The story of “The Telltale Splotch” missing from the Smoking Gun
The article called THE TELLTALE SPLOTCH has suddenly vanished from the Smoking gun pages.
The article was my main reference source for the so-called Linden report (I bet you’ve never heard about it), so its disappearance put me very much on the alert.
The Smoking Gun published it as part of a package of horrifically slanderous articles on the 2005 trial but the article in question dwelt on something different – it referred to the 1993 case and in particular to a certain splotch which was allegedly seen by Jordan Chandler on Michael’s private parts and described by him as “the color similar to the color of his face” (I dealt with Jordan’s description in three parts of “All you wanted to know about it but were afraid to ask” post and won’t discuss it here).
Quote from the Smoking Gun:
- “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”.
This remarkable statement was allegedly fixed in the report made by Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Deputy Deborah Linden which is usually described in the media as the Linden affidavit (not to be confused with Jordan’s declaration of Dec.28,1993!). The Linden document must be such a terrible secret that no one has ever seen it, though those who talk about it are many.
Linden’s report was the legal basis for issuing a warrant for Michael Jackson’s strip search. The idea of it was to compare the description given by Jordan with the photographs which were taken of Michael Jackson’s genitals during a humiliating and totally degrading procedure arranged on December 20, 1993 (as a Christmas present to him?).
To add to the humiliation of the intimate examination which takes place only in prisons or with those who are arrested or detained on charges of sexual abuse (which was absolutely not Michael’s case as no criminal charges were brought against him), Michael Jackson was asked to ‘adjust’ his private parts so that the audience could see the splotch the boy allegedly described as being somewhere there “on the bottom”.
Complete silence fell after the strip search was made. A week after it the police were still completely dumbfounded by the discovery that Michael Jackson was not circumcised (while Jordan Chandler said he was) and by other inconsistencies between the description and the photographs, and were evidently not ready to make any official statement. The only thing they ventured was some talk about the pictures not taken properly because there was no flash, no film, no camera or whatever other equipment they forgot to take to that notable examination.
In the absence of any clear comments from the police the Chandlers had to fill the awkward silence with something substantial and as a retaliatory blow presented the public with a Declaration in Jordan’s name of December 28, 1993, which, instead of giving any news about the genitals issue, spoke of Jordan-Michael’s ‘relationship’ in most graphic detail and no uncertain terms.
However the pictures were still not giving the Chandlers a moment of quiet and a week later, on January 5, 1994 the Chandlers’ lawyer Larry Feldman suddenly demanded that:
1) a copy of the photographs taken during the strip search should be provided to the Chandlers,
2) another photo session should be arranged for Michael Jackson’s private parts
3) or he would motion for the court to bar the photographs from the civil trial as evidence altogether.
THE METROPOLITAN DIGEST in their LOS ANGELES COUNTY NEWS IN BRIEF column reported in this connection:
Boy’s Lawyer Seeks Photos of Michael Jackson’s Body
Metropolitan Digest / LOS ANGELES COUNTY NEWS IN BRIEF
The attorney representing a 13-year-old boy who claims he was molested by Michael Jackson filed court documents Tuesday in an effort to obtain photographs of the entertainer’s body.
Last month, Jackson submitted to a body search by investigators seeking evidence to corroborate the boy’s claims.
“We think that the fact that my client can establish what Mr. Jackson looks like naked is very substantial evidence of Mr. Jackson’s guilt,” said Larry Feldman, the boy’s attorney.
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.
Feldman said he has asked Jackson’s attorneys and the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office for copies, but they refused. http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-05/local/me-8514_1_michael-jackson
- either show them the pictures to enable them to correct their story accordingly,
- or bar the photos from use during the civil trial as they are a total disproval of their lies.
It is no wonder that the events that immediately followed included a sudden drop by the Chandlers of all charges of sexual abuse, reduction of the initially demanded $30mln. sum by half (to $15,3mln.) and quick finalizing the financial agreement with Jackson’s lawyer Johnny Cochran who was actually a friend of Larry Feldman.
However the matter of Linden report of 1993 was not forgotten by the media. The words of Jordan Chandler were so well imprinted in people’s minds that when ten years later, in 2003, new allegations broke out against Jackson, the Linden report, the ensuing strip search and the resulting photos surfaced again. This was the time when the Smoking Gun article (the one which disappeared) was written.
The journalist didn’t research the matter well enough not to put himself into an embarrassing situation and quoted in one and the same article both Jordan Chandler’s testimony recorded in Linden’s report and Tom Sneddon’s affidavit made during the 2005 trial (May 26, 2005) which on the face of it sounded damning:
- “Chandler’s pre-search description (and a drawing) corroborated photos taken of Jackson and observations made by officers who examined the body of evidence”.
- “In light of Sneddon’s proclivity for hardball tactics, perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprise if he tries to have those old images finally admitted into evidence.”
But if those images allegedly “corroborated” the photos and everything is clean and tidy here, where did the journalist make a mistake then? And why did the article disappear then?
WHAT WAS WRONG with the article and WHY DID IT DISAPPEAR?
1) the journalist’s mistake was in quoting Jordan’s words about a “light splotch of a color similar to Michael’s face” which are completely at variance with Tom Sneddon’s declaration mentioned in the same article.
In his affidavit made under oath Tom Sneddon said that:
- Point 5: “… 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”.
So besides revealing that it was not Dr. Richard Strick (a neutral expert, specially appointed for the job), but prosecutor Tom Sneddon who made the determination whether the description matched the photos or not, this remarkable document also tells us that the Prosecutor found “at about the same relative location” a dark blemish instead of a light one? And it is naturally complete opposite to “the splotch of a light color similar to his face” described by Jordan in his interview with Deborah Linden?
And this in its turn shows that the difference in the description was not only in the crucial matter that Michael was not circumcised while Jordan said he was – but also in the color of the splotch as well as the overall color of Michael’s private parts because a dark blemish can be found only on a light background (and vice versa)?
So Jordan was speaking about a black and circumcised man while Tom Sneddon was speaking about a non-circumcised man with that part of his body being white?
If this is supposed to be a “match”, then all of us can put our hats on and leave here as there is no point in discussing the matter further. However if we stay it is the Smoking staff who write these lies and the prosecutor who makes such conclusions who should go due to their total lack of integrity or complete inability to tell white from black.
This answers the question why the article about Linden report disappeared. It disappeared because of its reference to Linden report and quoting Jordan Chandler’s words recorded there. Needless it is to say that the original Linden report is nowhere to be found either.
The only information we have about the report is what this particular Smoking Gun article tells us about it. The only other piece of information about it is found in the book by Lisa Campbell “The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour” published in 1994 or immediately after the 1993 events. On page 209 the book mentions the affidavit which served as the reason for Michael’s strip search and taking photos of his genitalia:
- “On March 22, 1994, a hearing was held concerning the request of Michael’s attorneys for the return of the photos taken during the body search. They also asked for a full copy of the affidavit used to obtain the warrant on Michael Jackson’s body. His attorneys had previously been given a readapted version, with portions of the affidavit blocked out. A decision on the matter was postponed until April 11. Meanwhile the photos were being held in a safe deposit box in a Santa Barbara bank. Two signatures of high ranking officials were required to remove the photos. The request was denied.
- A renewed request for the return of the photos was made by Michael’s lawyers on May 10 . They argued the body search was unconstitutional and that it made Michael hysterical. Thomas Sneddon argued that Michael was not naked during the search, that he wore swimming trunks and two robes and that the search was done in sections, as if it made some difference. Super Court Judge James Slater postponed any decision until “later”.”
So in addition to some details about that horrific procedure and photos we have just learned that the affidavit from Deborah Linden was so secret that even Michael’s lawyers didn’t see it in full not to mention us, poor laymen.
And now that the Smoking Gun article has disappeared from public view the matter of Linden affidavit is apparently meant to be done with, buried for good and never to be recalled again – together with the real words Jordan Chandler written there. Somebody wants us to forget that Linden’s affidavit states something completely different from what was later said by Tom Sneddon and which testified so vividly to the fact that Jordan was telling lies about Jackson…
3) But the mystery of the Smoking gun article will be incomplete if we don’t pay attention to its DATE.
The date of the article is January 6 – just “January 6” with no mention of the year of it. I wouldn’t have paid attention to it if there wasn’t a need to determine the date in order to archive the article, and what I found when making some chronological calculations astonished me extremely:
- The article refers to Tom Sneddon’s declaration which was made on May 26, 2005. This should be some three weeks before the end of the trial, which explains why Tom Sneddon raised the subject of the photos (he knew they would not be admitted but he hoped that the shock of him saying that there was a match would deliver a fatal blow to the defense). Let us remember the date of May 26, 2005.
- So the article should be dated January 6, 2006 since it is written after Tom Sneddon’s declaration. However the year 2006 is totally impossible as it speaks of the trial being still in full swing and is debating whether Tom Sneddon will or will not be able to use the pictures as evidence there.
- Then the article should have been written on January 6, 2005 – when Tom Sneddon was not even yet making his affidavit in court.
- Or possibly the article was written only God knows when and simply presented to the public as a compilation of the “most damning information” about Michael Jackson all put into one bottle for the public to drink it.
This is what happens when people begin lying – the lie seems damning only on the surface of it but when you really look, you see that nothing adds up and no matter how people try the lie will always give itself away…
Now I undersand why the Smoking Gun is so shy about this article and is wishing to conceal its most embarassing pages. They are worried that one day someone will discover all their blunders and are afraid that the official version of the 1993 events will be challenged – hence the desire to drop the article altogether for everyone to forget about it…
However it turns out that manuscripts do not burn. Quite incidentally I made a screen shot of it, and here is the article back again in its full glory and disgrace – for all of us to remember that the initial story of the ‘splotch’ told by Jordan Chandler was completely different from a later version told to us by police.
For those who are still thinking that the insanity of the above article may be in any way true I suggest some earlier blog posts made on this breathtaking issue in April this year:
The matters of cimcumcison, non-circumcison and the blotches are discussed there in minute detail.
* * *
I really wouldn’t like the reason why I posted that article to be misinterpreted here. I find all those Smoking gun articles absolutely disgusting and the only reason why I think that the missing article valuable is because it alludes to the document which otherwise would be completely forgotten.
Linden’s report is our only source of information about what exactly the police said about that notable ‘splotch’ at the beginning of their investigation.
And at the beginning they quoted Jordan as saying that “the splotch was light similar to the color of his face”.
Then the pictures were made and all of a sudden the story made a U-turn and became “a dark colored spot” . Diane Dimond spoke about a dark spot, Tom Sneddon spoke about a dark spot, every hater’s book is speaking of it as a dark spot and NO ONE REMEMBERS that at the very beginning Jordan was saying that it was a light color which is “similar to his face”.
If this last article from the Smoking Gun disappears there will be NO OTHER EVIDENCE LEFT of another crucial mistake made by the first Michael’s accuser – Jordan Chandler.
THIS IS WHY this article is so precious to us. And this is why I am asking (in the comments section) for a link to the original 1993 DCFS report where the same thing was probably also noted.
And one final observation. All original documents from the 1993 seem to be missing or are at least very hard to obtain. The person who was writing the Smoking Gun article evidently had access to the original report and made some quotations from it the way they were written there. Poor thing, he didn’t know that by the year 2005/2006 the story of the police had already changed and was the opposite to what he was saying.
And though the story of a “light splotch similar to the color of his face” is still remembered by the survivors of that period, if you browse the internet for the light splotch or for Linden’s report you will find no more written evidence remaining there.
Good news, guys. I’m told that the Smoking Gun article can be found in the archives:
Why is it good news for us?
Because now we have the evidence from the Santa Barbara Deputy Sheriff herself that Jordan Chandler did say that Michael was circumcised.
Of course they’ll say that it was a temporary problem and we will pretend that we believe them. After all the main thing is that the article may be found at least somewhere and now we have a source stating Jordan Chandler’s initial (and totally wrong) version of the story.
Actually by now Jordan’s words have also been found in several books published in the same period of time, so we could do even without the Smoking Gun article, but having it back is still an additional benefit. It is always useful to have another source and a pleasure to know that people are not hopeless and may be also interested in restoring history the way it really was.