Skip to content

Was it a MATCH or a total MISMATCH?

September 1, 2010

UPDATED 7.09.10

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.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8044583

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.

For the past decade new methods have been developed for regaining the skin pigment. They work best for the face and were not known back in the 90s

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.

Splotchy lips was reason to use lipstick?

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!

page 4 of the so-called Jordan's declaration

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”?

DO YOU?

54 Comments leave one →
  1. June 3, 2016 5:45 pm

    “Hi Helena did the grand jury ever see those photographs and jordie’s description in 1994? If not, why not, since this was supposed to be Sneddon’s “smoking gun”?” – EM

    The answers are in this post: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/did-sneddon-really-want-to-introduce-michael-jacksons-photos-at-the-2005-trial/

    Like

  2. May 31, 2016 1:16 am

    Hi Helena did the grand jury ever see those photographs and jordie’s description in 1994? If not, why not, since this was supposed to be Sneddon’s “smoking gun”?

    Like

  3. Pauline Dagley permalink
    August 16, 2011 3:01 am

    Well one thing I do know is most all Jehovahs Witnesses ARE NOT CIRCUMCIZED.That is abelief they have,you DO NOT circumcize boys.I have a son-in-law that was raised a Jehovahs Witness,and he and his brother are not circumcized.So I do not believe for a minute that he was,because Katherine was a very Staunch Jehovahs Witness.And I will never believe that Micharl ever tried to have sex with Jordan Chandler or anyone else for that matter.

    Like

  4. August 8, 2011 3:49 am

    Jordans signature under the statement does not look loke one of a 13 yo.
    It would be the easiest thing to get a comparison from some schoolwork,

    Like

  5. Jan permalink
    August 8, 2011 12:51 am

    go to william wagener and see what he has to say about Jim thomas.

    Like

  6. March 23, 2011 10:25 pm

    Suzy,

    Thanks for the clarification and correction on the “spotted _ick” LOL!

    That’s exactly my point: Michael may have casually provided the information to them to manipulate and create seemingly credible “evidence”. No doubt the Chandlers’ formidable legal counsel went a long way in creating a no win situation in this case!

    Like

  7. Suzy permalink
    March 23, 2011 9:04 pm

    @ MC

    “On the Glenda tapes it sounds as though he mentions “spotted _ick” in the context of discussing genitalia.”

    He does not. He’s on tour and he’s in England and he is reading some menu and there it’s this traditional English dish “spotted dick” – which is of course a funny sounding name for an American. He and Glenda are just joking about that. Michael says (faking an English accent): “Would you like a spotted dick?”. Glenda laughs and says “Sounds interesting”. To which Michael says: “I don’t think so.” They are just joking about the name of the dish.

    But if the point is that Michael could be VERY open with his friends, it’s true. He was often very, very open with Glenda. So yes, he could be with the Chandlers too. Also when Anthony Pellicano asked Jordan if he ever saw Michael naked he said just when once Michael pulled up his shirt to show him his vitiligo. So yes, they knew about his vitiligo and they knew what it looked like. In fact, if you watch pictures from that era, Michael’s vitiligo is pretty apparent. This is from September, 1993: http://i1099.photobucket.com/albums/g393/edelmira1/TeaToday/bb2ae24d.jpg

    I also think Evan might have taken a look at least at Michael’s bottocks when he injected him in his house. Since Michael was knocked out by the drug Evan gave him, according to Ray Chandler, I actually wouldn’t put past him that he could take a look at Michael’s genitalia as well…. Why didn’t Jordan’s description match then? Well, I can imagine that Evan would tell him some things but forgot to focus on other details and tell Jordan about those. For example he could tell him that Michael’s genitalia had splotches, but forgot to tell about the colors and also forgot about the foreskin and Jordan had to guess about those. Of course, it’s just speculation on my part. I just say I wouldn’t put past it Evan, if that situation that Ray Chandler described in his book really happened. Of course that too is a big IF.

    Like

  8. March 23, 2011 8:41 pm

    I did not state the Chandlers had any intimate, eye-witness knowledge of his genitalia, only general knowledge as we, the public, had based on the reported information on vitiligo, and possibly information provided to them by Michael.

    Was the search warrant based on the ability of the accuser to identify ONE distinct marking on his genitals and splotches on this buttocks/body? While it is certainly plausible that Chandler made a wild but safe guess about the distinct mark, I am offering another possibility to explain their confidence in identifying a distinguishing mark, even if it was inaccurate.

    On the Glenda tapes it sounds as though he mentions “spotted _ick” in the context of discussing genitalia. If Michael was open with this particular woman whose family he befriended, is it difficult to believe he might have done the same with other families he was close to?

    Like

  9. March 23, 2011 7:11 pm

    @MC “spotted dick” is a slang for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotted_dick

    Jordan had no knowledge of MJ’s private parts. He made a wrong guess

    Like

  10. March 23, 2011 7:05 pm

    “it would explain the very important question of how Chandlers had knowledge of this private information that took “hours” to depict in the drawing and desciption for their lawyer.’

    @MC, I am sorry but I think that the Chandlers had no knowledge of his private information. If you come to think of it we here have more knowledge of Michael’s genitals than Jordan Chandler had.

    All the Chandlers knew was that he had vitiligo and the scope of it as they could very well see the other parts of his body since he stayed in their house. Also they most probably saw his buttocks as Evan said he made an injection of some medicine to him to relieve him of his headache (a very suspicious drug as it made Michael exceptionally drowsy). And finally they assumed that he was circumcised as statistics said that around 80% of men in the US at the time were circumcised.

    So knowing all that information they had to speculate for several hours how to describe his genitals in such a way that whichever they described them the picture would still be passable for the prosecution. Surprisingly, despite all their effort, they didn’t manage to arrive at even a more or less close picture – they thought his genitals were dark (hence Jordan allegedly saw “a light splotch the color of his face” on them) and they made a crucial mistake in the circumcision issue too.

    Michael was not circumcised and his genitals were most probably light as the photo showed some dark splotch “at a relatively same location” as the place described by the boy.

    Only the boy described a dark cow and the cow turned out to be white – so saying that they “had knowledge” of his private parts is really too far fetched.

    Like

  11. March 23, 2011 4:55 pm

    During the 1993 televised video statement Michael alluded to the body search and skin condition/vitiligo as a condition which I have already talked about publicly. This struck me as a tacit message to inform the viewers that the public, including the Chandlers, had knowledge of the existence of discoloration throughout this body, an example of how the “forces” behind the accusation were “dissecting and manipulating” evidence.

    Further, on the Glenda tapes I recall hearing his mention of his “spotted _ick”, which makes me wonder if perhaps he was as open about this private parts with the Chandlers as he was with the Glenda family. It is total speculation but it would explain the very important question of how Chandlers had knowledge of this private information that took “hours” to depict in the drawing and desciption for their lawyer.

    If I remember correctly, I recall seeing excerpts (perhaps in ATG?) from a conversation between Feldman and Chandler in which Feldman explains and attributes the variance in the distinct “mark” to the changing nature of vitiligo. This would partly explain why he pushed for new pictures of the area, as he hoped they would portray a darker “mark” as Chandler had described it, according to the statement in the motion.

    Though I am still researching, I have not seen any explanation from the opposition regarding the mismatch, or Larry Feldman’s very interesting multiple choice request to the Defense.

    Like

  12. shelly permalink
    January 29, 2011 10:45 am

    @dialdancer,

    They never claimed to have seen his penis. They just said they saw him naked.

    Like

  13. Dialdancer permalink
    January 29, 2011 2:17 am

    I came to leave this question. Why didn’t Sneddon/Feldman have Gavin and/or Star draw a picture of Michael? Why is it none of the alleged victims, guards, maids and milkmen could accurately describe Michael’s genitals? And if any did why was it not brought up in either the Grand Jury, the court documents or trial? There was no need for photos to compare the courts had those so why did they not or did they and there weren’t any who could or any who could accurately?

    Like

  14. Dialdancer permalink
    January 29, 2011 2:12 am

    JA,

    There was supposedly an declaration done by an female officer name Linden. It became the basis for probable cause which what is needed for a search warrant. The problem is no one can find a copy of this declaration anywhere. It is one of those things Michael’s attorneys should have demanded to see along with the search warrant, read along with their client and made sure there was a copy for Michael.

    Like

  15. December 15, 2010 1:11 am

    Maybe this questioned was already answered, but when did Jordan Chandler actually draw his description. I know that he gave a statement on December 28, 1993, but did he draw it then?

    And if so, then how was Tom Sneddon able to subpoena MJ, if he didn’t have any evidence?

    Like

  16. September 7, 2010 11:56 am

    “IT IS NOT A BLEACHING CREAM. It cannot be used for cosmetic purposes. One cannot apply it unless they have Vitiligo.”

    Hello, guys. I am happy that Cyn corrected me – I did mean depigmentation but as a foreigner do not always feel the difference between the words used. Now that point has been fully updated.

    Like

  17. cyn permalink
    September 4, 2010 4:51 pm

    I admire the work that is done on this site so much. Thank God for the efforts of all of the investigators and I pray that someday Miichael’s name will be cleared of all the the negative rumors and insinuations that ignorant people continue to spread.

    That being said, I would like to correct something that was printed in the above blog-

    ” But did he bleach his skin? Of course he did – this is one of the methods of treating vitiligo”

    This isn’t exactly true. Michale did TREAT his vitiligo, but he did not BLEACH his skin.

    I found the following information about Benoquin, the cream that was found in Mihcael’s house at the time of his death.

    Benoquin 20% lotion is indicated for the final depigmentation in extensive Vitiligo. It is applied topically to permanently depigment normal skin surrounding Vitiligo lesions in patients with disseminated idiopathic Vitiligo (grater that 50% of the body surface).
    IT IS NOT A BLEACHING CREAM. It cannot be used for cosmetic purposes. One cannot apply it unless they have Vitiligo. This is due to the biochemistry of thee cream and it’s effect on human skin. If a person who isn’t suffering with Vitiligo uses the cream they will end up with burns and rashes, almost like a 2nd degree burn.

    I’m only mentioning this because I know that everyone here wants to be as acute as possible when describing Michael and all things pertaining to him and his life. Michael did not bleach his skin, he simply his medical condition.

    It’s all for LOVE. Thank you all again for your tireless work on Michael’s behalf.

    Like

  18. The 500 permalink
    September 4, 2010 4:04 pm

    Calling The 500

    The 500 is a group of dedicated writers – formed in response to the continuing erroneous assumptions and biased narrative about Michael Jackson that are still actively perpetuated by the media. We are looking for members to join us in this work.

    We are looking for 500 people who can write factually and intelligently, when asked to, with an eye on the pragmatic aspects of reclaiming Michael Jackson’s public image.

    What if around 500 people were to be made aware of misinformed, biased, or otherwise negative mainstream press about MJ, the kind that potentially influences much of Joe Public?

    What if these 500 could muster facts and cool persuasion to articulately respond to ‘MJ-bashing?’ What if 500 could refute the notion that anyone standing up for Michael Jackson is just another “crazed fan?”

    What would happen if instead, we turned out to be concerned and intelligent citizens who’ve had enough of this cess of judgment and persecution, this trampling of ethics in pursuit of profit, that characterized the media during Michael’s trial, and continues today?

    We think it’s possible that if 500 people were willing and able to write the occasional letter, post the comment, or make the call, they could actually function as a check upon the kind of irresponsible journalism that ruins lives unjustly. We’d like to gather a group that takes over the megaphone in the public sphere on Michael Jackson’s behalf.

    As a bloc, we would respond appropriately when we are made aware that a trash story is fed to a gullible public. We intend to call the media on their irresponsibility whenever possible. No longer will silence imply agreement with lazy or malicious reporting on the part of the mainstream media.

    We need good writers who can stay on message and write persuasively. We do have a fairly strong idea about what kind of writers will be most effective, but don’t intend to micro-manage anyone’s comments apart from offering guidelines.

    If you think The 500 is for you, please contact us at:

    rivers.bend09@gmail.com

    so that we can add you to the newly formed Googlegroup The 500. From there, once we’ve built a little critical mass, we will get to work by issuing a set of guidelines and resources to our writing membership, to be followed by regular brief messages about where to direct your comments.

    Thank you.

    The 500 Team.

    Like

  19. Ashley permalink
    September 4, 2010 1:44 pm

    A blog I wrote..I think it kinda pertains.

    http://mjspuffyfan.blogspot.com/2010/09/haters.html

    Like

  20. ares permalink
    September 4, 2010 10:55 am

    @Desiree

    Children don’t lie ha???

    You can take your tears back. But

    Like

  21. thesku permalink
    September 3, 2010 10:14 pm

    This is a documentary after MJ trial and it basically tries to explain why Michael won. Needless to say that the program is extremely biased.They don’t present all the facts and they deliberately hush up key elements. When you have so biased documentaries on Michael behalf no wonder the magiority believes in his guilt. The program is devided if 5 parts:

    Like

  22. September 3, 2010 9:21 pm

    “He would have seen it or felt it! The foreskin moves! It doesn’t just sit there!”

    Yes, Lynande, though the subject is completely indecent, we have to repeat it again and again. The non-circumcised state is so much different from a circumcised one in the way it looks, feels and moves even when erect, that those who have seen it cannot have any more doubt that the boy was lying.

    Ii is IMPOSSIBLE to make a mistake here. That is why the only question which remains is not whether he lied or not – IT IS CLEAR THAT HE DID – but why he lied and how they managed to make their lie so successful.

    As I’ve already said here for a woman it is theoretically possible to have sex with a male partner without seeing his genitals, but for a boy who claims he masturbated another male IT IS IMPOSSIBLE not to see it and not to notice the difference. And the difference is so big that one woman here explained it this way – “when I first saw it I nearly jumped out of my skin”.

    Even if you put aside all this pornography, the non-circumcised penis is just anatomically interesting. There is no other part in a human body which has an analogy to it and that is why it attracts attention.

    It looks like a half-peeled banana.

    Can you mistake a half-peeled banana for a whole one?

    Like

  23. shelly permalink
    September 3, 2010 9:45 am

    I wonder how did he react to the autopsy report which confirmed MJ was not circumsized.

    Like

  24. September 3, 2010 4:29 am

    oh and i also think this the book MWML was copy from a book that was released in 1994 called “Michael Jackson Unauthorized”, i think all the negative books about Michael are copy and paste.
    they have to run the lie the same way.

    Like

  25. September 3, 2010 4:12 am

    this is what vg has admitted on tv, he did have contact with the chandlers he spoke with them both evan and jordie, but according to him they couldn’t discuss the acusations (yeah right blow my eye).
    He has always said the same things of Diane Demon ‘investigation’, but it is his findings according to him, so they must have some kind of arregement or he stole her ‘investigation’, he quotes a lot the book of bob jones, he’s just an ass that reads every material of Michael, but leaves the important inocent evidence out, he was concern about ian halperin’s book because in it he said that mj was uncircumsised. any question you have about him i’ll be glad to answer, i live in Chile and i know what he has said about MJ and it’s been so many lies, i can’t believe that here in Chile people call him a respectful journalist my behind.

    Like

  26. lynande51 permalink
    September 3, 2010 3:22 am

    I just read an interesting thing about how men feel about being intact ( uncircumcised). They feel either way it defines them circumcised or not. That said, Jordan and or Evan got it wrong because they guessed no other reason. Why would they have to guess? Because they didn’t know. Why didn’t they know? Because he had never seen it!
    I’m with you about how much we have written about this but I will add what had also been said before. The foreskin moves up and down over the glans penis during intercourse and mastubation. It moves! It doesn’t just sit there! It can’t, if it did the penis would become engorged from estrangulation. He would have seen it or felt it! It moves! It doesn’t just sit there!

    Like

  27. September 2, 2010 10:10 pm

    “Just a bunch of really sick people lead by some of the sickest.”
    “If he was writing a book about Michael for several years prior to these allegations surfacing I think it is safe to assume that this is the kind of book he had intended since the start.”

    Lynande, firstly, I am very happy to see you, and secondly, your observations are absolutely true. I think that V.Gutierrez did have certain intentions about Michael even before the allegations started – it was a sort of a sick idea which needed implementation only. And after the goal was there it was a matter of technicality to stretch the reality so much that it fits the idea. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was spreading dirty rumors himself only to reap the fruit of his own rumors later.

    Guys, I’ve looked through all stored links in my computer but couldn’t find the article were Gutierrez spoke about Michael’s non-circumcision. The reason why I confused it with the blog mentioned earlier is because the author there draws his inspiration from V.Gutierrez too and refers to him in almost each of his posts. If I accidentally find the article I’m talking about I’ll return it into the post, but at the moment am happy that this mistake has been corrected. We can’t afford any mistakes here and each of our points should be 100%, no, 200% true. So thank you for putting me on the right track again!

    Like

  28. lynande51 permalink
    September 2, 2010 9:37 pm

    I also forgot to add that the word that Desiree couldn’t decipher is baby bottle. It was Adrian MacManus and the rest of the Neverland Five that came up with that cock and bull story about Michael and the boys drinking from baby bottles. It was added for comical sensationalism and nothing more. Adrian MacManus and Ralph Chacon both admitted on the stand that they said things just to say them and didn’t think of it as lying because they were just giving their depositions they weren’t in court. They were probably coached in what to say by VG. This just shows that someone was writing down ideas about what to say, stupid ridiculous things to say that they probably thought were funny nothing more.Just a bunch of really sick people lead by some of the sickest.

    Like

  29. lynande51 permalink
    September 2, 2010 9:24 pm

    About Vicotr Gutirrez. I wrote a comment about the book after reading an excerpt from it on the internet. To write like he does you have to think and feel like the writing. In other words to make this book sound real he had to think like a molester and feel like a molester. If you can think like one and feel like one you can’t be far from being one. I wouldn’t know where to start writing things like that because I have no experience in what it would be like to molest a child. I think the fact that we now know that he had been speaking to the boy/ boys from the very beginning tells us everything we need to know. If he was writing a book about Michael for several years prior to these allegations surfacing I think it is safe to assume that this is the kind of book he had intended since the start. Also the very fact that he wasn’t arrested on the spot if the description had mached tells us the truth. Another important thing to remember is that if Jordan had kept a diary it would have been evidence against Michael, it would have provided accurate details, he would not have saved it for VG to write a book about, the police would have had custody of it from the beginning. it was a crimal investigation after all. So finally, If there had been a diary about the molestation as VG like to say there was and if the photos had matched the description Michael would have been arrested on the spot.

    Like

  30. September 2, 2010 8:53 pm

    oh by the weay he said in that same tv show that is called “donde estas corazon” if jordan speaks out he would take off that book from the market. probably he was lyin.

    Like

  31. September 2, 2010 8:45 pm

    @ares

    Nobody knew anything about Michael in that tv show they were and still are ignorant to the subject, but the hosts on that tv show told him that he was a lier, thay told him that nobody ask money if a child is molested, so they kind of shut him up when they said that.

    Like

  32. September 2, 2010 7:57 pm

    @ Helena,

    Thanks to you no one will be able to spread the lie that the description match. Your research and analyst put the nail in that coffin.🙂

    I know it has to be frustrating refuting these illogical and obvious lies. But unfortunately it’s necessary.

    Like

  33. September 2, 2010 7:55 pm

    “he said that jordan’s description was a match he said that Michael was circumcised and it was written in his f****** book”.

    Yo, then it is probably the author of the site who was twisting the truth. OMG, I JUST REMEMBERED THAT IT WAS WRITTEN IN MJJFILES.SITE and not in the blog I mentioned in the post! PLEASE DISREGARD that paragraph altogether and will rewrite it once I find the article where they were quoting Gutierrez. It is my memory again which is playing tricks on me. i AM TERRIBLY SORRY FOR THE MISTAKE!

    Like

  34. ares permalink
    September 2, 2010 7:35 pm

    @Yo
    and wasn’t there anyone to tell him that he was lying or at least the he was wrong?

    Like

  35. September 2, 2010 7:33 pm

    “Yea, it’s ridiculous that you have to go through explaining the color of the blemish and circumcised or uncircumcised when the simple fact that he wasn’t arrested proves that the description wasn’t accurate.”

    JA, so you’ve noticed that I do feel ridiculous? This is my biggest problem, you know – having to point at these lies again and again when it seems so obvious that all those people WERE lying. It is almost like showing to someone a white sheet of paper and trying to convince them that it is white. How many arguments can you find to prove that white is white?

    This 1993 case (as well as other cases around Michael) was a big pack of lies. Even if a hundred new ‘witnesses’ appear and more books of lies are written about Michael, it will not change anything for me now that I know the truth.

    There are too many sick, nasty and greedy people in the world and it is impossible to deal with each lie these people come up with. Some people just love telling lies and don’t see any difference between truth and invention (I’ve seen them make up a lie and then believe it), some people use lies for earning their money, some are simply malevolent by nature and don’t believe that others can be different – there are so many reasons for people to lie and lies may be so multiple and varied (in contrast to the truth which is always one), that trying to refute all of them is impossible in principle.

    This is why this job is ridiculous. You feel that somebody is always sending you on an errand – when some new lie is found you have to rush there and put out the fire, then another lie is told and you rush again, and so on and so forth with no end to it.

    It surprises me immensely when people know that DD (for example) told innumerable lies, but when they hear her invent a new one, they still believe her… I am also ready to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone and on more than one occasion too, but believing characters like DD (with her love letters) or Maureen Orth (with her blood baths) or Gutierrez (with his pictures in different handwriting and his diary which even Ray Chandler said never existed) or other people of the same kind is simply beyond my undestanding. How many times are these people have to be deceived for the process of telling the truth from lies to finally start for them?

    The thing which would be interesting for me to find out in the 1993 case is June Chandler’s part in it. Another question is whether those lies were an individual effort of the media (and other) people or a collective effort as part of a scam. At the moment I think that someone powerful could have triggered off the process by displaying encouragement for Michael’s harassment and then – when ordinary folks sensed this change of attitude – this allowed them to show themselves at their worst.

    History knows situations like that – when people feel that they can be “free of their conscience” as one historic personality put it, this unleashes in them their worst animal instincts and this is when a hunt for a live and fragile human being really starts.

    Like

  36. September 2, 2010 7:21 pm

    I watched that v.g. guy in a tv show from Spain a week after Michael died. he said that jordan’s description was a match he said that Michael was circumcised and it was written in his f****** book. So his still is shit and full of lies.

    Like

  37. September 2, 2010 5:55 pm

    @ Helena,

    Yea, it’s ridiculous that you have to go through explaining the color of the blemish and circumcised or uncircumcised when the simple fact that he wasn’t arrested proves that the description wasn’t accurate. Tom Sneddon traveled the world looking for “victims” and even had laws changed. It’s makes no sense that he had that type of concrete indisputable evidence, and wasn’t the one who slapped handcuffs on MJ himself.

    Jim Thomas and others, know what they were saying was a lie. That’s why no one wants to take responsibility for it. And that’s why Sneddon wants the photos to remain locked in a lock box in Santa Maria. Everybody knows what Jordan Chandler’s description says. If it ever got out, it would be proven that it didn’t match,

    Like

  38. September 2, 2010 5:22 pm

    JA: “The photos were taken more than a month before the settlement, so Jordan was still cooperating with the investigation. So, they have no excuse on why he wasn’t arrested right then. The only explanation is that the description wasn’t accurate.”

    JA, again I absolutely agree with your conclusions. In fact we don’t even need any documents to prove the point – the inner logic of the situation tells it all. They surely knew that the description wasn’t accurate and they naturally did see the pictures – it is only that they don’t want to bear responsibility for what they did to Michael and this is why the County sheriff says that everyone saw the pictures except the poor him – they said that the match was almost identical, while he has nothing to do with it. Let them (whom?) bear all the responsibility for this lie…

    Like

  39. September 2, 2010 5:11 pm

    “I’d dare to leave my kid alone with Michael Jackson, but not with the person who did this, because she/he has a pervert mind and pervert fantasies about children”

    Suzy, I agree with you absolutely. The more I look into this the better I understand that haters like Desiree are perverted and corrupt inside out. You should have an absolutely sick mind to be able to invent all those details and imagine those pictures. A normal mind does not find pleasure in things like that. And these people do seem to be deriving pleasure from their sick fantasies – you can almost think that Michael is a legitimate pretext for them to speak of all their dirty fantasies in public.

    Like

  40. Suzy permalink
    September 2, 2010 4:10 pm

    Helena,

    I didn’t even watch the “copyright” mark, that document is so ridiculous in itself. Let me just say this: I’d dare to leave my kid alone with Michael Jackson, but not with the person who did this, because she/he has a pervert mind and pervert fantasies about children…..

    Like

  41. September 2, 2010 3:42 pm

    Ashley, the drawing can be made larger for everyone to see the lines running through the document and saying that it is ‘desirespeakssolisten’ who has marked it as a sort of a copyright. So she is either the author of the drawing or a very sophisticated PC user who can imprint her logo on top of something ‘exclusive’ she has obtained.

    BUT THIS IS NOT THE POINT.

    The point is that all these three documents (two drawings and a declaration) are attributed to one and the same person – Jordan Chandler, who must have three diffirent types of handwriting to be able to write all of them.

    And the beauty of the situation is that if you say that one of the documents is genuine, the remaining two will immediately become fake. So whichever way you look at it it is indeed such a terrible pack of lies that it is ridiculous to even discuss them.

    Like

  42. Ashley permalink
    September 2, 2010 1:37 pm

    I am almost certain that the second drawing was done by Desiree, trying to make the words more legible. I don’t buy either one. It’s all pretty ridiculous to me. LOL

    Like

  43. September 2, 2010 12:51 pm

    The haters never answer the question “if it match, then why wasn’t he arrested right then and there?” I cannot imagine Tom Sneddon and the rest of the Santa Barbara investigators in the room would look at the Chandler’s description and then look at MJ say to themselves “Hey! The kid got it right!” And leave without arresting him. That’s makes absolutely no sense. The photos were taken more than a month before the settlement, so Jordan was still cooperating with the investigation. So, they have no excuse on why he wasn’t arrested right then. The only explanation is that the description wasn’t accurate.

    Like

  44. shelly permalink
    September 2, 2010 9:49 am

    I don’t think it comes from Desiree. I am not sure but Orth said in one article that the Gutierrez book spoke about Mj had sex with 3 kids at the same time, one of them was Brett.

    Like

  45. Suzy permalink
    September 2, 2010 7:41 am

    That second alleged Jordan drawing is even funnier than the first one! I suspect it was probably made by Desiree herself. It seems like female writing at least.

    Who is Brett? Brett Barnes? So is the person who drew this trying to tell us now they weren’t masturbating just the two of them but with Brett Barnes as well? Maybe the person who made this fake “document” should have looked up the court documents and Brett’s testimony before….

    And why would Jordan write things like “Brett’s cute” in such a “document”? Whovever made this has a sick mind.

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Summary and Analysis of the Testimonies of Stacy Brown and Bob Jones, the Authors of “Michael Jackson: The Man Behind The Mask”, Part 3 of 3 « Vindicating Michael
  2. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 2 of 5: Michael Did NOT “Channel” Demon Spirits to Help Him Write Songs! « Vindicating Michael
  3. Fact Checking Diane Dimond’s Lies from TruTV’s “In Session” « Vindicating Michael
  4. Debunking the Demonic Deception…Michael Jackson and the Truth: Part 2 « Reflections on the Dance
  5. Lupus, Vitiligo, Plastic surgery and the concept of “Self-hatred”. Did Michael Jackson want to go white? « Vindicating Michael
  6. Transcript of Matt Drudge’s vehement defense of Michael Jackson in 2005 « Vindicating Michael
  7. Transcript of “Michael Jackson’s Secret World” by Martin Bashir « Vindicating Michael
  8. Fact Checking The Documentary “Michael Jackson: What Really Happened” By Jacques Peretti-Part Two | AllForLoveBlog

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: