Skip to content

All you wanted to know ABOUT IT but were afraid to ask. Part 3. A “TELLING” BLEMISH?

April 20, 2010

Updated February 29, 2012

We left Dr. Strick saying he was TOLD that the photos and Jordan’s description matched. This definitely contradicts media reports that it was him who made such a determination, but the question is – if it weren’t him, who determined that there was a “similarity”?

Initially I asked myself – what does it matter? If the description and photos did match, any reasonable person would be able to see and confirm the fact and if they didn’t,  no one would. But this carefree thought was soon replaced by a serious concern that if the determination was made by someone heavily biased or dishonest, it could make all the difference in the world for the defendant.

Imagine how biased a determination could be if it were made by a defense attorney only? Absolutely the same goes for the prosecution if it was only the prosecutor who did the job. This is the reason why such determination is supposed to be done by an impartial party ONLY. And the more or less impartial party in this case was Dr. Strick, however now it turns out that his opinion was never sought or asked.

Knowing what Tom Sneddon is like I knew that there is no such low to which this person would not stoop to, so it didn’t really surprise me to learn that he didn’t ask anyone’s opinion, made the determination himself and sent his own lie that it was a “match” all around the world.

Tom Sneddon admitted that it was him who did the job in his declaration of May 26, 2005. He said he had reviewed Jordan’s statements and the drawing, and in his opinion the description “substantially corroborated the photos”, however he made a reservation that he believed it was correct “except for those statements made on information and belief”, which “he believed to be true”, thus casting a grave doubt on his words.

Sneddon’s declaration is provided below in full. BEWARE, dear innocent Michael’s fans –  you are entering the twilight zone of Michael’s haters who will pour mud on Michael Jackson, confuse you with shocking details and try to block you from thinking on your own. The paper is dirty in its content and amount of lies but  is a must read for the purposes of our investigation.

DECLARATION OF THOMAS W. SNEDDON, JR.

I, Thomas W.Sneddon, Jr., say:

1. I am a lawyer admitted to practice in all the courts of this state. I am, and since 1983 have been, the elected District Attorney of the County of Santa Barbara. I am the lead counsel for the prosecution in the trial of The People of the State of California v. Michael Joe Jackson, Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 1133603.

2. In 1993, the Los Angeles Police Department commenced an investigation of allegation by Jordan Chandler, a minor child, and his family that young Jordan had been sexually molested by Defendant in Los Angeles and in Santa Barbara Counties. Los Angeles Police Detective Rosibel Ferrufino was one of the investigators in that investigation. The Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department commenced its own investigation of the allegation, in cooperation with the Los Angeles Police Department. Sheriff’s Detective Deborah Linden was one of the investigators.

3. In the course of LAPD’s investigation of the allegations, Jordan Chandler was interviewed by Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Lauren Weis on September 1, 1993, during which interview Detective Ferrufino and a court reporter were present. Jordan was asked to relate information concerning his reported relationship with Michael Jackson. In the course of the interview Jordan Chandler made detailed statements concerning the physical appearance of Michael Jackson, in particular the coloration of and marks on the skin of his lower torso, buttocks and genitals, including a particular blemish on his penis. Jordan was asked to draw a picture of Mr. Jackson’s erect penis and to locate on that drawing any distinctive marks he recalled. Jordan did so. The drawing was signed and dated by Jordan Chandler and was attached as Exhibit 1 to Detective Ferrufino’s report in LAPD Case No. 930822245.

4. On December 13,1993, as part of the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s investigation into young Chandler’s allegations a search warrant was obtained authorizing the search of Michael Jackson’s person and for the taking of photographs of his genitals. That warrant was executed at Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara on December 20, 1993. The resulting photographs have been retained by the Sheriff’s Department, under tight security. (Note: the Veritas Project says the security was so ‘tight’ that even Geraldo Rivera saw the photos)

5. 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 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 the Defendant’s penis is substantially corroborated by the photographs taken by Santa Barbara Sheriff’s detectives at a later time.

6. I believe evidence of Jordan Chandler’s knowledge, as evidenced by his verbal description and drawing, when considered together with the photograph of Defendant’s penis, substantially rebuts the opinion evidence offered by witnesses for Defendant to the effect that he is of a “shy” and “modest” nature and so would not have exposed his naked body in the presence of young boys.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct except for those statements made on information and belief, and as to those statements, I believe them to be true.

Executed May 26, 2005, at Santa Maria, California.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf

Did you NOTICE IT?

I mean not the fact that Tom Sneddon didn’t mention any expert’s opinion about that determination and said it was him who compared Jordan’s description with the photos.  And not even the fact that he fully omitted Jordan’s blunder with the circumcision issue, slyly replacing it with “erection”. And even not his extremely vague phrase about something indefinite found “at about the same relative location” as the one marked by Jordan Chandler.

No, I am not talking about all that, though these minor details are important too.

I am talking about one thing where Tom Sneddon is blatantly lying. 

He is speaking of a dark spot located by Jordan back in 1993 while the boy was universally quoted as saying it was a light color similar to the color of his face”!  So what the prosecutor called a dark spot, the boy called a light one!

Can it be some small matter of no importance? No, it cannot, because it is not the problem of just one spot. It is the problem of the general color of MJ’s genitalia, as a light spot can be found only on a dark background while a dark one can be seen only on a light background!

Well, the photos are a primary source of information of course and they showed the blemish as dark – so the background in real life was light-colored (while Jordan thought that the genitalia were dark). And this means that Jordan didn’t even know the general color of the whole thing let alone its details!

So first he made a guess about the circumcision and got it wrong, and then he tried to guess the general color of the penis and was wrong AGAIN?

Mind it that when someone is as speckled as Michael was, whichever way you describe it was very difficult to miss.  But even despite all the easiness of such a guess Jordan was still wrong and made a terrible mess of his evidence missing the mark on the two basic points – the circumcision issue and the general color of Michael Jackson’s man parts!

Well, if this was ‘accurate’ in Tom Sneddon’s opinion, what is inaccuracy then? 

Are these people able to tell white from black at all? Of course they are, and this explains why Tom Sneddon never asked Dr. Strick’s opinion about that matter and deliberately lied about the subject. He talked about that “telltale splotch” in 2005 when everyone forgot how Jordan initially described it and this lapse in memory was exactly what Tom Sneddon hoped for.

Tom Sneddon’s declaration was most probably sheer bluff from the very start of it as he hoped no one would care to check up what the boy indeed claimed!

But could there be a mistake made in the earlier reports about Jordan’s words? Well, the media is quoting it as an established fact (see the Smoking Gun haters’s report here ). Back in 1993 Jordan’s revelations about the light color of that blemish were all over the internet with his words never disputed or corrected.

No, dear haters, it is TOO LATE now to  say it was a mistake. What is much more probable is that the media was in so much hurry to make a dirty story out of Jordan’s allegations that they did a terrible disservice to themselves – first they hurriedly reported his lies and spit them out for several months running, and by the time the photos were made  Jordan’s words had been so heavily publicized that they were unable to revoke them.

They faced the alternative of either having to disprove their own stories or just let it go in the hope that no one would really notice…. And the second variant was indeed what happened – in the hysteria raging against Jackson at the time no one really noticed that the color of that blemish miraculously changed to its opposite.

After a pause caused by the embarrassment of the mismatch Diane Dimond made a complete U-turn in respect of that spot and shamelessly carried out a new onslaught against Jackson saying now that a ‘dark splotch’ found on Michael’s man parts ‘matched’ the boy’s description.

A dark spot was probably found, only the boy had never said that there was one. And seeing Diane Dimond’s readiness to change her course in line with Tom Sneddon’s new strategy, there can be no more doubt as to who she was in cahoots with and who arranged for her all those leaks of highly confidential information. Tom Sneddon of course.

Why are leaks of information by the prosecution considered illegal and even criminal the world over? Because they give a decisive advantage to the accuser’s side (whose claims are not necessarily correct). They break the “innocent until proven guilty” principle and destroy the defendant even before any trial takes place. Who needs hearing a case in the court of law if the court of public opinion passes its verdict before the trial has even started – and in a much more destructive and ruinous manner and independent of the verdict of the jury too?

What does it matter that the two grand juries (more than 100 miles apart from each other) looked into all this trash collected by Tom Sneddon in 1993 and found no grounds for indicting Michael?

What of it that the whole thing was a complete nonsense from beginning to end where nothing added up and there were no facts to corroborate the accuser’s crazy story?

The public opinion was already formed, the life of an innocent man destroyed, his good name done away with and his health forever ruined – and all this just over nothing…

JUST AS MICHAEL ALWAYS TOLD US AND WE NEVER BELIEVED HIM.


(Note: this is the last of a 3 part series; here is the link to part 1 and part 2.)

45 Comments leave one →
  1. MJRR permalink
    June 14, 2014 7:28 pm

    Yes, yes, thank you. We’ve later found it too. Think of the irony of it – what Michael’s haters were so much gloating about turned into the crucial documents proving his innocence.

    You can never completely delete something from the internet, and people have underestimated MJ’s fans. Evidence can’t be hidden forever and they lost this battle.

    Like

  2. June 13, 2014 5:05 pm

    “Thought you’d like to know that the telltale splotch article is still around, it’s on the wayback machine internet archive:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20100326035103/http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jacksonsplotch.html” – MJRR

    Yes, yes, thank you. We’ve later found it too. Think of the irony of it – what Michael’s haters were so much gloating about turned into the crucial documents proving his innocence.

    Like

  3. MJRR permalink
    June 10, 2014 3:19 am

    Thought you’d like to know that the telltale splotch article is still around, it’s on the wayback machine internet archive:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20100326035103/http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jacksonsplotch.html

    Like

  4. February 3, 2014 8:11 am

    This professor Ponder is so backward looking.Personally I have worked with several black people in both London and NYC, from doctors,professors to nurses, aides guards, the whole social register.At the very first you of course notice their looks including skin colour.
    With time their personality takes over and with increasing contacts you totally forget to think of them in a racial manner.You feel symphathy and emphaty just the same whatever colour their skin.And take a look at the people Michael worked with, you will find all shades there.

    Like

  5. February 3, 2014 7:50 am

    All modern peoples originate from Africa. -Everybody knows about the crime of black slavery and of the maltreatment of indigenous people in Australia, early America and other places.
    Michael above all wanted that all people are worth human respect.His own change to whiteness had nothing to do with this.He expressed these opinions in his art.And what is wrong with mixed race? Michael, as far as I undestand had some westindian heritage from both of his parents.
    About that splotch, later Michael much regretted not to force the case to court. The Chandlers absolutely wanted civil court as money was their goal.
    And scary that something had gone missing from Helenas blog.Who knows, some have much money to spend on such ventures.

    Like

  6. sanemjfan permalink
    January 5, 2012 7:03 am

    Here is a rebuttal from andjustice4some to Prof. Pinder’s sloppily researched article on MJ! http://mjandjustice4some.blogspot.com/2011/12/quandary-of-being-michael-jackson.html

    Like

  7. Truth Prevail permalink
    December 18, 2011 12:45 am

    The ultimate example of that occurred when, during his child-molestation trial, the prosecution displayed a photograph of his penis”.

    For someone who claims to have researched about michael seems to me she knows jack shit!

    “Chico State professor has thought long and hard and read voluminously about the entertainer”

    Wonder what she read? The Daily Mail, The Sun Tabloids!

    Like

  8. ares permalink
    December 17, 2011 3:49 am

    I just wonder what is this professor going to quote or use as a reference for her essay? The tabloids? And to think the professors in my university used to fail those projects or essays that had wikipedia as their reference. Who knew that a collegue of them would go even further.

    Like

  9. December 17, 2011 2:25 am

    “To Sherrow Pinder, the changes Michael Jackson wrought on his face through multiple surgeries comprised a unique response to the crisis of identity black Americans face. Chico State professor has thought long and hard and read voluminously about the entertainer”

    If this Professor is researching black identity issues in the same way she researches Michael Jackson the situation with her scientific findings is just deplorable.

    “Jackson’s violent reconstruction of his face and skin was the product of a desire “to anchor himself in racial particularity, neither black nor white,” Pinder stated. His longing was not “to undo blackness and retrieve toward whiteness but toward a form of racial ambiguity.”

    This woman is completely ignorant of the huge health issues Michael was facing! She is building some philosophical conclusions around a totally wrong premise – which make her “scientific “conclusions highly dubious too. All this sounds to me like the same fake science which Dr. White’s testimony represented during Murray’s trial.

    Michael was not “anchoring himself in being neither black or white” as this professor says – firstly, he had not control over the process of going white, and secondly, his disease showed in a highly symbolic way that the main path the racial issues would be resolved in the years to come would be not taking the races apart, but rather bringing them together.

    I think it is obvious to all of us that within the next hundred years or so all races will be mixed into one more or less uniform race – where the majority of people will be somewhat tanned in color and have a little bit of Chinese look to their eyes.

    Mixing races together is the general trend and fighting it is like spitting against the wind – nothing will stop the process whether people like it or not.

    “Ultimately, Pinder stated, Jackson wanted out of the constraint of identification in racial terms, “begging society not to ‘black or white [him].’ ” But the “polymorphous ambiguities” that resulted from his effort to avoid categorization led people to think him “weird,” and ultimately to his demise.”

    So it was because Michael was neither here nor there is why he died so early? And this ‘ambiguous’ fate and quick demise are awaiting every person who has the misfortune to be neither here nor there due to their biracial origin?

    I agree that their life is not easy, as each side is pulling in its own direction and no one accepts the person as his own, but what I know for sure is that even if Michael had this problem it wasn’t what brought about his demise. It was people’s hate, their craving for his money and Murray’s criminal negligence which did the job – and not the ambiguity in his racial identity he felt or struggled due to his looks.

    And even if it was a problem for Michael now it is turning into a factor which is really starting to bring the races together as each side has at least begun to look at the other one with much more interest than before. And it is absolutely not the right time to talk about pulling anyone back into “his” identity only – no, all this talk is only going counter to the general trend in which the events are taking us.

    “The ultimate example of that occurred when, during his child-molestation trial, the prosecution displayed a photograph of his penis”.

    No comment.

    Like

  10. sanemjfan permalink
    December 16, 2011 2:50 am

    There is a college professor who recently wrote the soon to be published essay “Michael Jackson: Grasping The Spectacle” (which will be available next year), and in it she made a terrible error in her research that MUST be corrected! Here is an article on her: http://www.newsreview.com/chico/quandary-of-being-michael/content?oid=4624036

    The quandary of being Michael Jackson

    To Sherrow Pinder, the changes Michael Jackson wrought on his face through multiple surgeries comprised a unique response to the crisis of identity black Americans face.

    Whatever one thinks of Michael Jackson the person, he was unquestionably an extraordinary artist and public figure—hugely talented, more famous than most presidents, wealthy beyond measure and idiosyncratic in ways most people can’t begin to fathom.

    Chico State professor Sherrow Pinder has thought long and hard and read voluminously about the entertainer, and Monday night (Dec. 12), before an audience of perhaps 75, she shared her insights in the form of the keynote lecture, “Michael Jackson and the Quandary of a Black Identity,” at the College of Behavioral and Social Science’s annual colloquium, held in the BMU Auditorium.

    Pinder, who grew up in the small South American nation of Guyana and received her doctorate in 2003 from the New School for Social Research in New York City, is an assistant professor in both the Political Science and Multicultural and Gender Studies departments. She’s the author of three books, the most recent of which, Whiteness and Racialized Ethnic Groups in the United States: The Politics of Remembering, is scheduled for release this week.

    Pinder’s vast reading in the literature of race and ethnicity was evident from the beginning of her talk, which began with a quotation from Frantz Fanon’s seminal 1967 work, Black Skin, White Mask. Fanon’s proposition—that the black man “not only must … be black; he must be black in relation to the white man,” thus creating a profound crisis of identity—applies fully and obviously to Michael Jackson, Pinder argued.

    This crisis leads to what W.E.B. DuBois calls “double consciousness,” Pinder said, “wherein Jackson, like all blacks in America … has difficulties in developing his sense of ‘self’ in a culture that normalizes whiteness as an ontological neutral category and upholds the subject as raceless and unmarked.”

    Whiteness, in other words, is made synonymous with being human, and blackness is “the other,” a constructed identity that “relies on an absolute contempt for the lived complexities of blackness ….”

    Jackson’s violent reconstruction of his face and skin was the product of a desire “to anchor himself in racial particularity, neither black nor white,” Pinder stated. His longing was not “to undo blackness and retrieve toward whiteness but toward a form of racial ambiguity.

    And yet there was no escaping his blackness, she said, and “he continues to be seen through what Fanon calls the ‘corporeal malediction’ of his unavoidable blackness.” Like every black person in America, he had to “live the color line, the racial divide, which bears witness to the existential dilemma that inhabits the very core of his sense of ‘self.’”

    That dilemma played out in the most public of ways. With every appearance he made, Jackson left behind a video record of his gradual transformation. Pinder quoted the scholar Cynthia Fuchs: “[H]is history is recounted through visual imagery, reconfirming that his body is the site of a visible identity, an effect of erasure, repetition, and resurrection.”

    By changing his appearance, Jackson was challenging the dominant notion that natural bodies and fixed identities are prearranged and controlled. It was for this reason that society had to resist, restrict or, worse, punish and humiliate him in order to safeguard the realm of normality, Pinder said.

    The ultimate example of that occurred when, during his child-molestation trial, the prosecution displayed a photograph of his penis, Pinder said. Noting that the penis “is a metaphorical substitute for the black man,” she said the display played “into whites’ fears, vulnerabilities, and hypersensitivities of the imaginary dangers of black masculinity.”

    To black men, of course, whites’ association of them with dangerous sexual masculinity produces an understandable fear of castration.

    Ultimately, Pinder stated, Jackson wanted out of the constraint of identification in racial terms, “begging society not to ‘black or white [him].’ ” But the “polymorphous ambiguities” that resulted from his effort to avoid categorization led people to think him “weird,” and ultimately to his demise.

    Professor Pinder’s essay is scheduled to be published in Michael Jackson: Grasping the Spectacle (Ashgate Press), edited by Christopher Smit and appearing next year.

    First of all, I’ve already proven that although MJ had plastic surgery, he did NOT “violently reconstruct” his face OR skin! And he also did not want to become “racially ambiguous”!

    But the thing that jumped out at me, espcially coming from a Ph.D. (which means she KNOWS how to do research!) is that she said photos of MJ’s penis were shown during the trial. THAT IS NOT TRUE!!! Sneddon filed a motion to have the photos shown, the defense filed a counter-motion to have them rejected, and Judge Melville ruled in the defense’s favor! Read a summary of Day 61 for more info: http://mj-upbeat.com/TrialMJJSourcePG3.htm#DAY46MJTRIAL

    Overall, I appreciate that she’s trying to research and analyze MJ from an academic level, but unlike Joe Vogel, Raven Woods (author of the All For Love blog), and Dr. Willa Stillwater (author of Dancing With The Elephant blog on the blogroll), her analysis of MJ is ALL WRONG! She “overdid it”, so to speak, and she’s going overboard in her analysis!

    Since she didn’t show any observable malice or condescension towards MJ, I think that she can be reasoned with, and I’m gonna try to contact her and make her aware of her mistake. Hopefully she’ll listen! This can easily be misconstrued by her audiences as “MJ didn’t want to be black!”

    Like

  11. shelly permalink
    December 4, 2010 11:34 pm

    I just realised something, Sneddon said himself that the color of the splotch was wrong. He said that Jordan spoke about a dark blemish but himself spoke a discoloration.

    “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 the discoloration Chandler identified in his drawing was not something he could or would have guessed about, or could have seen accidentally.”

    Like

  12. Olga permalink
    November 22, 2010 1:45 pm

    smokkinggun belongs to court tv. I think that court tv now belongs to cnn

    Like

  13. November 22, 2010 10:30 am

    “What is going on? Why are those articles removed?”

    Visitor, because it seems we are dealing with an organized effort to eliminate everything that could allow Michael’s followers to find the real truth – they want only their version to stay. If they were ashamed that they ‘overdid’ it towards Michael they would be removing everything now not to leave any traces – but no, they remove only those things which contradict their own stories.

    Funnily, but this way they are giving us enough proof that there is someone behind the scenes who arranged Michael’s defamation campaign on purpose, orchestrated it for many years and is still busy doing it. They are proving it themselves!

    In their place I would leave everything intact because their hasty efforts to ‘revise’ the past are too self-incriminating. It’s great that Lynette is storing everything (please do the same whenever you see something valuable) – one day we should find a possibility to show everyone the history the way it was and not the way they want to present it.

    Who they? I don’t know, but suspect it is some media monster with too many heads.

    Like

  14. Lynette permalink
    November 22, 2010 12:37 am

    Don’t worry I have it. I have everything from th esmoking gun I just have to organize it and I have been very busy lately bu I will.

    Like

  15. visitor permalink
    November 22, 2010 12:24 am

    @Helana

    “Please try this catched copy of it and save it on your computers just in case it disappears too:

    http://74.6.239.185/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=sMOKING+GUN+tHE+TELLTALE+SPLOTCH&fr=yfp-t-701&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=sMOKING+GUN+tHE+TELLTALE+SPLOTCH&d=4661809158030181&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=225d5fa3,b179e14&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=I5GPsYEs7uE2.Y2URgMi9Q–

    It’s not there Helena. What is going on? Why are those articles removed?

    Like

  16. lcpledwards permalink
    August 21, 2010 11:30 am

    Helena, I noticed too that the Smoking Gun has redesigned their site, and some of that stuff is gone! I originally linked to the DCFS report from Feb. 2003, but it was gone so I had to find it from another site and link to it. Everyone should save any article you reference to your hard drive, in case it ever “disappears” or “expires”.

    Thanks for including that seminar on your blogroll! I was so flabbergasted when I watched it because I didn’t even know it was available at all! I always thought that perhaps someone snuck in a video camera and released that snippet of Mesereau explaining how he had witnesses prepared to testify against Jordie Chandler.

    On a more positive note, in case you guys missed it when it aired, here is a video of the ABC 20/20 special that aired on the 1 year anniversary of his death. It’s 2 hours long and it’s divided into 11 parts. There are other MJ specials on this user’s site as well, such as MJ: Devotion and the FUSE special. Enjoy!

    http://www.youtube.com/user/LuvofMJ#p/u/16/0V7dXQs62Q0

    Like

  17. August 21, 2010 9:54 am

    Teva, I haven’t read those posts where the photographer said he couldn’t take pictures. But if they say so, the whole thing is laughable – firstly, he went there specifically for the purpose of making pictures and didn’t have a flash or a film available to him?
    Secondly, the pictures were there as no other than Tom Sneddon referred to them in his declaration made before the 2005 trial.
    And thirdly, Jordan spoke of nothing but “a light splotch similar to the color of his face” the way it is reported by the Smoking gun, which in its turn is referring to the so-called Linden report (which no one has ever seen) and on the basis of which an affidavit for Michael’s strip search was made (which no one has ever seen either except Michael’s lawyers to whom it was presented in a heavily redacted version with numerous points blocked out).

    So if you look into the ‘evidence’ side of what the police had to support the Chandlers’ case you will see only what they SAID and NO REAL EVIDENCE AT ALL – which in its turn explains why the grand jury had nothing to indict Michael for.

    Information about “Linden’s report” is here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jacksonsplotch.html

    ATTENTION PLEASE: the above link was stored on my computer. But when I tried to enter it I found that it was NO LONGER AVAILABLE ON THE SMOKING GUN! I’ve just talked on a different thread about a similar case of manipulation the Dialdancer noticed too and HERE I AM TO SEE THAT THE MANIPULATION IS INDEED TAKING PLACE!

    Please try this catched copy of it and save it on your computers just in case it disappears too: http://74.6.239.185/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=sMOKING+GUN+tHE+TELLTALE+SPLOTCH&fr=yfp-t-701&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=sMOKING+GUN+tHE+TELLTALE+SPLOTCH&d=4661809158030181&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=225d5fa3,b179e14&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=I5GPsYEs7uE2.Y2URgMi9Q–

    Like

  18. lcpledwards permalink
    August 21, 2010 7:16 am

    @ Teva

    I think you may be referring to what Diane Dimond said in her book regarding the photographer saying he “tried” to take certain photos but couldn’t for those reasons that you mentioned. She wrote something like that in her book. She tried every excuse under the sun to try and say the description didn’t match because of “technical issues” regarding the camera or photographer or whatever. However, one thing that neither she nor Maureen Orth even mentioned was the fact that MJ was NOT circumcised when Jordie claimed that he was.

    Don’t worry about all of the technical details of what color the splotches were, where they were located, etc. Instead, if you want to prove to somebody that the photos didn’t match, then show them that article from Jan. 5th 1994 that I referenced in the article “Refuting the Legal Analysts”. In that article, Feldman made 3 requests to the court, which were all denied: he wanted copies of the photos, he wanted MJ stripped search a second time, and (in case the first two were rejected) he wanted the original photos barred from the civil trial

    If the photos truly matched, then WHY would he wanted them excluded from the trial? He wanted them excluded because they did NOT match, and didn’t want MJ to use it as exculpatory evidence! Read my post for more analysis, and open Lynette’s page below for the article and her analysis!

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/see-through-lies-seminar/lynettes-page/

    Like

  19. August 20, 2010 11:08 pm

    I am confused. In some posts it is said that Jordan pin pointed some pink and brown spots on the underside of MJ’s penis. However, the photographer said he saw them, but could not take the picture because he did not have a flash, assistant etc. Here is my problem, he took pictures of everything else, he had a camera present, there was a videographer present, he had a search warrant. What was the big problem? What was preventing him from taking these pictures? Did he run out of film/polaroids.

    Like

  20. July 26, 2010 8:14 pm

    Gotod: “I think that Sneddon’s observation about the ” DARK blemish located by Jordan back in 1993″ is about the black mark that Jordie draw in the picture that the police asked him. So of course the blemish would been dark. Sneddon sais : ” 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” Jordie was asked to draw everything in a paper.Sneddon compared the dark mark of Jordie’s draw with the mark of the photos. Well this is what i think.”

    Gotod, I would probably agree with you if we were discussing pictures drawn by children in the kindergarten – neither color, nor location of spots is important there.

    But if we are talking about a piece of evidence on the basis of which somebody will go (or not go) to prison for the rest of his life, the color of the blemish and its background become not just mere ‘generalities’. If Jordan said that the blemish was light (‘the same color as the color of his face’) it was out of the question for Tom Sneddon to refer to it as dark – in his official declaration! – just because the blemish was drawn on a white piece of paper and marked by a dark pen/pencil.

    Tom Sneddon isn’t a kid to pretend he spoke of it as dark “because it was marked on a white piece of paper”.
    In official papers they make special mention of the color of the spot and its background. They probably didn’t do it here to have more room for further maneuvering and twisting facts to suit their ever-changing stories.

    It is unbelievable that anyone could be trashed for years over a scrap of paper like that with NOTHING being correct there!

    Like

  21. lynande51 permalink
    July 25, 2010 10:41 pm

    According to their book All That Glitters they gave a description in September and then again on December 14th six days before the strip search. There is another date as a caption on the bottom of the drawing that accompanied the book as October 24th at 11:45 pm. It seems that for someone who was making daily journal or diary entries they sure got mixed up on a lot of things doesn’t it. Like I said before it is pretty clear that Ray Chandler didn’t read that thing before he paid to have it published under his name. I think all the conflicting details just shows that it was written before anything ever happened.

    Like

  22. July 25, 2010 10:00 pm

    @Dialdancer,
    I don’t know the date. All I know is it was after the December 20, 1993 stripped search.

    Like

  23. Dialdancer permalink
    July 25, 2010 9:29 pm

    @ realist411. Excuse me I am still trying to catch up to you folks with the research. You said: “There were at least two different descriptions given by Jordan Chandler. One before the search, and one after” When did this other description take place?

    Like

  24. July 25, 2010 5:53 pm

    I just would like to say that, I applaud you all for your good work, research, and good patience with all of this mess. Sometimes I can’t even read all of this without my chest gripping and my throat start’s hurting. But all -and all I have to face up, and just research and and do it with an open mind. Without prejudice whatsoever. And found out that while researching your amazing site, just how crooked these two accuser’s families were. I mean I already knew that they weren’t being serious as oppose to victims, of Michael Jackson so- called molesting their children.

    Just thanks for your hard work.🙂

    Like

  25. July 24, 2010 8:13 am

    Helena,
    The video is one of the videos posted here http://www.tmz.com/tmz-live/

    It’s been awhile since I’ve watched it so I’m not sure which one it is. But if it is not up anymore, TMZ has an online chat Monday-Friday at 7 pm where you can ask questions. You can asked them about it again there, if you want.

    Hope that helps.

    @ Shelly,
    I’m not sure what you’re asking me?
    (aka realist 411. Accidentally logged in with wrong name)

    Like

  26. gotod permalink
    July 24, 2010 1:48 am

    I am sorry for saying this, but i think that Sneddon’s observation about the ” DARK blemish located by Jordan back in 1993″ is about the black mark that Jordie draw in the picture that the police asked him. So of course the blemish would been dark. Sneddon sais : ” 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” Jordie was asked to draw everything in a paper.Sneddon compared the dark mark of Jordie’s draw with the mark of the photos. Well this is what i think.

    Like

  27. ares permalink
    July 24, 2010 1:05 am

    @ David
    I completely agree with you.When they realised that they had nothing agains MJ they desided to trash his image. And they did a pretty good job because they had they media on their side. And they still do.

    Like

  28. David permalink
    July 24, 2010 12:40 am

    Those damn photos DID NOT match Jordie’s description! Sneddon wanted to introduce the photos as evidence as a last ditch attempt to humiliate MJ and prejudice the jury into thinking MJ was guilty. That’s why Judge Melville prevented them from being shown. Now, had Jordie had the guts to show up in court, then he could have told the jury himself the photos did or did not match, and the judge would have permitted them.

    If the whole point of the photos was to see if there was a match, which would have given Sneddon the probable cause to arrest MJ, and he subsequently was NOT arrested, then that should have been all the proof we need to know the photos didn’t match! I wish a hater would try to explain how MJ wasn’t arrested if the photos matched?

    In case you guys haven’t read it yet, here is the January 1994 USA Today article, well more like a blurb, that stated it didn’t match. Notice how Larry Feldman publicly reiterated that the settlement was NOT hush money, yet media vultures like Dimond and Grace continue to peddle that garbage! Notice how it was buried in the middle of the paper, instead of being on the front page!

    http://site2.mjeol.com/pdf/important-article/photos-may-contradict-michael-s-accuser-1994.pdf

    Like

  29. lynande51 permalink
    July 23, 2010 11:36 pm

    He could have introduced the photos but not Jordans actual description but his own declaration that the description was a match. This would have forced Michael to once again agree to photos of his genitalia to defend himself. He probably knew that Tom Mesereau would object to it because he knew Michael couldn’t have taken it again. Sneddon was an odious toad of a man, more interested in humilliating Michael than serving justice. He deserved that song.

    Like

  30. July 23, 2010 10:32 pm

    @Shelly

    Are you saying if the pictures didn’t prove something, why would Sneddon want to introduce them?
    Good point. But which description was he going to use?
    Also why were they introduced at the very end of the trial and not the beginning. Being a seasoned attorney he would have known it would be risky to introduce such evidence without opposing counsel knowledge. Also when the 1108 evidence was being given I would have started with a concrete match up, plant the suspicion early in the jury’s mind instead of calling dubious characters. Calling it at the very end he ran the risk of the judge barring it, which he did. He should have stated his intentions from the get go.

    Like

  31. shelly permalink
    July 23, 2010 9:01 pm

    @ realist 411

    What I found the most interesting in the article you posted is that

    “But defense attorney Robert Sanger called the photographs an “unfair surprise” and said prosecutors had “not even hinted that they were going to try this tactic in advance.”

    Why would they do that if the pictures proved something?

    Like

  32. July 12, 2010 7:33 am

    JA, can you give a link to the descriptions and videos provided by TMZ, please? I would like to have a look as this is serious research we are doing here and no piece of evidence should go unattended. Thank you in advance.

    Like

  33. Truth permalink
    July 10, 2010 11:41 pm

    How can it be that Jordan was allowed to give a second description AFTER the search? How can Sneddon justify that? Sneddon went against proper practice on so many levels and on so many occasions.

    Remember when he got Gavin to handle the magazine during the grand jury proceedings and THEN packed it up and sent it for fingerprinting search.

    Or the the time he abused his power during the search.

    What a joke.

    Like

  34. July 10, 2010 10:22 pm

    Suzy,
    Sneddon asked for MJ’s medical records after the search to see if he altered his appearance. Sneddon knew from the jump that the description didn’t match. He lied. I believe that’s why the photos have never been leaked out. If they were, then everybody would know the Sneddon lied and that the allegations were false.

    Like

  35. Suzy permalink
    July 10, 2010 10:11 pm

    @ JA

    Thank you for this info. I didn’t know this. It certainly makes one wonder: why did he need to give another description at all AFTER the search? It surely looks like that the first description turned out to be not satisfactory after the photographs were taken….

    Like

  36. July 10, 2010 10:03 pm

    Suzy,
    Jordan Chandler did give the Police at least two different descriptions. TMZ had one of their live online chats, and they confirmed this. TMZ said that one of the descriptions was after the search. The police gave Jordan a diagram of the male anatomy, and asked him to draw where he thought the blemishes were. The video of the chat is on TMZ’s website.

    Like

  37. Suzy permalink
    July 10, 2010 8:26 am

    Helena,

    I agree and I emphasized this fact about the colors in my latest blog entry about the subject.

    @ realist411

    I don’t know if this “then” in the article is just a mistake or it was really the case that Jordie gave two descriptions: one before and one after. Does anybody know more about it?

    Knowing how Sneddon was trying to temper with evidence in 2003 (the fingerprint evidence, for example) it wouldn’t surprise me if they would let Jordie “correct” some of his statements after the photos were taken. But then I would think the description would have been a match, a perfect match, which it wasn’t. Unless they weren’t so brave to correct everything (for example it would have been very transparent if Jordie had said “he was circumsized” before and then suddenly, after the strip search he would have changed that to “non-circumsized” – but they could make him place a splotch somewhere at least, or make him correct the location of a splotch to be “approximately” where it should be).

    Like

  38. July 10, 2010 7:01 am

    Suzy: “So they hang on one single splotch that was APPROXIMATELY where Jordan said it would be”

    Just one more remark before I run away for a couple of days. When we think of that “one single splotch” we always forget about its COLOR – which in my opinion is the main thing which makes the description ridiculous.

    Question:
    if you see two cows – one with one DARK splotch on its skin and the other with a LIGHT splotch on its skin, what will be the overall color of each of these cows?
    Answer: the first cow will be WHITE and the second cow will be BLACK.

    Okay, it is more or less possible to misplace the splotch. But is it possible to confuse a white cow with a black one?

    The fact that Jordan reportedly saw ‘a light splotch the color of Michael’s face’ and Tom Sneddon in his declaration spoke about ‘a dark splotch’ (at approximately the same place) means, figuratively speaking, that Jordan was speaking about a BLACK cow and Sneddon was speaking about a WHITE one.

    MICHAEL WAS A WHITE COW as the PICTURES on the basis of which Sneddon was making his declaration evidently showed it. And JORDAN DIDN’T KNOW THAT MICHAEL WAS WHITE IN THAT PART OF HIS BODY.

    He didn’t know this BASIC thing despite all those terribly graphic activities he was allegedly involved in, described in his ‘declaration’ (the authentity of which I very much doubt) and his talk with a psychiatrist? Come on…

    Like

  39. July 10, 2010 5:13 am

    There were at least two different descriptions given by Jordan Chandler. One before the search, and one after. “When prosecutors were trying to gather evidence against the singer back then [in 1993], they served a subpoena at his home that allowed them to photograph his genitalia.

    They THEN had the accuser draw a picture of what he thought the genitalia looked like.”
    http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/7993269

    Sneddon doesn’t mention the multiple descriptions in his declaration either.

    Like

  40. Suzy permalink
    July 9, 2010 9:22 am

    Besides Sneddon omitting the mention of circumcision the other thing I realized is how he (and the Smoking Gun website too) just hangs on this one splotch on his penis. In Jordan’s description there are several splotches mentioned both on his penis and buttocks. But we don’t hear anything about those. Did they match? Did they not match? Notice how nothing is said about them. (At least I haven’t seen anything. Correct me if I’m wrong.) So they hang on one single splotch that was APPROXIMATELY where Jordan said it would be and they run away with it. But their silence on the rest (including the circumcision) is rather telling….

    Like

  41. Suzy permalink
    July 9, 2010 9:06 am

    Shelly,

    Here is the quote from the Smoking Gun link that Helena gave:

    “With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson’s below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive “splotches” on his buttocks and one on his penis, “which is a light color similar to the color of his face.” The boy’s information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson’s penis was erect, the length of the performer’s pubic hair, and that he was circumcised.”

    It’s clear he is speaking about the splotches being light, not the penis. (And of course, we all know the rest, about Michael being circumcised is a big fat lie.)

    Like

  42. David permalink
    June 29, 2010 7:12 pm

    Hey Helena, the paparazzi took some photos of MJ’s kids while they were on vacation in Hawaii, and it appears that Prince has vitiligo! There is a HUGE white patch near his right armpit, and they showed the photos to a dermatologist, who confirmed that it appears to be vitiligo. It also looks like his skin is getting patches on his hands, and on his left arm as well!

    Hopefully this will prove that these are MJ’s biological kids once and for all!

    http://www.insideedition.com/news/4657/does-michael-jacksons-son-have-vitiligo.aspx

    Like

  43. shelly permalink
    May 13, 2010 10:48 pm

    “it was a LIGHT color similar to the color of his face”

    I always thought Jordan was speaking about MJ’s penis when he said it was a light color.

    Like

  44. April 23, 2010 8:36 am

    Sharon, my name is Helena, hello again. If we had been in Michael’s place we’d have settled too. Young people crave for life and all the good things it can give – so every day counts, let alone 6-7 years of possible court proceedings Michael’s lawyers promised him.

    Yes, it would have been GREAT if Thomas Mesereau had been around Michael in 1993 and the trial had taken place…. I hope one day some enterprising TV guy makes a mock trial on the basis of all the documents and the REAL facts now surfacing ground.

    I know that I am not alone in the effort to vindicate Michael, but what makes it really depressing is that though the innocent truth is being uncovered now it seems that the general public doesn’t really want it – they’ve fallen out of the habit to make any analysis and look for easy reading and sensational facts to be put right into their mouths. The quality and credibility of information is of no importance – people just want to be ENTERTAINED, and it doesn’t really matter whether anyone’s life is being ruined in the process.

    It seems that the truth about Michael will take the upper hand over lies only when (or if) people start appreciating the truth as the most valuable asset they can ever have.

    Like

  45. April 21, 2010 8:05 pm

    I do so wish that Michael had taken this on to trial, and had Mr. Messereau as his attorney. I would LOVE to have seen Sneddon and Evan blasted.
    I know he was pretty young and wanted it to go away. He also had too many advisors good and bad. He always did.
    Wishes don’t help though. It’s way too late.
    Keep on trying-I don’t know your name-you are not alone in this effort. I just don’t get why the haters’ hate is so strong.

    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: