    September 1, 2011 11:26 pm

    No they can’t do that to him at this time. The statute of limitations has run out on perjury in the case. The case cost the county three million dollars. It also brought in revenue from the trial due to sales tax. Then there is the consideration of Janet asking a lawyer to look into suing Michael for showing the kids pornography months before they had met Michael Jackson. That does not show an innocent young boy that had cancer but one that was willing to say what he had to say to meet Michael and get that ball rolling. He also had no problem telling a court that his mother was molested by JC Penneys security in order to get more money. They were crocodile tears that is all they were.
    As for the most hardened criminal showing a human side that hardly ever happens. As a matter of fact the only time they get emotional has everything to do with how it will benefit them, it does not show remorse.There are a lot of statistics that show the majority of US inmates are in fact sociopaths, people without conscience.Here in the US a juvenile can be charged as an adult given the gravity of a crime and most often on their ability to have remorse. There are young people that serve the early years of a prison sentence in a juvenile detention center and when they reach the age of 18 are transfered to an adult prison system because for some of them it might be a life sentence. We have 12,13,and younger kids committing such crimes everyday. Our gang violence alone has kids killing or beating someone just for an initiation into the gang. I personally know and have seen 18 year olds with up to seven tears tattooed on their faces. One tear for one kill in that particular gang.
    Now even taking all of what I know I have to say that I still largely believe in the humanity of all of the incarcerated in this country. No matter what they may have done and no matter where they have to spend their lives they are human. It is me that sees their humanity, it is not them that feel it,they won’t allow themselves to. Now the cultural background that produces thsi kind of kid is the same cultural background that the Arvizo kids grew up in. A background of poverty and minority, they are a product of their background but if he had had remorse he never would have been able to sit on that witness stand and recount a story that would have destroyed a mans life and he certainly never would have thought he was believable enough to go to court.
    The Arvizo’s had to be told by Sneddon that they could not pursue the civil case until criminal proceedings were finished. Sneddon had 2 laws changed for Michael Jackson, the 1108 prior bad acts and civil code 1669.5 where a prosecutor could halt a civil proceeding in a child molest case until the criminal case was completed. That was to “help” compel the testimony of a child victim. If it was not their intent and Gavin’s too to sue Michael why did they have to be advised of the law regarding suing him.

    Like

  26. September 1, 2011 11:11 pm

    “Tom Mesereau knew this and he got Feldman to admit on the stand that if Michael were to be found guilty in a criminal court all they would really have to do is present that guilty finding to a judge and he would have been found liable for whatever they would have sued him for thus not having to litigate it at all just going in and collecting their reward.”

    Lynette, yes, I remember Thomas Mesereau grilling Larry Feldman about it and of course ultimately the whole family chose the road to suing Michael. I hear that it was enough to have a guilty verdict at least on one count for them to have the right to sue Michael afterwards. And they would have surely done it because that was their primary purpose.

    But even the most hardened crooks sometimes get emotional and show that they are still human. I think this happened to Gavin when he realized the scope of his own betrayal for the man who had taken him into his home and probably even saved his life.

    He cried when those millions were mentioned and this shows that he was torn inside between the feeling of guilt (as he knew that Michael was not guilty) and the desire to have all that money. He just showed himself human for a brief moment in time – but this moment passed and the decision was finally taken ,especially since his brother Star and mother were enthusiastic about it. At the trial it was Star who went out of his way to prove this and that.

    As to what Gavin says today – and what else can he say? Once you start lying there is no getting away from it. He might sometimes feel pangs of conscience (though I doubt it) but now he will never admit them. Because if he admits that he told lies in 2005 his old friends Zonen and Sneddon will feign surprise, will accuse him of perjury and shift all the blame for spending some $20mln. on the trial on him – probably even deducting money from the family. That is why they are keeping an eye on him.

    Like

  27. Suzy permalink
    September 1, 2011 11:04 pm

    I agree with Lynette about Gavin. I should also add that Facebook comment by Star about a year ago where he still called Michael all kind of names. We like to believe in children’s innocence but some children are not innocent at all. These kids were raised to be professional liars. They won’t have a bad conscience about lying.

    Like

  28. lynande51 permalink
    September 1, 2011 10:12 pm

    I have to disagree with you about Gavin and pangs of conscience. Not too long ago ( June 19th 2011) on a blog talk radio interview with Larry Nimmer he says that he spoke to Louise Palanker. In that conversation she said that Gavin Arvizo still feels like Michael immasculated him. That is not a boy with a conscience that is a man without one. In my opinion Gavin was just acting in Katz’s interviews. He was testing how good he was at presenting his story to someone that would have believed him no matter what. It was just practice for a civil jury not a criminal one. Tom Mesereau knew this and he got Feldman to admit on the stand that if Michael were to be found guilty in a criminal court all they would really have to do is present that guilty finding to a judge and he would have been found liable for whatever they would have sued him for thus not having to litigate it at all just going in and collecting their reward.

    Like

  29. September 1, 2011 9:52 pm

    “It does however prove that The Smoking Gun article is probably the most accurate. If so I can send you the link because it also has the transcript of the taped conversation between Paul Zellis and Stan Katz. In that is the proof that the Arvizo’s had a lawsuit ready to go and that Gavin was fully aware of Jordan Chandler and what he said. “

    Lynette, I see….. So Linden’s report is not found there any more. Okay, at least we have that Smoking Gun article and memory of the people who still remember what Jordan’s description was like. I think that the disappearance of Linden report from everywhere is not accidental. No matter how I tried it is nowhere to be found. Considering how “damning” the information stated there looks it should have been found on every hater’s site – but alas….

    As regards the link to Dr. Katz and Paul Zelis’s phone conversation I have it, thank you – this is where Dr. Katz says that Michael doesn’t fit the profile of a p-le and that Gavin Arvizo was somewhat unwilling to accuse Michael (even despite receiving all the training and studying Jordan’s statement). The lawsuit was being prepared by all the rest of them – his mother and brother Star, while Gavin was clearly in two minds. He cried when he heard Dr. Katz say they would receive millions. If it is no pangs of conscience I don’t know what it is.

    Like

  30. lynande51 permalink
    September 1, 2011 9:38 pm

    If you think about it the Linden report makes more sense regarding the depigmentation. it says light on dark which is what vitiligo is if you are going to guess at it. If he did have a dark spot which is what Sneddon claimed it proved that they were all wrong in their description.The Linden affadavit was for the judge issuing the body search warrant.That is where they would have attached Jordan’s description to the affadavit.Sneddon attached his declaration that he had compared the description and photos and he said they were a match. However there is more than just Gutierrez and Sneddon to go by for what was documented in the search.
    Remember that there were not one but two independent Doctors in the room when Michael was being photographed. There was Dr. Richard Strick and Dr. David Forecast and Dr Klein. JRT wrote later about the search warrant having an adddendum to it which was in fact that if Michael did not agree to it they would arrest him taking that as evidence of his guilt. Well someone else got that information as well as there is an article in Time magazine that says exactly the same thing that was printed just following the settlement. So it was found in more than one news source that he could not refuse the search. The dark spot was not documented on the photos because as TS said in an inteview with MO “Michael threw a fit” so they didn’t get a photo of the dark spot, instead Detective Russ Birchim said “he saw or thought he saw” a dark spot when Michael lifted his penis.There is no coresponding photo for that just Sneddon’s friend Russ Birchim confiming it.The Time magazine report also confirms what anyone with a small amount of reasoning would know,there was an arrest warrant attached to that search warrant in the event of a match to that description.It did not match and that is why Michael was not arrested that day.

    Like

  31. lynande51 permalink
    September 1, 2011 9:32 pm

    @ Shelly mine includes the transcript of that taped phone call of Zellis and Katz.Give me some time and I will provide the link.

    Like

  32. September 1, 2011 9:30 pm

    “the Linden report was attached to the Neverland search affadavit in 2003. It was open to “selected news sources” i.e Court TV from November of 2003 until January 24th 2004 when the search warrant was once again sealed.Court TV/The Smoking Gun wrote the article on january 6th 2004”.

    Lynette, now I understand why there was a big, big discrepancy in the date of the Smoking Gun article and the events described there.

    The article was dated January 6 (with no year). And initially it evidently covered only the Linden report of 1993 which quoted Jordan Chandler speaking of a light splotch (naturally on a dark background).

    When the trial was drawing to an end Tom Sneddon brought up the matter of Michael’s photos also taken in 1993. The Smoking Gun evidently updated their article and included Tom Sneddon’s affidavit into it – not noticing that Sneddon was talking about a dark spot (on a light background).

    They either hoped that no one would notice the color difference or didn’t notice it themselves.

    Leaving the initial date of January 6, 2004 after updating the article in May 2005 was impossible so they took away the year, leaving only January 6 and left the article that way for several years. This was how I found it in 2009 and made a copy of it.

    A year or so later they finally realized that nothing added up in their article and removed it altogether.

    If it weren’t for the Smoking Gun article none of us would have probably noticed the difference between Linden’s report and Sneddon’s affidavit. Linden report as a separate document will not tell us the truth. The truth is found when we compare it with Sneddon’s affidavit and see that Jordan Chandler’s description was one thing and the photos of Michael’s genitalia were a totally different thing.

    They were different as black and white and in the literal meaning of the word too.

    Like

  33. lynande51 permalink
    September 1, 2011 9:21 pm

    Helena the original 2003 Neverland search warrant is there but is redacted to exclude Deborah Linden’s report which was opened for the search and sealed again on January 24th 2004. There was only a brief span of time in which like I said “selected news sources” Court TV could have read it.It was originally sealed on July 26th 1994 by the California Court of Appeals to prevent tainting the probably pending criminal jury that Michael’s attorneys were thinkg would occur. It was also sealed again by Judge Melville due to the above reason and because they had not determined the admissability of the 1108 evidence or if they would even be able to use it or would want to. Do you want the redacted version that is minus the 11 pages of Deborah Lindens report. It does say that it was attached hereto for reference because Paul Zellis was using it to prove a pattern of abuse for Judge Thomas Adams who signed the warrants. It does however prove that The Smoking Gun article is probably the most accurate. If so I can send you the link because it also has the transcript of the taped conversation between Paul Zellis and Stan Katz. In that is the proof that the Arvizo’s had a lawsuit ready to go and that Gavin was fully aware of Jordan Chandler and what he said.

    Like

  34. shelly permalink
    September 1, 2011 9:18 pm

    This is the document Lynande is talking about

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/111703stmtpc.pdf

    Like

  35. September 1, 2011 8:39 pm

    “It is available on the SBSC website all you have to do is look for it and then be able to read it.”

    Lynette, CAN YOU PROVIDE THE LINK PLEASE? I would very much like to have the original!!

    Like

  36. September 1, 2011 8:31 pm

    that’s annoying – I thought I had requested to be notified if any follow-up comments would be added, but I wasn’t… damn. So here I am several months after all of you answered me.

    Tinne, the wordpress should have done it automatically if you requested it. It must have been some malfunction.

    ” I’m not interested in the fact that the news said that jordan said it or that Gutierrez said so (couldn’t care less actually)… I want the proof – the documents in which jordan says it. not hearsay. A primary source I believe it’s called. So what I’m hearing is that the “Linden report” is what I should be looking at, but I haven’t seen that anywhere… not on the smoking gun either (I really hate their slanderous, opinion-ridden writing – however they DO actually have sources). I’m beginning to think this is a dead end… please tell me the document really does exist!”

    From what we hear of the 1993 Linden report it registered Jordan Chandler’s words that he allegedly saw Michael’s private parts to have “a light splotch which was the color of his face” and that Michael was “circumcised”.

    Knowing that both of the above statements are completely false we would very much like to see this document – as these Jordan’s words were the exact opposite to what the later photos showed. But alas, the document is nowhere to be found. The only piece where Linden’s report was mentioned (together with Jordan’s words) was a Smoking Gun article, published some time during the 2005 trial, in order to remind the readers of past allegations about Michael and show how horrifically “graphic” the first boy’s description was.

    The Smoking Gun article was all wrong. Not only did they mention Michael to be “circumcised” but they also referred to both Linden’s report (with its “light splotch”) and Tom Sneddon’s affidavit during the 2005 trial (where he spoke of a “dark spot”). The person who was writing the article didn’t notice that by the year 2005 the official story about the 1993 allegations had made a complete U-turn. His mistake was in quoting both sources which contradicted and even nullified each other.

    However when they realized that they made a huge blunder they quickly removed the article. It is pure luck that I had stored it on my computer and was able to post it in this article: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/the-story-of-one-telltale-splotch-missing-from-the-smokin-gunpublic-eye/

    P.S. Sorry for the wrong link. Now it should be okay.

    Like

  37. lynande51 permalink
    September 1, 2011 8:30 pm

    @tinne; As annoying as you will find this the Linden report was attached to the Neverland search affadavit in 2003. It was open to “selected news sources” i.e Court TV from November of 2003 until January 24th 2004 when the search warrant was once again sealed.Court TV/The Smoking Gun wrote the article on january 6th 2004.The search warrant and affadavit have pages 65-72 redacted which is where the Linden report and accompanying documents were attached. Judge Melville resealed it as he should have at that time. It is available on the SBSC website all you have to do is look for it and then be able to read it.

    Like

  38. tinne permalink
    September 1, 2011 5:03 pm

    that’s annoying – I thought I had requested to be notified if any follow-up comments would be added, but I wasn’t… damn. So here I am several months after all of you answered me. Sorry it took so long! Okay, I gotta say that I’m not interested in the fact that the news said that jordan said it or that Gutierrez said so (couldn’t care less actually)… I want the proof – the documents in which jordan says it. not hearsay. A primary source I believe it’s called. So what I’m hearing is that the “Linden report” is what I should be looking at, but I haven’t seen that anywhere… not on the smoking gun either (I really hate their slanderous, opinion-ridden writing – however they DO actually have sources). I’m beginning to think this is a dead end… please tell me the document really does exist!

    Like

  39. August 18, 2011 9:01 pm

    The difference between the two is huge btw, speaking as a Brit who’s only ever seen a couple of circumcised ones and vividly remembering the discussion that resulted from it…

    Even Sex and The City had an episode centering around one of the girls encountering an uncut penis for the first time

    @3:50 “There was so much skin it was like a shar pei.”

    http://tvshack.bz/tv/watch/7D6GVD7N

    In fact someone has a whole webpage discussing how circumcision is represented in TV shows because it seems to be a universal thing that everyone who encounters one and then the other has a vivid reaction to it and this can be played for comedy

    http://www.circumstitions.com/tv-thatthing.html

    It isn’t just MJ fans who think the difference between the two is very noticeable and memorable

    Like

  40. August 18, 2011 8:45 pm

    Marie Antoinette was persecuted by the tabloids of that era.They did not have newspapers,but did have press,literally.Hand drawn pictures of her anatomy below in action were multiplied by the presses and circulated among the population.The truth is she did not have sex or lovers.Later she may have had one, a man who later tried to help her and her family to escape.

    Like

  41. August 18, 2011 8:33 pm

    I mean to say that Jordan was lying.As all know.

    Like

  42. lynande51 permalink
    August 18, 2011 8:31 pm

    And like I said: If the foreskin is retracted for more than a few minutes it causes engorgement. It is not just the frenulum. The end of the foreskin works like an elastic band on a pair of pants. As a man becomes aroused it stretches open. The mistake that everyone makes is that the foreskin slides back. It does not at least not in the way that people think .Think of having a pair of elastic waist pants on and slowly pulling them down over your hips. You will see what happens to the extra fabric as it comes down and how more of your hips show.It is also a good example of how tight they are on your hips. What happens during an aroused state is that the penis enlarges it protudes out of the foreskin. Now when the foreskin is pulled back with out the penis being enlarged it is in an unatural state and the “elastic band” around the opening of the foreskin is not stretched. This causes a tightening around the glans of the penis and causes engorgement from the restriction of the blood supply. Because there is a very abundant supply of blood vessels located in the glans this happens very quickly, as I said within minutes. It is very painful, and if left can cause ischemia (dead tissue) due to the restriction of the blood supply, and the eventual loss of the glans if not treated. I have actually seen this happen and I have also seen engorgement untreatable to the point of an emergency adult circumcision. It is no joke and anyone who says differently simply put does not have foreskin or an understanding of it.

    Like

  43. August 18, 2011 8:28 pm

    According to Jordan there were too long periods of time with freqvent enough “sexual encounters” for Jordan to be ignorant of Michaels
    part of anatomy in question.There is a condition called phimosis;that is when the foreskin is too tight to allow for erection.King Louis the
    XVI is said to have had this condition.It is cured by circumcision.
    They were married at ages;she 14y,he 15y.The marriage was nonconsummated for a long time.Marie Antoinette was frustrated and
    made frequent trips into town incognito.That is why she was blamed by the masses for extravagant spending.what resulted in her and Louis´
    being guillotined. A forescin a cause for revolution.

    Like

  44. August 18, 2011 6:57 pm

    Guys, considering the recent question about “retraction of foreskin by a non-circumcised male” I was forced to make a short update of the post. Previously I would have been embarrassed to talk about things like that but haters have hardened me a lot, and nowadays I regard it as a purely medical issue. So let us make no bones about it.

    Almost a year and a half since this post was written some people are still thinking of various ways how to explain why Jordan got the description of Michael’s genitalia so terribly wrong. Now they say that a non-circumcised man may retract his foreskin and will look like a circumcised one. And that Jordan could have made a mistake and taken one for the other.

    NO WAY, GUYS.

    First, it is next to impossible to keep the foreskin retracted all the time – it keeps sliding back due to the frenulum (frenulum is “elastic tissue under the glans that connects to the foreskin and helps to contract the foreskin over the glans”). In circumcised men the frenulum is usually cut.

    Second, the frenulum per se is such a sight that those who have seen it once will never forget it. The fainthearted are requested not to look at the photo provided by Wiki, however if you see just once you’ll remember it forever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenulum_of_prepuce_of_penis

    Third, Jordan alleged that he “masturbated” MJ – but then he should have noticed the frenulum, the different texture of the penis head (which is much tender with non-circumcised men) and the fact that the foreskin on a non-circumcised penis moves, even when erect.

    The most decent illustration I have found for the described process is a medical animation provided below. It explains that the only difference in the movement of foreskin between the usual and erect states is that the foreskin will not collect in wrinkles when penis is erect – but this is all. What is important is that it will move anyway as nature has made males that way!

    The animation is here: http://www.circumstitions.com/Works.html

    Could Jordan have overlooked all those details if he really did what he alleged?

    And he did allege that he masturbated MJ (see the transcript of his interview with Dr. Gardner on October 6, 1993:

    “- But he had me masturbate him.”

    – On how many occasions?”

    – About ten”.

    And during those “ten times” he didn’t notice the foreskin moving back and forth? As well as the extremely tender texture of the glans typical of all non-circumcised men? And even the frenulum didn’t make him wonder what it was and why he, a circumcised boy, was missing it?

    Let us not be ridiculous, guys. ALL THIS NONSENSE NEVER HAPPENED and this is why Jordan made such a terrible fool of himself.

    Like

  45. August 18, 2011 1:16 pm

    They advertised for more victims,they had a free telephone number,and if I recall, someting on the net as well.Michael has gone through court
    and police investigations endlessly.Somehow it made me think of a recent malfunctioning of my washing machine that would not open when the wash was finished ,but automatically started a new cycle over and over.Finally seeking help on the net I found someone who had had the same problem.They had come and taken the machine with the wash inside to the workshop.There are some paralells to Michaels situation, he is in a can that cannot be opened, but hopefully will after the efforts of many,we are the workshop.The media with DD,O.W etc continue to keep it going round and round.

    Like

  46. Suzy permalink
    August 18, 2011 10:05 am

    “and the excuse for why there aren’t more victims”

    Of course, I meant ALLEGED victims, because we know they weren’t victims.

    Like

  47. Suzy permalink
    August 18, 2011 10:03 am

    @ Lynette

    This “explanation” of why MJ wasn’t found guilty reminds me of another favourite hater argument: there weren’t more victims coming forward because they were afraid of Michael’s fans. Yeah, right. Because Michael’s fans hurt those who accused him? They know where Jordan lives, he didn’t even feel the need to change his name. The only person who ever tried to hurt him was his own father. Gavin changed his name, but they know where he lives as well. Same for Jason Francia. I have never heard of any attrocities these men suffered from fans. So much of this media myth of violent and dangerous MJ fans and the excuse for why there aren’t more victims when p-les have hundreds of victims in a lifetime.

    But the fact they are forced to make up lame excuses like these speaks for Michael’s innocence once again.

    Like

  48. lynande51 permalink
    August 18, 2011 9:04 am

    @Suzy.
    You couldn’t be more right. It looks like they are grasping at straws, hanging on by a thread and about ready to fall with that one. It ranks right up there with a new reason that the jury found him innocent. I read one that said that they were afraid MJ’s followers would riot if he were found guilty. Maybe they should look at some of the video coverage of the reading of the verdict. Notice that there is a woman releasing doves,( the symbol of hope and peace) and one holding a sign that says ” Michael on behalf of mankind we are sorry”. Those are certainly the type of people to riot all right.If Michael had been found guilty that day they would have all been too devastated and dumbfounded to riot.
    Of course the “other side” was represented as well. Take for instance a musical group from Iowa of grown men that arrived in front of the court house wearing nothing but diapers with vulgar slogans on them to advertise their point. And guess what they did that on the day that a grade school aged choir from a prominent Black LA church came to show support for Michael. Good job guys now who is the abuser of children. And to think Sneddon took that side. It sure would be laughable if it wouldn’t have been so destructive to an innocent mans life.

    Like

  49. Suzy permalink
    August 18, 2011 7:40 am

    The nonsensical explanations of haters as to why Jordan’s explanation didn’t match are funny. Wouldn’t it be easier to accept the most likely explanation at last, which is that it didn’t match because MJ never molested Jordan?

    Like

  50. lynande51 permalink
    August 18, 2011 3:18 am

    It is not possible that a man would keep the foreskin retracted at all times. If a retraction occurs for more than a few minutes the glans of the penis becomes engorged. That is a medical fact and I can give you at least a thousand instances of young female nurses aides that have caused this and I have had to personally treat myself in nursing homes and emergency rooms around this country. In order to treat that one has to apply ice to reduce the swelling and then use lidocaine gel and a cotton swab to roll the foreskin back.It is incredibly painful both the engorgement and the treatment. Please don’t even try that idiotic nonsense.Anyone who says differently is just plain lying. It takes mere minutes for this to happen. And engorgement lead to ischemia and tissue death if left untreated.How many men do you think want to risk the loss of their penis head?

    Like

  51. August 18, 2011 12:59 am

    “An uncircumcised penis might look a lot like a circumcised one. It is very common that men keep their foreskin retracted all the time, in the US in particular”.

    Andy, I am amazed to what lengths people go in order to prove their point of view. You think that a non-circumcised penis – with retracted foreskin – looks the same as a circumcised one? You think Jordan made a mistake?

    This is all wrong, because in addition to ‘just watching’ (which never took place anyway) this boy claimed that he ‘masturbated’ him too. And if he masturbated another person, the foreskin should have started MOVING even if before that it was in a retracted position.

    In circumcised men there is no foreskin and nothing to move, while in non-circumcised men there is and no matter how you retract the foreskin (or how erect the penis is) the skin will still slide back and forth.

    It is incredible that I seem to be the best expert on males’ genitalia, but here is more information on non-circumcised penises and what sacrifice men have to go to if they want to keep the foreskin retracted.

    1) For the skin to stop sliding back one site suggests to keep it in a retracted position by means of a tape – here are the instructions complete with the pictures: http://www.circlist.com/preferences/feelcut.html

    So if Jordan saw the foreskin retracted he must have also seen a) the tape or b) the foreskin moving (if it was not fixed by the tape)

    2) Men who have tried the method say that to be able to keep the foreskin retracted one needs to have a long frenulum, otherwise it won’t work. What is frenulum? It is an elastic band of tissue under the penis and if you see it just once you will never forget it. See the picture here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenulum_of_prepuce_of_penis

    The frenulum is surely very impressive, so if Jordan ever saw it and very close too, he must have been impressed with it for life.

    3) If someone manages via miracle or very long training to keep his foreskin retracted others can indeed mistake a non-circumcised penis for a circumcised one – but only until they touch it. As I have said the foreskin moves.

    Quote: “Everybody assumed I was circumcised so I continued to shower with it bare all semester long. But during sex the foreskin will unroll and get in the way the fashion that circumcision avoids. The frenulum can still be strained and torn, as can the thin inner membrane of the foreskin. These problems cannot occur when circumcised”

    4) Another difference and a decided discomfort is that pubic hair often gets caught when the foreskin rolls back.

    Quote: “I used to wear my foreskin retracted back past the glans when I was a teenager. The dumb piece of skin would sooner or later return to cover the glans, often grabbing a scrotum hair or two, which had lodged between the glans and the previously retracted foreskin. In that situation I would feel the sudden painful tug on my scrotum, causing a lot of discomfort. Bandaids didn’t look too natural, though super-glue gave a better cosmetic appearance – only temporary of course. In any case, the bulk of two inches of foreskin retracted behind the glans was a nuisance”.

    5) It is difficult to keep the foreskin from rolling back and men have to use devices from it happening. A big drawback of such devices is that they are highly noticeable to outsiders.

    Quote: “I keep the foreskin back by wearing a black rubber washer behind the corona. It doesn’t make the glans any thicker, but seems to keep the frenulum from exerting forward pressure on the foreskin.”

    6) The frenulum keeps taking the foreskin back. It doesn’t only in case it is torn. However Michael was intact and had everything the way nature made him.

    Quote: “Keeping my foreskin retracted (which is long, thick and loose) was not easy or without some discomfort. I should also mention that my frenulum tore completely when I was 18 and therefore it doesn’t exist to pull the foreskin forward back over the glans, as does a short or tight frenulum.”
    http://www.circlist.com/preferences/feelcut.html

    Is it possible for someone who allegedly ‘masturbated MJ’ to have overlooked all these details – I mean the moving foreskin, the frenulum and the different texture of the top of the penis which is very tender in non-circumcised men?

    Look at that picture of a non-circumcised penis (with its frenulum) again and give an honest answer please.

    HONEST answer, please.

    Like

  52. appleh permalink
    August 17, 2011 10:30 pm

    @ Andy, do you have any sources for your statement ???

    Like

  53. August 17, 2011 5:39 pm

    Andy, that may be true if there is no erection only.

    Like

  54. Andy permalink
    August 17, 2011 4:59 pm

    An uncircumcised penis might look a lot like a circumcised one. It is very common that men keep their foreskin retracted all the time, in the US in particular.

    There are many uncut men in the US indeed especially among black men born in the fifties.
    A lot of them pull their foreskin behind the head so it looks like they are cut to avoid stupid comments and women being turned off by their penis.

    Michael might have been one of them.

    Like

  55. nan permalink
    July 30, 2011 6:13 pm

    dont know if any of you have seen this video about the history of racism and vitalago but it is interesting and sad because it seems to parallel what mj was subjected to..

    Like

  56. June 19, 2011 8:44 pm

    @tinne It was repeated over and over again in the news at the time

    Like

  57. June 19, 2011 7:49 pm

    “how do we know that jordan chandler said that michael was circumcised?”

    Tinne, this was so big news at the time when this information was leaked from Linden report even a liar Victor Gutierrez couldn’t do anything about it and had to confirm the fact – Jordan did indeed say that Michael was circumcised.

    I am pointing out that Gutierrez said it because in the MJJfiles site I saw totally different information. Some people there said that Gutierrez quoted Jordan’s “correct” words about Michael not being circumcised. I didn’t have Gutierrez’s book then and had to believe them that Gutierrez presented a different version of the story but now that I have read the book I see that it was flat misinformation and Gutierrez repeated Jordan’s original words – despite allegedly seeing Michael naked on many occasions Jordan nevertheless said that he was circumcised! Laughable to say the very least.

    However it is good that besides Linden report we also have Gutierrez repeating Jordan’s lie. This way we have two sources saying the same about Jordan. You see that even Gutierrez may be helpful if you know what to look for.

    Like

  58. lcpledwards permalink
    June 19, 2011 5:35 pm

    @tinne
    The Smoking Gun posted information from the Linden Report (the name of the detective who obtained the description from Jordan), and in it Jordan said that MJ was circumcised, and had a dark penis with light splotches. In reality, MJ was uncircumcised, and had a light penis with dark splotches! Read the following 2 posts for more info, as well as parts 2 and 3 of the “All You Wanted To Know About It” series:

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/the-story-of-one-telltale-splotch-missing-from-the-smokin-gunpublic-eye/

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/was-it-match-or-mismatch/

    Like

  59. shelly permalink
    June 19, 2011 5:20 pm

    ” 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.”

    It’s from the Smoking Gun website and they used the Linden affidavit. It’s the only thing we really have.

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/the-story-of-one-telltale-splotch-missing-from-the-smokin-gunpublic-eye/

    Like

  60. tinne permalink
    June 19, 2011 5:11 pm

    umm… okay, I might be asking a completely idiotic question here but how do we know that jordan chandler said that michael was circumcised?
    (p.s i love this place!)

    Like

  61. Teva permalink
    April 11, 2011 12:59 am

    Thanks for the explanation.

    Like

  62. Dialdancer permalink
    April 10, 2011 7:21 pm

    @ Teva,

    No I am not saying Katerine Jackson made any such statement. There is nothing written anywhere in the world that said she spoke any such thing.

    I should have made it clearer the Katherine’s statement was a parody, a response to the sheer ridiculousness of calling MJ Mother to testify and any such question asked of her. To the best of my knowledge all males are born uncircumcised, although there may be some medical exceptions, but I have not heard of any. It would not have made any difference since all the people here, Fans or Foes have read the autopsy report.

    Now most who know my postings are aware I am in a habit of using links to give or debunk the validity or any statement. I use the words suspect, believe or theory if not verified.

    Now I hope if any Haters should come on the site this piece of common sense will stifle their joy in believing they have found a new toy to play cat to our mouse.

    P.S. I am a her.

    Like

  63. lcpledwards permalink
    April 10, 2011 1:52 pm

    @ Teva
    Katherine Jackson testified in front of the grand jury in 1994, but she did not say those things. Michael Jackson was never circumcised at any time in his life. Dial will clarify her comments in a little while.

    Like

  64. Carm permalink
    April 10, 2011 1:12 pm

    @ Suzy
    If haters pick up these quotes it will only confirm just how gullible and desperate they really are. (also their IQ level)

    Like

  65. ares permalink
    April 10, 2011 1:08 pm

    I think the person who made that comment should explain her himself. Where did she find that comment? Was that made by Katherin and if so can she give us a link? Is Katherin Jackson actually on the record saying all those things that Dialdancer quoted? I am very confused right now.

    Like

  66. Teva permalink
    April 10, 2011 1:01 pm

    @David
    Just to be absolutely crystal clear – Are you saying Katherine Jackson did NOT give that testimony?
    Uncircumcized at birth (obviously), circumcized, uncircumcized, circumcized, and as we know uncircumcized at death! If not what’s it doing in qoutation marks as an exact quote?

    Like

  67. ares permalink
    April 10, 2011 11:34 am

    @Dialdancer

    What are you talking about? Where did you find those kind of things?

    Like

  68. Suzy permalink
    April 10, 2011 7:10 am

    @ David

    Ah, OK, so it was sarcastic. (I hope haters won’t pick up these “quotes” then to prove something. You know, how they have a tendency to run away with anything they like without examining the source. As this was the case with that fake Larry Harriet “intreview” with Paul Rodriguez.)

    Yes, it’s an idiotic claim. Jordan’s description didn’t match. Live with it, Sneddon!

    Like

  69. lcpledwards permalink
    April 10, 2011 6:57 am

    @ Teva
    I believe that Dialdancer was merely being sarcastic when she “quoted” Katherine. What she’s trying to do is show the utter lunacy in the theory that MJ was born circumcised, and then after the allegations became public he had his foreskin added back to his genitals while he was out of the country. She was asked about this during the grand jury proceedings.

    Like

  70. Suzy permalink
    April 10, 2011 6:54 am

    That quote doesn’t make any sense to me, to be honest.

    Why would they not circumsize him as a baby, but then decide to circumsize him at 2 just “to match the rest of the men in the family”? That sounds like a stupid reason to circumsize someone at 2 (why not as a baby then?).
    And why would Michael have “unbearable pain” as a teenager from being circumsized? You don’t have pain because of that.

    And from what I understand the quote claims: Michael got circumsized at 2, then got an operation to get his foreskin back as a teen, then later “just decided” to have more pain and get a circumstion once again.

    This is the first time I hear it and to be honest it smells like major tabloid BS.

    Where is this quote coming from?

    Like

  71. Suzy permalink
    April 10, 2011 6:45 am

    @ Dialdancer

    Where is this quote from?

    Like

  72. Teva permalink
    April 10, 2011 4:03 am

    “No Michael was born uncircumcised, but we decided he would not match the rest of the men in the family so when he was 2 yrs old I had a doctor cover it up.”

    “Then in his teens he went through unbearable pain to have in uncovered and just recently he decided to go through even more pain and have it covered back up”

    What’s all this about? Are you saying Katherine Jackson said Michael was uncircumcized, then circumcized, then uncircumcized?

    Like

  73. Dialdancer permalink
    April 10, 2011 3:25 am

    “This is how far they went.They wanted to know if he had been uncircumcised since birth can you believe it ? That and they wanted to know if what Latoya had said was true.”

    Mrs. Katherine Jackson: “No Michael was born uncircumcised, but we decided he would not match the rest of the men in the family so when he was 2 yrs old I had a doctor cover it up.”

    “Then in his teens he went through unbearable pain to have in uncovered and just recently he decided to go through even more pain and have it covered back up”

    You know there are times when I find it difficult to hate Tom Sneddon, he reminds me of Evan two mental defectives allowed to play with loaded guns.

    They were right, it was theatrics, just like having Debbie Rowe investigated after the trial, because Sneddon assumed he understood their martial problems and could capitalized on them.

    Like

  74. April 9, 2011 6:25 pm

    There is absolutely huge difference between circumcised and uncircumcised parts, I know alot of jewish and muslims men went under such procedure because of their religion.
    As our friend Hayat said “Saying that there’s a very minimal difference between circumcised and an uncircumcised penis, too me, is outrageous.
    OF COURSE there’s a huge difference between them!! ITS GIGANTIC!!
    My brother who’s 13 could easily declare the difference between them!! He’s circumcised, and when he would ever see one thats not, he’d know that person is not!
    I mean its a difference like day and night are”
    What she said is true , some people don’t know the whole idea and the real shape of uncircumcised part so they just imply that it’s the same as the circumcised one or there were not much differences for both .
    However,it will be an act of opacity and Stupidity if you ignored the fact that both parts has many differences.
    Thank you Helena for your great work,it is enlightening to alot of people who don’t know the issue here that Michael had to deal and fight for his life while the media on the other side fighting back against the poor guy.

    Like

  75. lynande51 permalink
    March 14, 2011 3:46 pm

    Jackson Calls Mom’s Subpoena Harassment
    Article from:Chicago Sun-Times Article date:March 16, 1994More results for:katherine jackson

    LOS ANGELES – Michael Jackson criticized prosecutors today for making “my beloved mother” testify about him before a grand jury.

    Katherine Jackson is to appear Thursday before the Los Angeles County grand jury looking into claims that Jackson sexually molested a teenage boy.

    In a statement issued by his lawyers, Jackson said: “For the purpose of headline-grabbing, the L.A. District Attorney’s Office continues to persecute me, and this has now expanded to include the harassment of my beloved mother.”

    Authorities in Santa Barbara and Los Angeles counties began investigating Jackson, 35, last August when a boy alleged that Jackson molested him for five months in 1993.

    On Tuesday, Mrs. Jackson’s lawyer, Richard Steingard, said his client “has nothing to hide. She is absolutely willing to go before the grand jury.”

    The lawyer added that he “may be more bothered about this than she is because I think it is just inappropriate to use a mother against her son.”

    Jackson has steadfastly denied molesting the boy, now 14. He settled a civil lawsuit over the accusations in January, reportedly for more than $15 million.

    Mrs. Jackson has publicly defended her son on several occasions, “and now to compel her to testify before the grand jury is pointless and hard to understand,” Steingard said.

    Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti said Tuesday that the investigation will wrap up within a month. He would not confirm that there is a grand jury meeting.

    Cite this article
    Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.
    This is how far they went.They wanted to know if he had been uncircumcised since birth can you believe it ? That and they wanted to know if what Latoya had said was true.

    Like

  76. Dialdancer permalink
    January 28, 2011 7:27 am

    @ Shelly,

    There seems to be something wrong with your link. It does not work or maybe Google realized something was wrong and removed it. Never mind. I’ve had my fill of junk for the day.

    Like

  77. shelly permalink
    September 24, 2010 10:57 am

    I found that

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=EuoNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Jm8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4583,4785978&dq=michael+jackson&hl=en

    Those people had no shame.

    Like

  78. Hayat permalink
    July 19, 2010 6:37 pm

    “Males (and females) in the US have practically never seen what non-circumcision is like and don’t know the difference. “…
    I really really didn’t know that this is so. I thought, that everyone out there knew the difference. VindicateMJ, you really gave a great example with the headscarf. I wear it, for years and years now (I’m muslim). When I show my collegues at work pictures of myself, without the head scarf, they always tell me, in disbelief and amazement, ‘Oh God, I didn’t recognize you, you look soooo different without your scarf!!!’ Or they ask me: ‘Is this really you’.. No one recognizes me without it. Even though I have the same face… You know?
    Its incredible how much of a difference it makes. So saying that I look the same either way, really is bolony. Saying that there’s a very minimal difference between circumcised and an uncircumcised penis, too me, is outrageous.
    OF COURSE there’s a huge difference between them!! ITS GIGANTIC!!
    My brother who’s 13 could easily declare the difference between them!! He’s circumcised, and when he would ever see one thats not, he’d know that person is not!
    I mean its a difference like day and night are.
    So I honestly can not understand how this LIE could just stand its ground out there while Michael had to defend himself in the years ahead of him, with HATERS that smeared his good name and reputation saying that the description matched!
    How on earth could that be..?
    And another thing, Sneddon’s accusations that Michael would go abroad to change his penis from a circumcised to a not circumcised one? DOES HE EVEN KNOW WHAT HE WAS SAYING? Its a custom in many beliefs that babyboys get circumcised. DID HE KNOW HOW PAINFULL THIS IS FOR THEM AND HOW LONG IT TAKES TO GET HEALED? How much TROUBLE it takes for some to go the bathroom to urinate?
    I feel like chopping that mad dog’s penis right now to let him know just how it feels.
    His ridicule allegation is just too absurd for words, and I cannot believe he isn’t being thrown in jail yet for all the lies he came up with escpecially in the Arvizo case.
    I thought that would be so, considering he’s guilty of: perjury and embezzlement with state evidence and fake testemonies.
    I thought in Amercia you’re INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty.
    Especially in the first case, the wrong description of Michaels penis should have set him free, not only from the charge, but also from the American public judgment.
    In Michaels case, he was GUILTY and even when he was vindicated in the criminal trail – PROVEN INNOCENT – the majority of the ignorant haters still believed he was such a disgusting animal.
    It blows my mind to know that people in the US don’t know the difference.
    It really does…
    When will they learn to research knowledge?
    And when will those who are ‘read’ stop sweeping the truth under a rug?
    (sorry for my long post you guys)

    Like

  79. Lex permalink
    April 27, 2010 7:46 pm

    I just read part 3 – it really is unbelievable how biased the DA was. He was too heavily involved in every aspect of the case. Tell me how he can investigate the case and also prosecute?

    Your quite right – he should not have made the determination. I feel it calls into question the legitimacy of the description. Do you know if the description was filed before the search was ordered? I don’y know – I may be clutching at straws here?

    Also that Diane woman has spoken about that blemish and she said she WAS TOLD (I see a pattern emerging) that the blemish was where Jordan had said it would be… but get this – “they didn’t get the chance to take a photograph” – I mean, get real! They spent atleast 25 minutes taking pictures – and wouldn’t they have ordered another search??

    Like

  80. April 27, 2010 6:40 pm

    Lex, thank you for the video – I read about it but didn’t see it. The doctor produces the impression of an honest professional. This interview is VERY enlightening as it shows that:

    1) Michael did not use any drugs (even prescription ones) BEFORE the 1993 accusations, so the Chandler’s story was what triggered off the problem and was ultimately responsible for ruining his health. Though Michael did manage to overcome his drug-addiction as the autopsy showed it (there were no narcotics in his system) – his sleeplessness was still there. Imagine staying awake from midnight until 11 o’clock in the morning and night after night too? And having to do concerts in-between? I assure you that you’ll take ANYTHING just to have a little sleep!

    2) A big part of Michael’s nose reconstruction was the result of his lupus which is actually a TERRIBLE DISEASE (my friend has it and she has turned from a robust young woman into a shadow of her former self). Laughing at such a problem is almost as bad as laughing at someone having a cancer problem.

    3) The phrase which Dr. Strick said somewhat in passing – that HE WAS TOLD there was an absolute match – shows how far the prosecution was ready to stretch the truth about Michael Jackson. There were two physicians during the strip search – one from Michael’s side and the other (Dr. Strick) representing the authorities, so Dr. Strick could be the ONLY person to make the determination. The fact that he was NOT ALLOWED to do it means Tom Sneddon KNEW IT WOULD BE IN MICHAEL’S FAVOR.

    Please check up part 3 of “All you wanted to know” post and you’ll see that the determination was made by TOM SNEDDON – the man who was ready to pass white for black (literally) and vice versa. Allowing HIM to make this determination was like asking a wolf to take care of a flock of sheep.

    Lex, I agree that there are still many unaswered questions but we shouldn’t wait for Jordan to speak – WE ARE QUITE CAPABLE OF REACHING FOR THE TRUTH OURSELVES. Just let us not give up!

    Like

  81. Lex permalink
    April 27, 2010 2:52 pm

    Just wondering if you have seen this:

    What do you think of it?

    I mean he was told the description “absolutely” matched but the key word being ‘told’.
    Well if the boy said it was circumcised and it wasn’t – thats not an absolute match!
    And i’m just speculating now, but if it was very similar wouldn’t the DA use it as evidence – I mean that could have been damning evidence even without Jordan testifying?

    Who knows I guess? There are so many unanswered questions and now only really one person left to answer it.

    Like

  82. April 27, 2010 11:06 am

    Kendrick, thanks for your comment. Thank God the Chandlers didn’t do their investigation well enough, relied on the statistics only and as a result miscalculated on that issue.
    I’ve also received a comment on a possible reconstruction of the foreskin (which Tom Sneddon was probably looking for when analyzing Michael’s medical records) from a professional in medicine:
    “A foreskin reconstruction is a procedure that takes 6-9 months to complete. Without going into the complete procedure I can say this. As we know the foreskin has 12 functions. Many of these functions are dependent on the skin cellular make up. The cells of the foreskin are dependent on their ability to secrete the emollients present in the foreskin. This skin is not found on another part of the body. In other words they can’t use skin from another part of the body to replace it. It is done through a series of small incisions and stretching taking 6-9 months. This said Michael would have had to start this process in February prior to meeting Jordan in person”.

    Like

  83. Kendrick-M permalink
    April 26, 2010 6:47 am

    There is something forgotten or unknown about the subject of Michael not being circumcised.
    Michael Jackson a Black man, born in the Nineteen Fifties. You will find that vast majority of such men at such a time were not circumcised. It was not considered necessary. Most men aren’t willing to go through this procedure later in life, unless there is a definite medical reason for it. Additionally MJ had an autoimmune disorder, which would have made such an operation difficult to heal and the scaring almost impossible to hide in such a short amount of time. The Santa Barbara DA was full of it and he knew it.

    Like

  84. April 25, 2010 4:20 pm

    Oh, Beatriz, thank you very much, but you understand that though we’ve learned some more facts of Michael’s innocence it’s too early to speak of any victory. I would be REALLY grateful if you and other Michael’s supporters could SPREAD THE NEWS FURTHER and shove all the new facts found into the face of Michael’s haters.
    And I hope to go on with God’s help…..

    Like

  85. Beatriz permalink
    April 25, 2010 1:04 am

    Congratulations Helena once more! you are very brave to explain this.

    Like

  86. April 22, 2010 7:47 am

    Please don’t be surprised I know the subject of non-circumcison so well. In my country practically all men are NOT circumcised and circumcision is considered something very exotic. So all females are naturally in the know.

    Like

  87. April 20, 2010 5:45 am

    I hate when they call the foreskin a “fold.” It could only be a sleeve. And a continuous essential part of the skin tube. There is only a need to distinguish which part is the foreskin when you want to cut something off.

    Foreskin feels REALLY good. It’s HIS body and morally circumcision is HIS decision.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: