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

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. 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 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.)