Was it a MATCH or a total MISMATCH?
JIM THOMAS, FORMER SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFF said about the photographs of Michael Jackson’s genitals and Jordan Chandler’s description of them:
- “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.”
I really feel sorry for this guy. The Verital Project says that the photographs of Michael’s genitals were so popular with the policemen at the time of the 1993 investigation that almost everyone in the sheriff department saw them – except the poor Santa Barbara county sheriff who was actually the one who was investigating the case!
Ridiculous though it is, this quote made me think that many of us still listen too much to “Who says What” about that alleged match – while we are quite capable to do without the valuable opinion of these people and reach for the truth all by ourselves.
The police guys can say whatever they like, but our brains are given for us to use them and draw our own conclusions no matter what they say. If someone tells us something it doesn’t necessarily mean that we should believe it. There are so many lies around Michael Jackson that every word about him should be checked, rechecked and double checked again – this is why we are verifying here every little thing which is (still) available to us on the internet. And the facts already found here show that the so-called “match” Thomas was speaking about is a LIE which doesn’t have a leg to stand 0n.
Let us review all those scraps of information we have about the so-called Jordan Chandler’s description of Michael’s private parts and its two major points – Circumcision and the Color of the splotch – and ask all possible and impossible questions which may still be open for some of us about this issue.
The information is actually very scarce as the main documents are already missing and the scope of the ‘disappearing process’ is becoming really frightening.
1. As regards circumcision let me ask you one question first.
We know for sure that Jordan said that Michael was circumcised and made a mistake over that crucial issue. Everyone heard Michael being wrongly described as “circumcised” because back in the 90s the media turned this absolutely intimate thing into a major public attraction and a subject discussed in every household. The information about it was naturally leaked by the police themselves – but the question is not about it, the question is: Are there any documents still left in the internet to back up Jordan’s words?
The documents available to us at the moment include:
- The alleged Jordan’s statement of December 28, 1993, made a week after the strip search
- The so-called interview with psychiatrist Dr.Gardner, the origin of which no one really knows except our old uncle Ray Chandler who said that it did take place and was held in October 1993
- Tom Sneddon’s declaration of May 26, 2005.
However as far as I remember NONE of these documents mention the circumcision issue – as if it was never there… But all of us can’t be crazy all at once – we do remember that the media screamed to everyone around about this graphic detail as a vivid proof of alleged molestation!
Fortunately for us it was no other than Ray Chandler who recorded Jordan’s words in his book “All that Glitters” (and this shows that you can get help even from the worst of haters). It is good to have it as a back up, but the question about the documents still remains… Where and when could Jordan speak about that circumcision issue if those three documents don’t say a word about it?
His initial description could be recorded both in Ferrufino’s report in Los Angeles and Linden’s report in Santa Barbara, both of which are missing now.
Can we be sure that they ever existed? Of course we can, because of the numerous traces those documents left here and there. By the way reconstructing the original documents via various references made to them by other sources is an absolutely scientific method of research – historians do the same when they need to restore the content of the missing original.
But why have those interviews disappeared? Because they state some inconvenient information – like a mistake in that circumcision issue and the mess-up with the color of the splotch.
And what will happen if the last traces of the information vanish too – same as that Telltale Splotch article which is now missing from the Smoking Gun and which was also mentioning the matter of circumcision? Well, if that happens people will forget about the circumcision issue altogether and will start doubting whether Jordan has ever made that crucial blunder at all …
2. Some of my correspondents think that though Jordan did say that Michael was NOT circumcised the boy could mistake erection for circumcision. We’ve already discussed this porn issue in a post dedicated to this problem and I wouldn’t like to go into too much detail now, but will add just one more thing to what was said earlier.
Those who have seen uncircumcised men will agree with me that there is absolutely no chance to mistake their erection for circumcision because of the specific details discussed here.
However if someone is still doubtful let me ask them a completely indecent question – is it theoretically possible for a woman to never see or touch her male partner’s genitals? (I think yes, especially if it is night time and he uses condoms). But is it possible to never see or touch the partner’s genitals if it is males who are involved in mutual masturbation as it was alleged by Jordan? (I’ve fortunately never seen the process it but technically speaking this seems completely impossible to me).
So, from a theoretical and anatomical point of view, there is some slight chance that a woman may be mistaken in her partner being circumcised or non-circumcised, while a male involved in a sexual play with another male will never be mistaken about a thing like that, won’t he? So for someone who allegedly spent a long time masturbating the other it would be completely impossible not to know whether he was circumcised or not? Especially since the uncircumcised foreskin moves in the process (I am saying it just in case someone doesn’t know it) – so that you not only see the difference but can feel it too? And especially if you, as a Jewish teenager, are surely circumcised and really know what circumcision looks like from your own personal experience?
3. I hope that now we are more or less finished with this porn issue and can handle the next question at last – which is Michael’s vitiligo. Somebody asked me how Jordan could describe Michael as having splotches all over his body if he never saw him naked?
Easily, as in February the same 1993 year Michael disclosed to the whole world that he had vitiligo and one look at him during the interview and another look into an encyclopedia would provide to anyone interested in the subject a wealth of information about vitiligo and Michael’s variant of the disease – which was a “universal” type affecting more than 50% of his body.
Jordan surely knew about Michael’s disease as he told Pellicano that Michael had once lifted his shirt to show him the blotches on his skin (see Jordan’s conversation with Pellicano described in Lisa Campbell’s book, p.53 ). And he surely saw him naked, same as the staff of the Mirage hotel in Las Vegas, where the Chandlers stayed together with Michael and Jordan spent his time with Michael swimming in a pool with dolphins – so it was absolutely no problem for both Jordan and other onlookers to obtain first-hand information about Michael’s vitiligo (as well as imagine what his private parts could look like).
- QUOTE: “Jackson and Jordan swam with dolphins in the hotel’s marine centre and dined at the Mirage’s fancy Chinese restaurant. ”They talked in whispers and laughed like a father and son,” said waiter Chad Jahn, who served them”(the South China Morning Post).
4. Okay, so Michael had vitiligo which was confirmed by the autopsy report. But did he use depigmenation therapy for his skin?
Of course he did – depigmentation is the last resort method for masking the extensive type of vitiligo Michael had: ( http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000831.htm)
Depigmentation is recommended exactly for the “universal” type of vitiligo patients in order to even out the color and make it more uniform – which in case of a black man is easier said than done, I would imagine. Look at the exposed parts of Michael’s body which are evidently not only ligtened but are covered with some make up too and make sure that all the spots are still there for everyone to see and notice them in spite of all the effort.
Depigmentation is described in medical manuals for vitiligo patients as a rather painful procedure requiring application of special medication on a regular basis with the first results being seen in several months only. It involves burns and reddening of the skin (which turns pink first) which later subdues to a more or less natural color.
Could Michael even out the color of his genitals? I’ve been told that Dr. Klein said Michael tried a ‘bleaching’ cream there too, was burned and was treated by Debbie Rowe. Okay, why couldn’t he try it once? If everywhere else your skin is more or less even why should all those disgusting patches remain there? ( I would try it if I were him).
However is a person likely to do it again if he tried it once and was burned to a point of having to seek medical help for it? This I doubt very much indeed as ‘bleaching’ one’s genitals should be a terribly painful process and it will definitely not allow any such things as masturbation – so masterfully described in Jordan’s declaration and interview – to take place at all. Moreover, if Dr. Klein did really say that sometime in April or May 1993 (when the “relationship” was in full swing) Michael tried this medication on his genitals, was burned and had to be treated for it – this fact alone will mean that he could not be involved in any sexual games described in all those fiction stories and in such colorful detail too.
5. Now let us suppose that Michael did lighten the skin of his private parts. Was it possible for him to change within several months “a light splotch which is the color of his face” into a “dark spot” ? A light one turning into a dark one? Exactly in this order?
The problem is, the “light splotch which is the color of his face” description, evidently stated in Linden’s or Ferrufino’s report, dates back to May 1993 and the “dark spot” comes several months later, in December 1993 and is found in Tom Sneddon’s declaration of 2005 where he describes Michael’s private parts on the basis of the pictures taken in 1993. Thus a white slotch turned into a dark spot – interesting change in color, isn’t it?
I’ve already spoken about this in one of the comments, but will repeat it here to make the story complete:
Why are some of you so confused with this ‘bleaching-the-skin’ issue? To me the number of spots or application of a depigmentation cream does NOT change anything at all.
When you look at Michael during the February 1993 interview with Oprah Winfrey you see that he was more white than black at the time. It would be natural to assume that he had a great many dark small spots all over his body which means that the pattern should be the same in his genitalia too – and that is why any of us would be able to describe his genitals pretty accurately (I would say they were white with many darks spots).
The police knew it and evidently asked for some particular mark. Jordan made a guess that there one distinct splotch which was bigger than the rest (a very safe guess I would say).
BUT the crucial mistake he made was the color of that ‘distinctive’ splotch – he said it was light (the color of his face) meaning that the general background was dark. Which means that Jordan was essentially speaking of a black man with one light splotch, while the pictures showed that his private parts were mostly white with a distinctive dark spot there.
Can you change the background from dark into white? Even if you use all the bleaching creams that money can buy you cannot change BLACK skin into milky-white – the only thing you can do is lighten the color into a lighter shade. Thus black will turn into brown, or brown will turn into light-brown – but it won’t change the overall pattern of the picture.
Yes, the PATTERN will remain the same – it will only become less vivid and more subdued, but essentially the same.
Imagine you have a black curtain with white splotches on it (of a cow-skin type) and the sun bleaches it into a lighter color – will the pattern of splotches change because of that? Absolutely not – it is only the background which will become slightly lighter and THAT IS ALL.
Is it possible to bleach black skin into a milky white so that the background is changed? Absolutely not! Moreover, it is impossible to bleach white skin into the color of vitiligo blotches either because vitiligo skin is unnaturally white – it loses ALL its pigment and turns into the color of milk or porcelain. Even white people cannot reach the desired effect, not to mention black ones! I’ve seen white people with vitiligo and must assure you that the impression is rather painful because it looks like pieces of white paper put all over their hands, face and body.
But with black people the effect should be really dramatic – I can’t even imagine what an awful contrast it should make for them. Even after all possible and impossible bleaching the most result they can achieve is reaching a condition where a white person with vitiligo only starts – which is also so noticeable that everyone stares.
What I mean to say is that it does NOT matter whether Michael did or did not ‘bleach’ his skin or even genitals (if he could survive the pain of it).
The only result he could reach was getting from a dramatic zebra into a subdued one, with all its stripes remaining it their proper place.
However if we believe Tom Sneddon’s story it wasn’t only Michael’s dark background which was to change into its opposite color, but the distinctive white vitiligo splotch was to turn into its opposite too …. Let us be serious and ask a question: Was it possible for a white vitiligo splotch become dark with the dark background simultaneously changing into white? Back in the 90s?
I specially looked up the new methods of treating vitiligo and found that within the past 10 years some ultraviolet methods of tanning the skin back into its dark color have become possible, however they don’t work with all patients, take indefinite time, have unpredictable results (they prove best for the face) …. and were first developed not earlier than in 1997: http://www.vitiligosociety.org.uk/treatments/treatments.html
Methods employed in 2010: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/vitiligo/DS00586/DSECTION=treatments-and-drugs
In short if Tom Sneddon said that there was a dark spot standing out on the light background, so it WAS dark and any “white splotch which is the color of his face” described by Jordan is a laughable MISMATCH – which makes the picture of a terrible lie told by the Chandlers clear to us as black and white.
6. To close this genitalia issue today let me produce to you a drawing of MJ genitals allegedly made by Jordan Chandler:
It is found in Victor Gutierrez’s book and is also cited by Ray Chandler as a drawing allegedly describing MJ’s private parts – which was supposedly made by Jordan for his father in October 1993 (please, see Ray Chandler’s shopping list in this post by Lynette).
The picture itself does not resemble anything similar to a male’s genitals or it may have been drawn in this unskillful manner in order to intentionally look like a picture made by a child.
Please pay attention to the handwriting – it is not slanted and all its letters are uneven. The square on the right features the words my theory which makes you think that the person drawing the picture was not sure of what he was writing about.
In general the picture raises too many questions, especially since the handwriting in this drawing is drastically different from the one which is supposed to be Jordan’s in his Declaration of December 28, 1993 (provided below).
Let me ask you a question please. If this picture was indeed drawn by Jordan Chandler and this is the boy’s handwriting WHO signed the so-called Jordan’s Declaration then?
Look at how slanted and even this handwriting is!
Isn’t it a bit too much to have two diffirent types of handwriting for one and the same boy?
Given that the picture is provided by a seasoned liar Victor Gutierrez and reproduced by our old friend Ray Chandler it is easy to assume that it is the drawing which is falsified – however if we think that the drawing is genuine then it is the Declaration of Jordan which is a fake. So whichever way you look at these papers at least one of them should be falsified. Or probably both of them are?
Now that you’ve seen all those discrepancies with your own eyes DO YOU KNOW what to answer those who say about the drawing and the photographs that “they were very consistent” or even “identical” though these guys ‘didn’t see the pictures themselves’ and “didn’t know that to be a fact”?