Skip to content

Rewriting history or Michael Jackson’s UNPREDICTABLE PAST

February 15, 2012

This post was triggered off by the information sent here by one of our readers.  The reader says that Jordan’s wrongful description of MJ’s genitalia is also found in the book by Stacy Brown and Bob Jones: “Michael Jackson: The Man Behind the Mask: An Insider’s Story of the King of Pop” (in its Chapter – “Afterword: The Current Case”).

A quote from the book:

“The earlier Rent-a-Wreck Family investigation gave the LAPD a roadmap to Jackson’s below-the-waist geography, which, the accusing boy said, includes distinctive “splotches” on his buttocks and one on his penis, “which is a light color similar to the color of his face”.

So even a book filled with hate for MJ can be of value to us if we know what to look for. And we are always on the look out for Jordan’s words which were stated in the so-called Linden affidavit.  Jordan’s allegations were all wrong, so any additional evidence about them is of much value to us.

WHAT JORDAN SAID

The Smoking Gun article of Jan.2005 was the only one which cited Deborah Linden’s affidavit containing Jordan Chandler’s description of MJ’s genitalia (the description was wrong). It was archived in 2010 while all other lies about MJ stayed.

The traces of Jordan Chandler’s statements are rare to find now, as much effort has been made by the media to get rid of the unwelcome truth. Old and dusty lies like the text of Jordan’s graphic statement about  Jackson will probably stay on the net forever, while everything containing the valuable evidence enabling us to exonerate Michael is being put into archives or erased (as has been done with a Smoking Gun article).

The evidence I am referring to concerns the two blunders Jordan Chandler made in describing Michael’s private parts which he had allegedly seen and touched.

Jordan Chandler made two fundamental mistakes in his descpription – he thought that MJ was circumcised and had dark genitalia. The case was the opposite.

One of his mistakes was a claim that Michael Jackson was circumcised while he was not,  and the second was his wrong statement about a light splotch he had allegedly seen on MJ’s private parts.

This was wrong again judging by Sneddon’s description of a dark spot based on the photos of MJ’s genitalia.

I know that many of you are underestimating the value of the second mistake made by Jordan Chandler and urge you to reconsider it.

The color of the splotch itself (or splotches) is not that important – there may have been one or several of them which may have been any color you like, but it is the color of the background contrasting with the splotches that matters here.

I am afraid I’ll have to be direct about it and please excuse me in advance for the need to.

To put it bluntly, Jordan’s talk of a light spot implies that he thought MJ’s penis to be dark, while Tom Sneddon’s talk of a dark spot there shows that it was light.

A  light spot is seen only on the dark background and vice versa.

This mistake is the same in its importance as confusing the twenty-year old Michael with the same man thirty years later, when his skin turned porcelain white. So the whole matter of those “splotches”  is not in individual spots – the matter is in the general color of Michael’s genitalia in 1993 when Jordan made a completely wrong color description of his penis.

Given that in his interview with Dr. Gardner Jordan claimed horrors like mutual masturbation, it is top important for us to know that despite all his stories Jordan could not guess even the basic color of the genitalia he had allegedly “seen” so close.

God must have given Michael vitiligo for us to be able to prove the innocent truth

And finding that Jordan’s blunder is stated in the book by Bob Jones and Stacy Brown too gives us one more source where this mistake was recorded.

It is also funny that what was supposed to be exclusive information from the former MJ’s publicist (Bob Jones) and former “friend” (Stacy Brown) turned out to be the exact replica of the Smoking Gun article without a single word changed to it.

It is funny because it shows how these “authors” wrote their books about MJ – someone told a lie, the media gave it utmost publicity, Michael’s detractors masquerading as his friends gladly repeated it and when the deceit was uncovered the media effectively erased all mention of it – however in the book it stayed still displaying the naked lie to the shame of its authors.

Future writers of books should remember this lesson – it’s only Internet which allows valuable articles to disappear almost without trace while a book has a lasting value.

Now I start recalling that the same mistake was made by Ray Chandler and Victor Gutierrez as both of them, as far as I remember, also reflected on Jordan’s wrong description, and this means that now we have not just one or two, but several manuscripts to record the lies told by Jordan in 1993.

It is difficult to erase the past,  so Michael’s haters will have to face the uncomfortable fact that Jordan made TWO crucial mistakes in describing MJ’s genitals.

Let me also note that those two statements were the ONLY proof Jordan Chandler provided to back up his graphic stories. And both of them turned out to be completely wrong.

Given usual men’s anatomy the chances that Jordan would be so grossly mistaken were very low as the subject doesn’t generally provide that many alternatives for a wrong guess, but in spite of it being next to impossible to make a mistake Jordan managed to be wrong full 100 per cent!

This extremely rare occurrence proves that Jordan Chandler never saw Michael’s genitalia at all. Anyone can say anything about another person but without proof it remains what it is – pure fiction about the events that never took place.

And this also makes it absolutely unimportant whether Michael did or didn’t pay the boy any money. After all it could be an act of charity on Michael’s part for Jordan Chandler victimized by his father, or a kind of a ransom paid by the captive to his torturers to set him free at last.

REWRITING HISTORY

However instead of facing the truth those who are especially keen to put Michael into a bad class have  now chosen to disprove the fact that Jordan did make those two mistakes.

The first thing they handle is Jordan’s phrase stated in Linden’s affidavit which says that he described “distinctive “splotches” on MJ’s buttocks and one on his penis, “which is a light color similar to the color of his face”.

Since I am the only one who talks about this matter Michael’s haters now claim that it was I who misinterpreted the phrase. This is what they say:

A simple mistake for fans looking for something (anything!) to exonorate Jackson – it is the penis “which is a light color similar to the color of his face”, not the “splotches”. Fans are confused by simple sentence structure. That this even needs to be mentioned highlights the tiresomeness in general of responding to fans’ erroneous assertions and assumptions.” http://www.mjfacts.info/the_telltale_splotch.php

English is a foreign language to me and it is very easy to find linguistic mistakes in what I am saying, so I regarded this critical statement as a serious one and decided to look at how others interpreted the same information based on the media reports of Jordan’s words.

Jordan’s description was heavily publicized and I hoped that the “splotch which was the color of his face” would be repeated by someone one way or the other. The task was to find how English-speaking people interpreted it and what they understood by it.

Considering that after Michael’s death every mention of Linden’s affidavit miraculously disappeared from the Internet it was no easy task to have an English speaker comment on Jordan’s words from the document which is nowhere to be found. However a long search did bring a result and fortunately confirmed that my interpretation of his words was absolutely correct.

Seth Clerk Silberman speaks about himself and the conference on MJ he arranged at Yale University

The confirmation was found in the works of an author who claims to be one of the best experts on Michael Jackson. His name is Seth Clerk Silberman and he is a gay activist, a lecturer on “gay and lesbian studies” at Yale University who claims he is so knowledgeable about MJ that he even arranged “the first academic conference” about him on September 23-24, 2004 (on the eve of MJ’s trial? what was the point?).

Seth Silberman’s stories are extensively quoted by most respectable media outlets

To prove that his statements are carrying much weight the author provides several links to well-respected papers (The Washington Post, ABC News) which cite Seth Clerk Silberman’s works and evidently consider him an authority on Michael Jackson.

However the form in which the confirmation of Jordan’s words came in Silberman’s studies was somewhat unusual and told me that Michael’s vindication would not be plain sailing judging by the direction into which this learned guy is taking his “research”.

His words about Michael showed me more of this man’s intentions than he would care to disclose. Despite Silberman’s outwardly soothing talk about Michael Jackson I see him as one of his shrewdest haters who is seeking ways to prove the worst.

His goals became obvious as soon as he showed high regard for Victor Gutierrez . He not only quoted Gutierrez as a respected source about Jackson, but the most terrible thing he did was that he covertly corrected Gutierrez to make his book look more credible and misquoted him on some issues.

And these issues are absolutely crucial.

For example, Gutierrez said in his book written in 1995 that Jordan described Michael as circumcised. Yes, Gutierrez is one of the sources who fixed this statement in his book!

There can be no doubt about it as I myself have seen it there. Sorry for having to repeat this filth:

“Then he took off his clothes, and I noticed that he had very little pubic hair, and that his penis was circumcised”.

(“Michael Jackson was my lover”. 1st Edition: March 1996. 2nd Edition: January 1997. Copyright© 1995 By Victor M. Gutierrez Prieto. SANTIAGO,CHILE).

But in the year 2006 when Seth Clerk Silberman presented his “research” at an “academic” conference in Yale University he already corrected Gutierrez and misquoted him by saying that Jordan claimed that Michael was not circumcised.

So in 1995 Gutierrez reported Jordan’s words as they were, because even if he wanted to at the time it was impossible to lie about something which was so well-known to everyone.

However ten years later the non-circumcision  lie already became possible and began to be forced on the people at “academic” conferences…  Given that the book itself is rare to find and is not formally allowed in the US due to it totally ped-lia content, it is more or less safe for Silberman to lie about this crucial matter as very few people will be able or care to check up.

By the way I’ve seen this revised lie already repeated by the so-called Michael Jackson “fan” site which is also spreading this lie without batting an eye-lid.

What are all these people doing?

They are rewriting history.

By claiming in full earnest that Jordan described Michael as not circumcised Silberman is correcting not only Gutierrez but all the media reports about it which we ourselves remember so clearly!

Of course it was a bit reckless on Silberman’s part to start rewriting history so early – direct witnesses of the events who heard media screams about MJ’s alleged “circumcision” day and night still remember the truth. This intimate but wrong detail of Michael’s private parts was publicized so heavily that it is simply impossible to forget it  – so as we  lived with it, so we will die with it, still remembering Jordan’s lie to our deathbed.

But Seth Clerk Silberman’s revision of history is not aimed at us. His audience is students – a younger generation of people who are not that familiar with what the media hammered into our heads back in the 90s, and with them Silberman is probably getting away with his lies. This is a very dangerous sign showing where Michael’s detractors will take us in the future.

However it is time to get back to the splotch thing.

The reason why I consider Silberman’s article so valuable is because in the year 2006 Silberman didn’t yet know that besides circumcision there was another inconsistency in Jordan’s statement – I mean the color of the splotch and consequently penis which acquired importance only recently when we finally discovered it.

No one paid attention to this side of the matter before and since he didn’t know that it also mattered Silberman simply repeated the well-publicized media version of Jordan’s words and spoke about light (“blotchy-pink”) patches allegedly seen by Jordan on that penis.

You are getting my point, are you?

The point is that Silberman lied about one thing but didn’t lie about the other simply because he didn’t know that it mattered.  

His idea is to prove that Michael was a p -le and that is why he is revising  the past and attributing a new,  non-circumcision version to Jordan Chandler –  but as to the rest of the story he left it intact as he didn’t know that it was also necessary to be changed.

Michael detractors are constantly changing history to try and make their case against Michael Jackson unbeatable.  Now that they know of Jordan’s second mistake they will surely correct the color of that blotch too to make it consistent with the photos described by Sneddon.  I am afraid that what was a popular “light splotch the color of his face” in 1993 will change into an equally popular “dark spot found in a relatively same location” in the 21st century and will again be attributed to Jordan Chandler in the same manner Silberman is doing it now with the circumcision issue.

This is what Silberman said correcting one of Jordan’s mistakes but unaware of the other:

“Gathered in the room were Los Angeles Assistant District Atttorney Lauren Weiss, Court Secretary Patty Watson, and Detective Rosibel Ferrufino. They listened to Jordan Chandler, accompanied now by notoriously aggressive lawyer Gloria Allred. On this Wednesday, September 1, 1993, Jordan repeated his testimony. Two weeks earlier, Jordanhad told Detective Ferrufino more than he had anyone. He said Michael used his hands and his mouth. Jordan described Michael’s penis, “not circumcised” with “blotchy-pink” patches like a cow.”

http://thisdaymichael.blogspot.com/

The fact that Silberman misquoted Gutierrez on the circumcision issue shows that this “lecturer on gay and lesbian issues at Yale University” has a grave agenda of his own and it is only a chance luck that in the process of slandering Michael over one thing he provided us with additional proof of Jordan’s lies over the other thing.

And it doesn’t matter whether Silberman read or didn’t read the Linden report. What matters is that he doesn’t know what we are looking for and is therefore simply repeating what the media and everyone else said 15 years ago.

And this is exactly what we need. We wanted to know how Jordan’s words were interpreted back in the 90s by his fellow citizens and continued to be interpreted until the year 2006, and now we have an answer to it.

Seth Silberman is revising history by changing Jordan’s words about circumcision. However he doesn’t yet know that Jordan made another mistake (about the color of MJ’s genitalia) and repeats this other Jordan’s lie as it is

After we throw away Silberman’s  “non-circumcision” revision we will see the rest of Jordan’s words in their virgin form – Jordan thought that MJ had a dark circumcised penis with a light splotch (splotches) on it.

Let me remind you that the photos showed exactly the opposite – the genitalia were light (this follows from Sneddon’s declaration) and the penis was non-circumcised (and the autopsy report confirmed it).

The only conclusion we can draw from the above is that Jordan never saw Michael’s private parts and this is all that matters in the 1993 case – irrespective of Jordan’s claims.

We’ve heard similar stories from lunatics like Daniel Capon and Joseph Bartucci (who never met Michael at all).

What do these crazy stories matter without proof? Nothing. Some people may be simple schizophrenics, some are extremely talented in inventing stories and some will spend weeks searching the internet for similar allegations to give more credibility to their own stories – and it is only when it comes to proving their lies is when really big problems arise for these people.

Without proof anyone’s story is just a story –  similar to that about Harry Porter.

Another conclusion I want to repeat here is that total lack of proof of Jordan’s lies means that the payment made by Michael or his insurance company is a NON-ISSUE for us. What does it matter if  Michael paid anyone money if the story of this person was based on LIES? Nothing again.

Out of the two alternatives I suggested as an explanation for that payment – charity on Michael’s part to the boy victimized by his father or a ransom paid by a captive for releasing him from his torturers, I myself select the second one.

Michael was so sick and tired of the whole circus that he was ready to do anything in order to make it go away.

WHY DO THEY REWRITE HISTORY?

It is both interesting and appalling to see the history of Michael Jackson’s past accusations being rewritten by his haters.

Previously I thought that only my country has an unpredictable past (as it constantly changes in line with ideology), but now I see that past allegations against Michael Jackson also continuously morph into something different depending on the new facts of Michael’s innocence uncovered today.

This tendency is very much there as the false mjfacts site proves it. Same as Silberman this site also claims that Jordan Chandler called Michael non-circumcised, thus putting wrong words into Jordan’s mouth and morphing his description into something that will make his words look correct.

These people make innocent eyes and wonder in sheer pretence: “Where did Jordan say that Michael Jackson was circumcised?” They even claim that they “can be sure the information that Jackson was circumcised certainly didn’t come from Jordan’s actual description“!

The insolence with which haters are revising history makes me speechless. They are sure the Jordan “certainly” didn’t say it!

So now that they cannot change MJ’s non-circumcised state, they want to change Jordan Chandler’s story instead?

The make-belief game these people are playing reveals that the authors of this site, same as Silberman, are not just ordinary Michael’s detractors who repeat lies about him as they don’t know the truth.

No, they do know the truth but are changing it on purpose to adjust Michael Jackson to the agenda of their own.

And the desire of these people to prove the impossible is so big that they are ready to distort even the past for the sake of their agenda.

Why is it so crucial for them to put Michael into a bad class? What makes these people even change history in order to keep the image created of Michael in the past intact –  even despite all new facts changing the whole story? Why do they devote so much of their time to specially maintain a slanderous  site about Michael Jackson? Why do they arrange “academic” conferences at universities teaching people false stories about him?

Let us just note the importance of all these questions and leave answers to them until some other time.

*  *  *

UPDATE by sanemjfan February 25th, 2012

I wanted to add the following two photos to give readers a visual example of how inaccurate Jordan’s description really was.

A visual representation of what Jordan’s description of MJ’s penis looked like!

His initialy description was that MJ’s penis had a splotch “which is a light color, similar to the color of his face”.  So according to Jordan, the overall color of MJ’s penis was “dark”, and the splotches were “light”.

The tie in the photo on the left is a perfect representation of this description, as it is black with white spots.

But, according to Tom Sneddon’s court pleading on May 26th, 2005 (which was an act of desperation on his part because he knew he had already lost the case), his description is as follows:

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 Sneddon admits that the blemish is DARK, which means that the general color of MJ’s penis was light! And he was correct! The vitiligo erased the overwhelming majority of the pigments in all areas of MJ’s body, including his penis, so the remaining splotches and blemishes were DARK!

The photo on the right is an accurate representation of how MJ’s penis looked:

I hope this helps you understand why the color of the splotches (as well as the circumcision issue) are so important!

And this is a visual representation of what MJ’s penis really looked like! It was light with dark splotches, just like the rest of his body!

For more information on Jordan’s inaccurate description, please read the following posts:

All you wanted to know ABOUT IT but were afraid to ask. Part 1. CIRCUMCISION or ERECTION?

All you wanted to know ABOUT IT but were afraid to ask. Part 2. JORDAN’S DRAWING

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

The story of “The Telltale Splotch” missing from the Smoking Gun

Was it a MATCH or a total MISMATCH?

93 Comments leave one →
  1. October 11, 2015 2:22 pm

    “i recently read an article by charlie thompson ‘the most shameful history in journalism’ i would love it if people who havent read this article read it” – Zee

    And even if you have read it never hurts to reread it. We’ve recently discussed Sneddon’s questionable behavior in a different post and look what Charles Thomson is writing about it:

    “While the media was busy badgering a host of quacks and distant acquaintances for their views on the scandal, the team of prosecutors behind the latest Jackson case was engaging in some highly questionable behavior – but the media didn’t seem to care.

    During the Neverland raid District Attorney Tom Sneddon – the prosecutor who unsuccessfully pursued Jackson in 1993 – and his officers breached the terms of their own search warrant by entering Jackson’s office and seizing hoards of irrelevant business papers. They also illegally raided the office of a PI working for Jackson’s defense team and lifted defense documents from the home of the singer’s personal assistant.

    Sneddon also appeared to be tampering with fundamental elements of his case whenever evidence came to light which undermined the Arvizo family’s claims. For instance, when the DA found out about two taped interviews in which the entire Arvizo family sang Jackson’s praises and denied any abuse, he introduced a conspiracy charge and claimed they’d been forced to lie against their will.

    In a similar instance, Jackson’s lawyer Mark Geragos appeared on NBC in January 2004 and announced that the singer had a ‘concrete, iron-clad alibi’ for the dates on the charge sheet. By the time Jackson was re-arraigned in April for the conspiracy charge, the molestation dates on the rap sheet had been shifted by almost two weeks.

    Sneddon was later caught seemingly trying to plant fingerprint evidence against Jackson, allowing accuser Gavin Arvizo to handle adult magazines during the grand jury hearings, then bagging them up and sending them away for fingerprint analysis.

    Not only did the majority of the media overlook this flurry of questionable and occasionally illegal activity on the part of the prosecution, it also seemed perfectly content to perpetuate damning propaganda on the prosecution’s behalf, despite a complete lack of corroborative evidence. For example, Diane Dimond appeared on Larry King Live days after Jackson’s arrest and spoke repeatedly about a ‘stack of love letters’ the star had supposedly written to Gavin Arvizo.

    “Does anyone here… know of the existence of these letters?” asked King.

    “Absolutely,” Dimond replied. “I do. I absolutely know of their existence!”

    “Diane, have you read them?”

    “No, I have not read them.”

    Dimond admitted that she’d never even seen the letters, let alone read them, but said she knew about them from “high law enforcement sources”. But those love letters never materialized. When Dimond said she ‘absolutely knew’ of their existence she was basing her comments solely on the words of police sources. At best, the police sources were parroting the Arvizos’ allegations in good faith. At worst, they’d concocted the story themselves to sully Jackson’s name. Either way, the story went around the world with not a shred of evidence to support it.

    As the trial kicked into gear, it became quickly apparent that the case was full of holes. The prosecution’s only ‘evidence’ was a stack of heterosexual porn magazines and a couple of legal art books. Thomas Mesereau wrote in a court motion, “The effort to try Mr. Jackson for having one of the largest private libraries in the world is alarming. Not since the dark day of almost three quarters of a century ago has anyone witnessed a prosecution which claimed that the possession of books by well known artists were evidence of a crime against the state.”

    “http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html

    Like

  2. Zee permalink
    October 10, 2015 2:07 pm

    Just wanted to drop this here. Lets all remember that money is the root of all evil,people could do ANYTHING for money…i am sure that this people who told lies about mj were hugely rewarded, so the more bogus the lies are,the more money they get. Lets also remember that since beginning of mj’s solo career,the media has formed so many bogus tales on mj’s life and told so many lies abt him so we dont expect them to suddenly turn around and say the truth…this people have lost all sense of integrity. I once read an interview of one of mj’s guitarist,where she said that she was approached by a reporter to say something on mj for a lot of money which she refused, so imagine the amount of money that would be given to those liars…the more bogus the lie,the more money rewarded….i recently read an article by charlie thompson ‘the most shameful history in journalism’ i would love it if people who havent read this article read it, it openly shows how shameless and stupid the media can be…the saddest thing is that the lies of this media is only obvious to the most observant person, such little things as not quoting the speaker or adding lies to truthful things shows their manipulative ways and i seriously wonder what mj did to them…..lies run short distances but the truth runs marathons…MJ was truly a gift from God

    Like

  3. October 22, 2012 11:12 pm

    “Wow that kid totally got the description wrong. Of course because he never saw michaels private parts cause michael never touched him.”

    Sofia, from what that talented kid said about MJ, he should have seen the genitalia very well. In his interview with Richard Gardner Jordan mentioned (somewhat in passing) that “he masturbated him” on ten occasions:

    “…he had me masturbate him.”
    “On how many occasions?”
    “About ten”

    Such a statement was a big mistake. A very big mistake.

    If Jordan had really done it (and on ten occasions too) he would have noticed the non-circumcision and that the genitalia were light, not brown (as he thought they were). But he did not know it, so consequently he never did it.

    Larry Feldman realized that Jordan had made a big mistake and never repeated it. For example, the declaration of the boy, made a week after the photo session took place, did NOT mention any instances of “the boy masturbating” the adult.

    Sorry we have to talk about such terrible things, but it is only when you look into them that you see the boy’s lies. The whole idea of Larry Feldman and the Chandlers was to describe the alleged sex scenes in so much detail that it created a shock with the public. And when people are so shocked and so disgusted they no longer want to look into details. Those who invented it knew that the mere idea of it is so revolting that no one would really look – it was only the overall effect that mattered.

    But if you manage to overcome the repulsion and do look, you see that nothing fits in. It was a lie. Any of us can invent it (if we want to) – it is so easy!

    Like

  4. Sofia smith permalink
    October 22, 2012 9:07 pm

    Wow that kid totally got the description wrong. Ofcourse because he never saw michaels private parts cause michael never touched him. That probably played a huge part in the grand jury not charging him because it proves michaels innocence.

    Like

  5. Mona permalink
    April 18, 2012 9:01 pm

    kaarin22, excellent remark about Michael being like a Rorschach blotch test. Everyone sees himself in Michael, whether good or bad and that tells us a lot about people who just hate him without knowing any facts. I honestly pity them. It also tells us a lot about those who love him without knowing any facts. I have to admit I fell into the latter category until I discovered this site and I’m not ashamed of it. A big thanks to the people who made my blind belief legitimate 🙂

    Love

    Like

  6. kaarin22 permalink
    April 18, 2012 8:41 pm

    Michael Jackson is truly like a Rorschach blotch test.Everyone interprets his/her own self in that.-Now this: “Dr,Seth C.Silberman giving academic conferences on Michael Jackson.” The closest he ever came to Michael Jackson was the photo of himself next to Michaels wax figure. How deep can you sink and still claim to be academic? Using Victor Giutirrez writing for reference.His first academic conference in Sept.2004 and a second in California on Oct.
    1,st 2009..Is there no end to people making money off Michael in life as in death?And so
    naive as to seek academic status too.

    Like

  7. lynande51 permalink
    March 23, 2012 10:34 pm

    Helena you might want to add that link to the article so people can still find it.

    Like

  8. lynande51 permalink
    March 23, 2012 10:14 pm

    Here is a link to The Case Of The TellTale Splotch that you can still access through the webarchive.
    http://web.archive.org/web/20090630025648/http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jacksonsplotch.html

    I should clarify somethings for the people that are just catching up. First the 2003 search warrant contained the pages from 1993 of Jordan’s description and his Declaration. It was attached to the search warrant affadavit for probable cause by Paul Zellis. It was attached on November 13th, 2003 and was not sealed again until January 16th,2004 by the Judge. So it was open and available to be leaked to the media as all of the other documents that were originally leaked were. The people at Gawker saw it too so it was not as hush hush as the haters would like everyone to believe. I don’t think the people at Gawker, The Drudge Report and The Smoking Gun were all wrong about the circumcision part.
    Second, I was laid up in the hospital for a couple of days here and had a chance to catch up on my reading and comparing.It would seem that Jordan did give at least two if not three descriptions. According to the Chandler book All That Glitters and Tom Sneddon declaration about the photos he gave one to Lauren Weiss on Sept.1st,1993 when he was with Gloria Alred. Then according to VG he gave one on October 24th,1993, that one is or is not the one that went to Sneddon, and a possible third description was on December 14th, 1993. That one was done in Feldman’s office and was for the civil trial and his declaration. But accordingto Sneddon’s 2005 Declaration he has two different dates in there. One he referrs to the September description and in another part it was December. That would seem after reading ATG that both dates included a description so which one is Sneddon referrring to when he says he examined and read that description?
    The reason that I question what occured on Oct.24th is the photo of the “drawing” that VG has in his book. There were two drawings that were eventually leaked in the two books. One is in MJWML and the other came as an attachment to the book ATG. The one from MJWML has more script on it than the one that is an attachment to the book ATG by Ray Chandler. The text that is missing is the text where the top says “Mike is circumcised” and “Brett not circumcised” and more. The question that we always had was did the police accept that as a description because I know when I look at it I always question the text that says ” My Theory” and more because why would Jordan have had a theory about anything? What that photo copy is, is a plan and proof that Evan Chandler knew Victor Gutierrez prior to the allegations and they conspired together to accuse Michael.
    If people question my logic look at Rodney Allen A.K.A. John Templeton of Toronto. He was able to give a young man enough details regarding the layout of all of MJ’s homes so that he would sound credible when he accused him. When you watch Diane Dimonds show where she confronts him he says ” Michael has to face it”.There was also a fax from Rodney Allen to someone that was part of the 1993-1994 discovery in the case. I have no question that he was one of the Toronto people from “the train”. Well the kid in that event confessed in short time and two years later Rodney Allen was arrested and convicted of multiple counts of molesting boys. He was found to be a dangerous offender and is not allowed parole at this point. That is another case where I have no question that people like VG and Rodney Allen stalked MJ in an attempt to use him to further their cause. There is also the fact that VG actually was able to find all of the people before any allegation was made. He was not a journalist as he would like people to believe. He was a stalker. That is how he found Wade Robson and his family in 1992. He must have followed Michael’s every move to know who to contact.That is a stalker mentality not a journalist mentality.And nobody knows stalking better than a ped-le.

    Like

  9. March 22, 2012 4:37 pm

    I saw a lot of things scattered in the house search pics of Neverland, but not porn magazines, so I probably missed the pics you are talking about. The magazines were located in several places, some might have been “scattered”, I don’t know. Maybe there were ones which did not belong to Michael, but my point was that most did belong to him since they were stored in places which clearly indicate this – nightstand, box at the base of his bed, closed briefcase in his bedroom (besides the fingerprint evidence and also Mesereau’s admission).

    Suzy, what I said was not because I doubt that those magazines were MJ’s – no, I don’t, especially after Thomas Mesereau said so. But what I begin doubting is that the police found all those things where they said they did – for example, on the nightstand. I remember Lynette writing about some empty bottles found somewhere around that place too (which is why the matter of wine was raised at all). But the point is – how can empty bottles or glasses be kept in the room if there are so many maids in the house and the master of the house is away for two or three weeks?

    Didn’t they clean things away from those rooms and put them in their places? And who was leaving all those things in Michael’s room while he was away?

    “I also think (based on testimony) that when Michael was not at home people often violated his privacy and went to his bedroom and rummaged through his stuff. So at those times people might have found some of those magazines and taken them and then leave them scattered around Neverland.”

    Possibly, but then the place where “this” or “that” was found becomes irrelevant, and the main point of the discussion (at the trial) should have become who was the last to enter those rooms.

    Something is wrong here.

    Like

  10. sanemjfan permalink
    March 22, 2012 3:34 pm

    @christa
    Do you mean why was there not a trial in 1993? To be honest, it’s because the Chandler family never WANTED a trial! Evan Chandler wanted to extort a $20 million dollar film deal out of MJ, but his plans were thwarted when his ex-wife June Chandler obtained custody of Jordan, and Evan was ordered to hand over Jordan to his mother. Instead of doing it, he took Jordan to see a shrink, and Jordan “confessed” to being abused, and the doctor reported it to the authorities. This was Evan’s plan because it prevented him from being charged with reporting a false allegation.

    Next, Evan fired Gloria Allred and hired Larry Feldman after Allred refused to sue MJ first (she wanted to pursue criminal charges first, which would have resulted in jailtime if MJ had been convicted). Feldman filed his lawsuit and filed a motion to have the civil trial precede the criminal trial. MJ filed a countermotion to have the civil trial delayed until after the criminal trial, but lost, so to make a long story short, the decision was made to settle the civil case in January 1994 so that MJ’s legal defense wouldn’t be exposed to Sneddon prior to the criminal trial. MJ’s insurance company paid the settlement of $15.3 million in five annual installments from 1994-1999. After receiving their settlement, the Chandlers refused to cooperate with police in their criminal investigation, and Sneddon and Gil Garcetti were unable to obtain grand jury indictments against MJ (and there’s no guarantee that they would have obtain one even if the Chandler’s had cooperated, as their “smoking gun evidence” – Jordan’s description of MJ’s penis – didn’t match!)

    For more information, you can read this 3 part series on this blog: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/history-vs-evanstory-the-1993-allegations-part-1/

    You can read Mary Fischer’s 1994 GQ article: http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/gq-article-was-michael-jackson-framed/

    Or you can read Lisa Campbell’s 1994 book “The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour” (which you can download for free from Google books; press the “Download PDF” button under the drop down arrow in the top right hand corner of the screen) http://books.google.com/books?id=n1S4bMjM8LoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=king+of+pops+darkest+hour&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5A1rT7eHGej4sQL97Mn3BQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=king%20of%20pops%20darkest%20hour&f=false

    Like

  11. Suzy permalink
    March 22, 2012 2:41 pm

    @ Helena

    “Why were those magazines scattered all over the place while Michael was away?”

    I saw a lot of things scattered in the house search pics of Neverland, but not porn magazines, so I probably missed the pics you are talking about.

    The magazines were located in several places, some might have been “scattered”, I don’t know. Maybe there were ones which did not belong to Michael, but my point was that most did belong to him since they were stored in places which clearly indicate this – nightstand, box at the base of his bed, closed briefcase in his bedroom (besides the fingerprint evidence and also Mesereau’s admission).

    I also think (based on testimony) that when Michael was not at home people often violated his privacy and went to his bedroom and rummaged through his stuff. So at those times people might have found some of those magazines and taken them and then leave them scattered around Neverland.

    Like

  12. March 22, 2012 12:07 pm

    “The reason I felt the need to say the mags were Michael’s is because you highlighted Taraborelli’s opinion that he thought they weren’t his. Obviously he didn’t pay attention at the trial then. (But I also kind of suspect another reason why he said this and it’s that tabloids always wanted to portray Michael as gay and this article was published in one of those tabloids. Obviously if Michael’s interest was in heterosexual porn then that goes against the notion that he was gay. So they’d rather try to imply the mags weren’t his.)”

    Oh, I see. Each group is trying to pull Michael into theirs, so to be able to learn the real truth you need to know all the undercurrents behind each story published, and peel off the unnecessary observations or hints they occasionally drop. Restoring the truth requires an exceptionally fine and meticulous approach.

    Like

  13. Suzy permalink
    March 22, 2012 11:42 am

    @ Helena

    I agree with your point that it was totally unnecessary from the prosecution to show them since they had nothing to do with the case (just like the art books had nothing to do with it). They were just trying to prejudice the jury with these red herrings, that was the only purpose of it, because they had no any real evidence. (“A red herring is a clue or piece of information which is intended to be misleading, or distracting from the actual issue.[1] For example, in mystery fiction, where the identity of a criminal is being sought, an innocent party may be purposefully cast in a guilty light by the author through the employment of deceptive clues, false emphasis, “loaded” words or other descriptive tricks of the trade.” Source: Wiki)

    One could argue that since the Arvizo boys claimed Michael showed them such magazines they weren’t irrelevant, but even then there was no need to show them all. I mean a lot of those magazines were published after the Arvizos left Neverland. July, June, August, September issues of 2003. So what was the point in showing all those? I agree with you that they only wanted to humiliate Michael and I have to shake my head at the judge for allowing this to happen with no good reason or purpose at all.

    The reason I felt the need to say the mags were Michael’s is because you highlighted Taraborelli’s opinion that he thought they weren’t his. Obviously he didn’t pay attention at the trial then. (But I also kind of suspect another reason why he said this and it’s that tabloids always wanted to portray Michael as gay and this article was published in one of those tabloids. Obviously if Michael’s interest was in heterosexual porn then that goes against the notion that he was gay. So they’d rather try to imply the mags weren’t his.)

    And also sometimes I see fans say: “The porn magazines weren’t even Michael’s, they were employee’s.” And it’s just not true, so it’s a bit like the “Jordan recanted his allegations” defense, which people shouldn’t use.

    Like

  14. March 22, 2012 10:51 am

    “Mesereau admitted the porn magazines were Michael’s”

    Suzy, I understand. But this doesn’t explain why Sneddon showed those pages on the screen for what lasted a full “porn week” as Taraborrelli put it. What was the point of showing page after page if it if it had nothing to do with children?

    We know what Tom Sneddon “claimed” about them – that MJ showed them to some kids. However there is irrefutable proof that he never gave those magazines to any children – and the proof of it is the huge SURPRISE Tom Robson, Brett Barnes and Kit Culkin showed at seeing those magazines in the courtroom. They said they never knew they were in MJ’s possession!

    The Prosecution asked them questions like “Would it change your attitude if you knew that he had them?” diverting everyone’s attention from the fact that all the three of them were surprised that MJ could possess them at all. But their surprise is much more meaningful than all these questions! It proves that they never saw Michael reading them and that he – all the more so – never showed them to children!

    “some of them were found in his nightstand, some in a box at the base of his bed, others in a briefcase also in his bedroom suite.”

    You cannot imagine how interesting this point it. When I came across the photos of that search I realized that someone kept all those things scattered all over the place though Michael had been away from Neverland for at least two or three weeks. He was in Las Vegas recording “One more chance” for the new album, so he was physically absent for several weeks by the time of the Neverland raid.

    Why were those magazines scattered all over the place while Michael was away?

    Like

  15. March 22, 2012 9:49 am

    Why was there never a first trial?

    Which trial?

    Like

  16. christa permalink
    March 22, 2012 12:51 am

    Why was there never a first trial?

    Like

  17. nan permalink
    March 22, 2012 12:17 am

    If someone could hand ABC the secret grand jury testimony right before they picked the jury and that is a felony offense and nobody cared….
    If people are on the stand admitting to perjury….and..nobody cared..
    The media is not reporting the truth…. nobody cared….
    ..what would stop someone from getting those pictures of MJ??….NOTHING..this thing was so out of control…
    The fact that this trial took place at all was insane,….anything was possible.
    Sneddon wanted to titillate people ..
    Between that and the magazines constantly being flashed on a big screen..
    I swear Sneddon is the pervert..
    He is just fixated on this stuff.Its gross..

    Like

  18. Suzy permalink
    March 21, 2012 11:56 pm

    @ Christa

    I personally don’t consider Taraborelli very credible. Some of his informations may be correct, but at the end of the day he’s a tabloid writer and it shows in his writings. Remember when, after Michael’s death, he disclosed his negative experiences about Evan Chandler? OK, then why didn’t he disclose this information when he wrote his books and insinuated things about Michael and Jordan? He’s a two-faced hypocrite in my opinion.

    Like

  19. Suzy permalink
    March 21, 2012 11:36 pm

    From Mesereau’s opening statement:

    “18 The prosecutor told you that there were
    19 girlie-type magazines and sexually explicit material
    20 in Mr. Jackson’s home, and there were. Mr. Jackson
    21 will freely admit that he does read girlie magazines
    22 from time to time. And what he does is he sends
    23 someone to the local market, and they pick up
    24 Playboy and they pick up Hustler, and he has read
    25 them from time to time. He absolutely denies
    26 showing them to children.”

    Like

  20. Suzy permalink
    March 21, 2012 11:30 pm

    Also if the photos had been introduced I believe there would have been a good chance that they would have got out of the courtroom and every magazine and newspaper would have published them the next day (just see what happened to Michael’s autopsy photos when they were shown in court). Imagine the humiliation for Michael! Obviously neither Michael nor Mez wanted that. And I guess to humiliate Michael would have been the next best thing for Sneddon if he failed to get him convicted.

    (Helena, Mesereau admitted the porn magazines were Michael’s. And in fact Michael’s fingerprints were on them, some of them were found in his nightstand, some in a box at the base of his bed, others in a briefcase also in his bedroom suite. By every account they were his. This was never disputed by the defense. And there’s nothing wrong with that. They were all perfectly legal material. In fact, they prove that he was interested in women.)

    Like

  21. christa permalink
    March 21, 2012 11:24 pm

    What do u think about taborelli? Do I think his book had alot of fact or fiction? I found some of the things hard to believe, like some of things michael supposedly said.. as if it were dialouge from a novel. Again i appteciate all of ur answers its nice to be able to hear ur guys’ insight.

    Like

  22. March 21, 2012 11:05 pm

    “is it true thomas mesareu fought “tooth and nail” to keep the pictures out of court?”

    I think it is true, but the reason for that is gravely misinterpreted by Michael’s haters. The photos were no match but that is not the point.

    Let me say it directly to you. Photographing a man’s penis is the same is photographing a woman’s vagina. If someone had photos of that part of your body wouldn’t you ask your attorney to do whatever it takes to save you from that humiliation? The humiliation of your private parts beings seen by 12 men and women in the jury? And the photos being projected to the screen in the courtroom for everyone to see? So you know the answer why Mesereau was trying his best, don’t you?

    Sneddon was bluffing of course, because he knew that the photos could not be shown without “witness” Jordan Chandler testifying too (and they did not have that witness). Photos per se do not mean anything – it is the comparison with the original description that matters and not the photos. So he was playing a callous game with Michael Jackson, and doing it for effect only. He counted on it as the final straw to break the camel’s back and decide the matter in his favor. All of it was sheer theater on his part, but for Michael this theater could have ended in a complete nervous break down.

    Even if those photos proved nothing we can imagine what impression they would have created on the public and the media. You can compare it with the impression created by those heterosexual magazines which were projected to the screen too. See Taraborrelli’s account of it and please note that this scene is a far cry from what it would have been if they had shown the photos:

    The worst week was the one we members of the press privately called ‘Porn Week’.

    Day after day, the prosecution showed, on an enormous screen, graphic pornographic images from stacks of magazines found at Neverland. It was awful.
    I remember sitting watching Michael’s poor mother Katherine as she was forced to look at those photos. None of it was gay porn. None of it was kiddie porn. So why show it? The prosecution suggested that it was straight porn used by Michael to turn on straight kids and encourage them to then have sex with him.

    It didn’t make sense to me. One magazine, maybe. Two? Maybe. But stacks and stacks? I didn’t think so. In fact, I wasn’t even sure it was Michael’s pornography, to tell you the truth. It all just seemed like a manoeuvre to destroy him and his family.

    ‘You have the best seat in the house,’ one of the Santa Barbara sheriffs told me the night before the verdict was to come down in June 2005.
    ‘Because when Jackson is found guilty — and he will be found guilty, I assure you — we are going to grab him and take him out of there so fast, your head will spin.’
    I wondered why.
    ‘Because we’re afraid they’ll be such an uproar, his brothers will jump the bar [which separates the spectators from the judge, defendant and lawyer] and cause a riot.’
    I was taken aback by the imagery. I had assumed Michael would be found not guilty. The prosecution’s case was weak. The kid was not believable and neither were his mother and a lot of other witnesses…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1196188/Michael-Jacksons-life-long-confidante-J-Randy-Taraborrelli-I-saw-eyes-dying.html

    Like

  23. Suzy permalink
    March 21, 2012 11:01 pm

    @ Christa

    Thomas Mesereau fought to keep out the pics because the prosecution wanted to introduce them at the very end of the trial and also because Jordan Chandler did not testify so he could not be cross-examined. I believe the prosecution knew that this evidence would not be admissable because Jordan didn’t testify, so the “attempt” to introduce it was probably a fake attempt, possibly to try to prejudice the jury right before they started to deliberate.

    The trial went like this:

    Originally it was only about the Arvizo case. When it didn’t go well for the prosecution they got the judge let to them introduce the so called 1108 evidence. This allowed the prosecution to discuss former allegations – and that without having to call the alleged victims on the stand to testify! They only had to call people who alleged they saw the molestation. This was possible because of a modification in California law that Sneddon pushed through years before (obviously with MJ in his mind) allowing third party testimony to substitute for the alleged victims’ testimony. This is how he could call the Neverland 5 (embittered ex-employees of Michael with an axe to grind and against whom Michael won a lawsuit back in the 90s and who already sold stories to tabloids for money) who testified they saw Michael molest kids like Macaulay Culkin, Wade Robson and Brett Barnes. Despite of the fact that these kids (now grown men) always denied that any molestation ever happened! Of course, then Mez called the said young men who told in court that the allegations are not true. You can read more about why allowing in the 1108 evidence was probably violating Michael’s constitutional rights, here: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/31/spilbor.jackson/

    But in short: the 1108 evidence part went just as bad for the prosecution as the Arvizo part.

    And it’s only after all this, at the very end of the trial, and when he could already feel that things weren’t going well for him, where Sneddon tried to introduce the photos! Why not earlier if they were such compelling evidence? And like I said I think they knew they would not be admissable anyway and basically this was just a PR trick at the very end, a last desperate attempt to prejudice the jury.

    Like

  24. christa permalink
    March 21, 2012 10:36 pm

    Thanks so much, even without all that, without the inaccuracies in jordys description. We can know the pictures didn’t match due to the fact he was never arrested. Since there never was enough evidence or whatever to have a trial i would assume such ecidence as having matxhing pictures to his drscription would be evidence enough to have a trial if not make him guilty. One more question regarding yahoo, is it true thomas mesareu fought “tooth and nail” to keep the pictures out of court?

    Like

  25. Suzy permalink
    March 21, 2012 10:22 pm

    @ Christa

    Here is an article from about the Grand Jury hearings in 1994:

    Grand Jury Calls Michael Jackson’s Mother to Testify
    March 16, 1994|JIM NEWTON, TIMES STAFF WRITER

    Michael Jackson’s mother, who has steadfastly proclaimed her son’s innocence in the face of allegations that he sexually molested a 13-year-old boy, has been ordered to testify before a Los Angeles County Grand Jury on Thursday afternoon, one of Jackson’s lawyers said Tuesday.
    “In all the years of my experience, I’ve never before seen the mother of the target of an investigation called before the grand jury,” said Howard Weitzman, one of two lawyers representing Jackson, who has been under investigation since last summer. “It’s just done in real poor taste. It borders on harassment.”

    Jackson’s mother has frequently given interviews and made public appearances to defend her son, but a source close to the investigation said she may be questioned about Jackson’s physical appearance. Investigators have been attempting to determine whether Jackson has done anything to alter his appearance so that it does not match a description provided to them by the alleged victim, who turned 14 in January.

    Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti said Tuesday he expects to wrap up the Jackson investigation within the next month or so. Although grand juries are meeting in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties, Jackson’s attorneys say they have been told that neither grand jury is considering an indictment, at least for the time being.
    Because they can issue subpoenas, grand juries often are used to elicit statements from witnesses who otherwise are reluctant to speak to investigators.

    Weitzman said Jackson was “very, very upset” to learn that his mother had been called to testify. Officials from the district attorney’s office declined to comment.

    Now, if Jordan’s description matched why did prosecutors want to ask Katherine about whether Michael changed the appearance of his genitalia?

    I can’t remember the source of it (maybe someone can help me out) but I remember they were also looking for evidence (medical papers) in Arnold Klein’s office about whether Michael changed the appearance of his genitalia.

    Plus, of course, Michael would have been arrested if the description had matched.

    Another interesting article (from the LA Times in January, 1994) is the one where we learn Larry Feldman (the Chandlers’ lawyer) tried to bar the photos from the civil trial (which they seeked to get ahead of the criminal):

    “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.”
    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-05/local/me-8514_1_michael-jackson

    Now, if they are a match and prove your allegations why do you want to get them barred under ANY circumstances? Even if the defendant doesn’t give you copies (why ask the defendant, why not the prosecutors?) or he doesn’t submit himself to a second search? Why the need for a second search anyway, if they are a match?

    This comes on top of the Smoking Gun article and it seems haters are simply trying to rewrite history in the hindsight in an Orwellian fashion.

    Like

  26. March 21, 2012 10:09 pm

    “haters claim fans got the statement of circumcision and white splotches from an unreliable source, Bob Jones book, which they say was removed from the smoking gun due to it’s non credible source. Being that book. Is this true? Is there any credible source stating this. I’ve always remembered him claiming circumcision but if all we have to go by is Bob Jones and Victor guteriez book, how do we know if it was his description?”

    Christa, yes, I have seen that Yahoo answer (chosen by the people as “the best one”) and nearly fell off my chair when I saw it (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120115064843AAeLDtP) . Now haters claim that Jordan never described Michael as circumcised and it is only “Jacko fans” who say so…

    WHAT RIGHT do they have to “claim” anything like that, I wonder? I mean they are taking advantage of the fact that Linden’s affidavit is missing from public view and therefore claim there is “nothing to prove Jordan’s words”. But let’s address the same question to them – and what proof do haters have that Jordan said it differently?

    They have nothing to prove their totally baseless point of view – no documents, no descriptions of the period, absolutely nothing except their worthless and crooked word!

    In contrast to that the evidence still available to us that Jordan called Michael circumcised is overwhelming.

    1) The fact that you personally remember the media reporting Jordan’s words about Michael “circumcision” is reason enough to already close the subject. You, I and everybody else still remember that ALL media (and not only the Smoking gun) reported those Jordan’s words quoted in Linden’s affidavit.

    2) Deborah Linden’s affidavit was the original source where those words were stated and this is why, as David has just said, that strip search was arranged at all.

    3) It wasn’t only Victor Gutierrez and Bob Jones who wrote about “circumcision”. Taraborrelli wrote the same in his book:

    ….There was nothing more humiliating for Michael Jackson than when police strip-searched him while investigating the allegations that he had molested 13—year—old Jordie Chandler.

    The boy had given a detailed description of the star´s body and the detectives needed to check if it was true. Jackson was warned that if he refused to cooperate, he´d be arrested and taken away in handcuffs.

    Jackson removed the dressing gown, to reveal a bathing suit. ´You´ll have to take that off, too, sir,´ said the detective. Michael slipped off the bathing suit … under which he was wearing boxers. ´Sir, please,´ the detective said.

    Crying softly, Michael took off the boxers and stood, stripped not only of his clothes, but of all his dignity. All eyes peered at him to see if he was circumcised, as Jordie had claimed (he wasn´t). ´Oh my God,´ Michael whimpered. He looked as if he was about to faint.
    (from “Michael Jackson: The Magic And The Madness”; by J. Randy Taraborrelli)

    In addition to direct quotes from Taraborrelli, Bob Jones and Victor Gutierrez (whom haters use as a “credible source” only when it suits them), we also have Tom Sneddon who had all Michael’s medical records examined to see whether he could have changed his genitalia from circumcised to a non-circumcised state as the media heavily suspected at the time.

    And on top of it all we have loads and loads of haters’ own stories alleging that Jordan saw “erection” and this is why he made a mistake and spoke of circumcision!

    In other words the same haters previously ALSO thought that Jordan gave a wrong description of Michael’s non-circumcised state, only they explained it by “erection”, but when we proved that erection and circumcison could never be taken one for the other they made a complete U-turn!

    If any of us had known that the universally known “circumcison mistake” by Jordan Chandler would eventually evaporate from all media, we would of course have taken precautionary measures – would have made screen shots of those articles, downloaded videos of the TV shows where this was mentioned, etc. We would have never allowed the fact known to everyone disappear from public view as if by witchcraft (and this is a lesson for us to record and archive everything now!).

    However we could never believe that such a thing was possible and didn’t make copies of what was known to everyone at the time!

    Now the only thing we are left with are numerous references to this fact in books and articles of the period. And though these are “secondary” sources only they are ALSO genuine facts! In history, for example, references of the period made to the original sources are considered the next best thing after the sources themselves.

    In any case our numerous “secondary” sources are incomparably better than what Michael’s haters on yahoo have – and they have ZERO.

    They quote Tom Sneddon’s declaration which was quite a mess as you know, they quote Dr. Strick who said “he was told that it was a match”, they speak of Bill Dworin as the 1993 investigator who was hurriedly summoned by the media to strengthen their case against Jackson (in 2005), BUT they do not provide evidence that Jordan called MJ non-circumcised!

    All they do is creating the usual vague impression that someone (in the prosecution) claimed that “it was a match”. I wonder what else can the prosecution claim? “Claims” are nothing – it is only the proof that matters!

    I hope very much that Michael’s supporters will do something about that blatant lie which is given now for the “best answer” on yahoo about Jordan Chandler. Please do not leave it unattended!

    By all their actions haters prove that they – as well as the media who suddenly archived everything about true Jordan’s words – are in collusion with each other. All of them are fulfilling someone’s “social order” in respect of Michael Jackson, and their actions are the best evidence that they are doing it deliberately.

    Like

  27. sanemjfan permalink
    March 21, 2012 8:34 pm

    Jordan’s description was given to Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Deputy Deborah Linden, and it is her affadavit that contains Jordan’s description. The affadavit itself has never leaked in its entirety, but it was used to obtain the search warrant that Sneddon executed in order to obtain the strip search on MJ. Many media outlets used the info from The Smoking Gun in their reports on MJ, and that’s why so many people erroneously think that Jordan gave an accurate descritpion, which “forced” MJ to have to settle his lawsuit.

    Like

  28. christa permalink
    March 21, 2012 7:48 pm

    I read it from that yahoo answers post thst youve probably seen. Did anyone else notice that jordys supposed drawing circulating the internet was not signrd or dated? In whatever article it was, they police had jordy draw what his penis looked like then had him sign and date it. And apart from the drawing being very simple. Why all the comments of bleach and body oil and “my theory” if they simply ask him to draw it. I believe the drawing was either fake or not the one given to police. Please answer my question in the previous comment. I’d really appreciate your time to answer. Thankyou

    Like

  29. sanemjfan permalink
    March 21, 2012 7:27 pm

    @Christa
    The haters have it all wrong, as usual! They claim that Jordan’s description originated from Bob Jone’s book, and then the Smoking Gun copied it, but it’s the other way around! It originated in the Smoking Gun, and it was Bob Jones and Stacy Jones who copied it! Unfortunately, we cannot determine the exact date that the Smoking Gun article, since they DELIBERATELY ommitted the year it was published! (Although they included the month and day, January 6th.)

    Read the post titled “The Story of The Telltale Splotch Missing From The Smoking Gun:; the link to it is included at the end of this post.

    Like

  30. christa permalink
    March 21, 2012 6:53 pm

    I would like to know if jordy’s description claiming Michael was circumcised was from any actual legal documents. It’s a big indication that Michael was innocent if this was a legitimately recorded statement from any trusted sources. The reason I’m asking is because haters claim fans got the statement of circumcision and white splotches from an unreliable source, Bob Jones book, which they say was removed from the smoking gun due to it’s non credible source. Being that book. Is this true? Is there any credible source stating this. I’ve always remembered him claiming circumcision but if all we have to go by is Bob Jones and Victor guteriez book, how do we know if it was his description?

    Like

  31. nan permalink
    February 28, 2012 6:20 am

    sanemjfan and vindicatemj..you are welcome for the links.It is nice to be able to contribute something every once in a while..:))
    btw Matt Tiabbi is the son of Mike Tiabbi who also reported fairly on MJ trial..
    What a contrast with someone like Nancy Grace that wasnt even sitting in there listening to testimony
    I have decided that Ms Grace is the ugly posterchild of what happened to MJ during the trial .
    She is the intersection between a so called prosecutor and a tabloid media..Except she is some entertainment clown on tv and Sneddon was actually playing it out in a real life courtroom..
    I truly hope he is exposed for the ambitious , ugly minded bigot I believe him to be..

    Like

  32. Mona permalink
    February 27, 2012 10:27 pm

    ”The MC of the proceedings was District Attorney Tom Sneddon, whose metaphorical role in this American reality show was to represent the mean gray heart of the Nixonian Silent Majority – the bitter mediocrity itching to stick it to anyone who’d ever taken a vacation to Paris.” says Matt Taibbi of the Rolling Stones, what an amazing metaphor of what Sneddon really is, that’s the exact same feeling I have about him, his face says it all, bravo, Mr. Taibbi for his master writing and vision.

    Like

  33. Mona permalink
    February 27, 2012 8:54 pm

    Helen and David, sure, I’ll take care of Michael’s ‘tie’ today :). It’s the least I can do.

    Like

  34. February 27, 2012 1:53 pm

    This is another link where he talks about Sneddon.. http://books.google.com/books?id=sDNNJdsfVv8C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=matt+taibbi+on+tom+sneddon&source=bl&ots=2t7h8CRyS_&sig=6WOuna3kCJ_Aolxs64IXfE0hr8k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mIpKT7CBNqnh0QHB34ykCg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
    I hope these links work , if not you can google …Smells like dead elephants,by Matt taibbi

    Nan, thanks a lot! The chapter about Michael’s trial and Sneddon is brilliant. Now I get a much clearer picture of what Sneddon is like. Only he could devise that vaudeville case and turn it into Michael’s nationwide tragedy.

    Like

  35. February 27, 2012 1:09 pm

    “Guys, a reader of ours used photoshop to edit the photos of the ties at the end of the post to make them more accurately match MJ’s description, which was one splotch, instead of multiple splotches!”

    David, my huge thanks to the reader for editing them. I would suggest one more improvement to the photos if it is not asking too much – it is obvious that the background could not be that even and there were surely some smaller dots there too. Both Jordan Chandler and Sneddon spoke of one distinctive splotch though the color was exactly the opposite. So would it be possible to sprinkle some smaller dots over both pictures to show that the overall impression will still be the same? And a white tie will still be white and cannot be mistaken for a black one? Our tie should be perfect once we started restoring it!

    Like

  36. sanemjfan permalink
    February 27, 2012 6:54 am

    Guys, a reader of ours used photoshop to edit the photos of the ties at the end of the post to make them more accurately match MJ’s description, which was one splotch, instead of multiple splotches!

    Like

  37. sanemjfan permalink
    February 27, 2012 5:16 am

    @Nan
    THANK YOU FOR THOSE LINKS! It’s always great to have INDEPENDENT journalists and legal analysts who can assert MJ’s innocence in their work. I’ll definintely be referencing those pieces in a future post!

    And just by sheer luck, the only chapter available for free preview is the first chapter, which happens to be on MJ! 🙂

    Like

  38. nan permalink
    February 26, 2012 11:43 pm

    As far as what makes Tom Sneddon tick, this writer Matt Tiabbi take on Sneddon , I believe is dead on..
    http://redblackghost.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/sneddons-case-against-michael-jackson-was-bullshit-matt-taibbi-rolling-stones/
    This is another link where he talks about Sneddon..
    http://books.google.com/books?id=sDNNJdsfVv8C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=matt+taibbi+on+tom+sneddon&source=bl&ots=2t7h8CRyS_&sig=6WOuna3kCJ_Aolxs64IXfE0hr8k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mIpKT7CBNqnh0QHB34ykCg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
    I hope these links work , if not you can google …Smells like dead elephants,by Matt taibbi

    Like

  39. Mona permalink
    February 26, 2012 12:16 pm

    The ties are hilarious 🙂

    It’s so great to finally find people who I can relate to and who wouldn’t waste any effort to work for a good cause. At some point i felt I was living in a world of Sneddons and Bashirs, all out to get either money or power or both, irrelevant of what they destroy in the process.

    Love

    Like

  40. Ms. Sly permalink
    February 26, 2012 11:52 am

    Very good work done here!

    Like

  41. February 26, 2012 9:01 am

    “I will continue to look for a better tie to use, but for now that is the only white tie with black spots that I can find! If I find a better one I will replace it”

    David, you’ve made me really laugh. When you find a better tie please do. In the meantime I’ve just amended the comment and said it was one black spot and not many – instead of one light splotch (!) found in the relatively same location (!). All of it makes it such a “perfect match” that the whole thing is indeed laughable. And the pictures do illustrate it better than a thousand words.

    Like

  42. February 26, 2012 8:33 am

    “I guess rewriting history about Michael Jackson just goes to show how incredibly important he really is. Even more than any of us realize it today. The only thing we can do about it is stick to the facts, never give up on evidence and unite.”

    Fully agree.

    “He is the image of the HATER, not just of MJ, but of everything that is pure in this world. I see all this as if they’re tattooed on his face. I’d like to know if anyone else had the same feeling when they first saw him…”

    My impression was very close to yours. Sneddon looks to me a blunt person whose vision of the world is extremely narrow and primitive as all he sees is black and white. He is sure that a couple of “ideals” he believes in is everything other people need. All the rest is just ‘nonsense’. He thinks himself clever, while the rest are fools or “weaklings”. He knows the way everyone else should live and will do everything to force them into living by these rules. He is always the one who knows best and if he has to distort the reality to achieve his goals, so be it. He speaks of “the good for the society” but easily breaks its rules as “the end justifies the means” for him. In short he is a totalitarian type.

    Like

  43. sanemjfan permalink
    February 26, 2012 8:26 am

    @Helena

    I’ve only made them a little smaller and would also suggest that sanemjfan finds a tie with fewer dark spots and more white background as Sneddon spoke of only one distinctive dark spot on Michael’s “tie”.

    I will continue to look for a better tie to use, but for now that is the only white tie with black spots that I can find! If I find a better one I will replace it.

    Like

  44. February 26, 2012 8:10 am

    “AA…hummm… about those ties at the end of the article… I was kind of ashamed to look at them, felt like I was invading his privacy. Silly, I know, but…”

    Mona, I know what you mean. But the first part was written by a woman (me), while the addition was made by a man (sanemjfan), and men evidently talk about such things much easier than we do. However the pictures are valuable as they do demonstrate the difference between the two better than all my words taken together. I’ve only made them a little smaller and would also suggest that sanemjfan finds a tie with fewer dark spots and more white background as Sneddon spoke of only one distinctive dark spot on Michael’s “tie”.

    Speaking about these things is of course a terrible invasion of Michael’s privacy, but we find ourselves in a situation when this discussion is totally indispensable. However a “tie” is a better word than a “penis”, and we could use it as a euphemism in the future. A white “tie” with one distinctive dark spot on it … I like it.

    Like

  45. Mona permalink
    February 26, 2012 4:53 am

    AA…hummm… about those ties at the end of the article… I was kind of ashamed to look at them, felt like I was invading his privacy. Silly, I know, but… 🙂

    Like

  46. Mona permalink
    February 26, 2012 4:50 am

    Somebody mentioned Orwell’s ”1984” in one of their posts. So true and so sad that it has come to rewriting history even on such matters as entertainment. Don’t you imagine they do it only in poor countries, or countries where the human rights are not so important as in the US. It happens everywhere, it’s been happening for years, and the fact that they have gone from rewriting important parts of history to rewriting the history of show biz says a lot about the advanced state of decay that the world is in. I guess rewriting history about Michael Jackson just goes to show how incredibly important he really is. Even more than any of us realize it today.
    The only thing we can do about it is stick to the facts, never give up on evidence and unite.
    I wonder if any of you has seen in Sneddon’s face what I see in there. He is a natural born killer. He is mean, evil, authoritarian, enjoys hurting others, doesn’t care what bodies he has to step on in order to get to the top and is naturally against anything that is different from him. He does not believe in diversity, he does not believe in love or anything that doesn’t have an ulterior motive, his function on this earth is to do harm and protect himself and others like him, regardless of what they destroy in the meantime. He is the image of the HATER, not just of MJ, but of everything that is pure in this world. I see all this as if they’re tattooed on his face. I’d like to know if anyone else had the same feeling when they first saw him…

    In the meantime… let’s not let them bring us down.
    LOVE is the answer

    Like

  47. sanemjfan permalink
    February 26, 2012 3:20 am

    I added an update at the end of this post that includes photos that will help readers understand the issue of the wrong description of MJ’s splotches!

    Like

  48. February 19, 2012 9:01 pm

    – “Each person sees in another one only what he himself possesses. It is not a speculation, but a scientific fact.”
    – “Don’t we all transfer ourselves somehow onto all others? I think jealousy is stupid, but the person who is jealous naturally thinks they are the norm.”

    Linda, projecting oneself onto others is the source of all misunderstanding that takes place in life. All of us think that others think the same way as we do. I constantly forget it and always get into trouble because of that. You mean one thing but people understand you in a way you never meant it. Who is to blame? No one is to blame. We are just different – with a different background, different experience, different motives and different way of thinking.

    “I’m a supervisor on my job and I have to listen to adult people fighting everyday like children.”

    Guys, I’ve realized that I am a lousy supervisor of this blog. It is something which takes the biggest part of my time and energy and the result is far from what could be expected. I’ve tried my best but you see for yourselves that supervision is not my strongest point. That is why I hope you will excuse me if I go on my own.

    I just want to be a free bird and hope you understand what I mean.

    Like

  49. Linda permalink
    February 19, 2012 10:56 am

    In short each person sees in another one only what he himself possesses. It is not a speculation, but a scientific fact.

    SO correct. Don’t we all transfer ourselves somehow onto all others? I feel murder is wrong, I wonder what the murderer thinks. I think jealousy is stupid, but the person who is jealous naturally thinks they are the norm.
    I’m a supervisor on my job and I have to listen to adult people fighting everyday like children. They all feel like they are in the right. I just stand there in amazement wondering where these people are coming from. But somehow from their upbringing is where I go and I don’t know what that is so I can’t relate, but have to somehow solve their problem.

    I naturally, think my way of thinking is very normal, but I often wonder what others think of me. I might seem pretty weird to them while I think they they are weird. I guess what I think is normal is not normal to someone else?

    @Maral
    i don’t want to allow this to happen. but since i myself are not well informed i don’t know how to fight back

    Maral, all you can do is RESEARCH. Get the facts and give them. I knew little about MJ’s trials until his death. I’ve studied his life since then just to have an answer to negative people. This is one of the best sites for info with links to many other great sites. I’ve studied his life for 2 and a half years starting here, and I have enough knowledge now that when his name comes up I have enough info that people can’t argue against.
    I actually look for people who want to trash Michael. Not people on the net who hide behind their computers, but real people who will talk face to face. So you’re in the right place to get informed, and learn how to fight back with kindness, understanding and true facts. That’s all any of us can do.

    Like

  50. February 17, 2012 11:48 pm

    “i don’t want to allow this to happen. but since i myself are not well informed i don’t know how to fight back”

    Maral, by “you” I mean EVERYONE.

    I think we should go out to every place we can go to and announce what haters are doing now.

    We should make EVERYONE aware of the fact that haters are revising history as regards Michael Jackson.

    We should tell people about it on every forum, in every blog, in every comment on every article we find on MJ, in every office, in every family, in every home!

    Say something like “By the way, do you know that now they have made a complete U-turn”?

    Let us not wait until the time when people forget what they were told for almost 20 years about Jordan’s description.

    At the moment they still remember what the media said about the “circumcision” issue. It became a household term for everyone!

    So let us refresh it in their memories.

    Ask them a simple question: “Did the media tell you that Michael was circumcised (according to the first accuser’s words)?

    And when they say “yes”, tell them that MJ’s detractors claim that no one ever said that!

    Look at their astonished faces and ask them: “So do you understand now how they were manipulating us all these years”?

    EVERYONE SHOULD BE TOLD ABOUT THIS SUDDEN TWIST IN HATERS’ STORIES.

    And don’t wait for the right moment to mention it.

    JUST SAY IT!

    Like

  51. Maral permalink
    February 17, 2012 11:22 pm

    i don’t want to allow this to happen. but since i myself are not well informed i don’t know how to fight back

    Like

  52. February 17, 2012 11:15 pm

    “the simple fact is, if it was a match he would have been arrested on the spot. and serial cm? are they serious? in 50 years of his life only 3 accused him. and the alleged molestation accrued 5-10 years apart. no kiddyporn was found. and he was around 1000s kids. those who grew up around him (Omar, Cascios, Mac, Wade, Brett,…….) says NOTHING happend. those who was with him occasionally say nothing happend. how does that make this man a serial cm?”

    Maral, I think that the number of accusers does not mean anything at all. It is the number of proven cases which matters – and they were NONE.

    1) Arvizo’s case was so idiotic, that it would be a disgrace to attach any importance to it. I don’t know what brains people should have to believe that this hyena could be “molested” after Bashir’s documentary and not before it. All those who still believe it should be urgently tested for idiocy before they do more harm to the society.

    2) Jordan Chandler proved himself to be a big liar by describing MJ’s genitals in an absolutely wrong way, both circumcision and colorwise. That is why all those graphic stories he told the police are completely meaningless – he can say whatever he likes, but without proof his words are nothing but a soap-bubble which bursts at first touch.

    3) Jason Francia never even claimed that he was ‘molested’. He spoke of some vague “tickling” and mentioned it for the first time only at the end of the 2nd interview with the police (in 1994), when he felt so harassed that he wanted to hit them on the head, as he himself said. In 2005 he lied about his earlier statements, and made quite a show of it, so I’d prefer to find independent proof of his lies.

    At least the first case of “tickling on the floor” was proven to be a flat lie, as there was simply no floor scene – he was reading a book sitting on MJ’s knees while MJ was reclining on the back of the chair evidently listening to the 7-year boy struggling with the text. His mother was about to leave, came up to them and took the boy by the hand. They both left and that’s it.

    So everything Jason said about the “floor scene” (allegedly following reading the book) was a horrible lie. And he was sitting on MJ’s knees because he himself said that there was only one chair in the room and there was nothing else to sit on (there was very little furniture there). The remaining two tickling episodes are also very interesting to look into which I hope we will still do.

    If we can ever use the word “serial” to MJ it can be only in the context of him being a serial victim of slander, and nothing else!
    * * *

    But I want to focus your attention on something different – haters KNOW that Michael was slandered. And we know that they know it because previously they said he was circumcised. But now that everyone knows that MJ was not circumcised they meddle with Jordan’s evidence and claim in full earnest that Jordan never said he was!

    This is a total outrage and an additional proof that what they are doing is a deliberate slander campaign against Jackson! These people are not innocent ignoramuses who were “brainwashed” into thinking things about MJ – no, these are exactly the people who are brainwashing others!

    And you know what happens when a lie is repeated too long… People start believing it.

    Will you allow this to happen?

    Like

  53. nan permalink
    February 17, 2012 10:16 pm

    lynande51
    That was really well put !
    I think you are right.
    Isnt it interesting that Michael could pass on and the person eventually found guilty of his death could have recorded him in saw a raw and vulnerable state,no doubt for his own nefarious plans……. And, he captures MJ, not talking about sinister or selfish things….but talking about building a hospital for sick children, with the money he makes from the concerts, and stating what he always said……..,how children need hope and he feels their pain ..
    The same things he was mocked for because some people couldn’t believe anyone that rich and powerful , could have such pure intentions.
    People who dont have that in themselves just cant except that about others , even though it is obvious..
    They chose to overlook that.
    I would love to hear Zonens spin on that..lol
    Michael wasnt expecting the general public to see his mirror that had his mantra about ..no violence ever or his training plan..either.
    Every time Michael private life is brought to light , it backfires on his detractors..

    Like

  54. February 17, 2012 9:12 pm

    “If you asked a true ped-le if he thought in his honest opinion that MJ was one of “them,” what would he say? And if a gaggle of gay guys were surveyed, would they say MJ swung on their side of the fence assuming it “takes one to know one??” – Sly

    “They are, after all, attempting to talk to their own kind.” Lynande

    “It takes one to know one” principle does work, but not the way Sly thinks. It works because each person projects himself on another person and can attribute to him only those features which he has himself.

    A self-centered person will never think another person selfless because he simply does not know what selflessness is like. To be able to recognize something you need to know it first, and if you don’t know it you will pass by it without noticing.

    In the same way a greedy person is simply unable to see another person as generous – he will either think him to be a fool or suspect that he is seeking some advantages for himself.

    A vile one will never regard another one as pure because he himself is full of dirt inside and thinks that all this talk about purity is just some kind of pretense. How can anyone remain pure at the age of 50? They themselves have probably tried every dirt which exists on this planet, or have lied, deceived, and stepped over other people’s bodies. Now they end up being extremely cynical, street-wise and totally burned out inside. Is it possible for them to imagine someone still retaining at least some grains of innocence and purity? They will laugh in your face and make ugly jokes at a mere possibility of it.

    In short each person sees in another one only what he himself possesses. It is not a speculation, but a scientific fact.

    Therefore Michael is a kind of a mirror for our society. Everyone wants him and sees him as theirs. P-les see him as theirs, gays think him as theirs, the cynical see him as a villain and only those who have retained at least some purity in themselves are able to appreciate Michael for the great human being he was. Each of us sees himself in Michael.

    So in a way the future perception of Michael depends on us – in terms of our own quality as human beings. If the majority of us turn out to be cynical and dirty, we will trample him into our own dirt. However if the majority of us turn out better than that, then Michael will stand out in all his purity and will be vindicated.

    Like

  55. lynande51 permalink
    February 17, 2012 7:10 pm

    That’s right Helena they have already overwhelmingly attempted to put their ugly mark on Michael. They were doing it for years. What would one say about him. Nothing, it is not about Michael. Michael was a grown man. It was and still is all about the children that surrounded Michael. Just look at their fixation on photos of him with young kids, is that about Michael? No that is about the kids. They even attempt to dehumanize his own children when they say ugly things like ” test tube children”, “they aren’t his kids” and ‘purchased children”. They ridicule his youngest son, saying that they think he is of lower intellect, which would make him a much more viable target in their eyes because they prey on the weakest of the weak.They are, after all, attempting to talk to their own kind.What they are trying to do is recrute more of their own kind. That is their target audience. They discuss how these kids would dress. Who does that? They do, they sound just like a group of guys discussing a woman walking by and what she is wearing and what she looks like. That is what a true one would be talking about and it is so easily recognizeable to people like us that aren’t.
    As for him being gay I will direct our Ms. Sly to an article written by Brock Adams for the national gay lesbiain publication The Advocate titled A Stranger In Neverland. He says it far better than I could.
    As for the suddenly changing description all that points to is pure desperation.What would make them so desperate? Their own desires that’s what. Hasn’t any one on their side grasped the reality that history cannot be rewritten.

    Like

  56. February 17, 2012 5:29 pm

    “I have always wondered if you asked a true ped-le if he thought in his honest opinion that MJ was one of “them,” what would he say? Lyn, what do YOU think? And if a gaggle of gay guys were surveyed, would they say MJ swung on their side of the fence assuming it “takes one to know one?? I just wonder….”

    Sly, you are highly misguided about this site. It isn’t a forum as you have said, but a blog. And this is a comments section of it. At the moment you are writing to a post devoted to revising the history of accusations against Michael Jackson. For some 19 years since 1993 not a single person doubted that Jordan called Michael circumcised and all of a sudden there is a huge wave of “opinion” all over the net that he never said that.

    And istead of telling us what you think about this outrage and what to do about it you are asking ‘innocent’ questions like “what a true ped-le would say about MJ”? My dear Sly, true ped-les have already written and published a book about MJ. The author is a convicted pedophile Tom O’Carroll and he was writing it when he was in prison. Now some university professors are recommending it “for family reading”.

    Why so?

    I mean why do they recommend a book written by a pedophile? To spread his valuable views on other people among the general public? What’s so valuable about the inner world of a pedophile that he should share it with others? And what does family reading mean? That parents should use it as a bedtime story?

    Like

  57. Ms. Sly permalink
    February 17, 2012 2:01 pm

    I have always wondered if you asked a true ped-le if he thought in his honest opinion that MJ was one of “them,” what would he say? Lyn, what do YOU think? And if a gaggle of gay guys were surveyed, would they say MJ swung on their side of the fence assuming it “takes one to know one?? I just wonder….

    Like

  58. lynande51 permalink
    February 17, 2012 8:44 am

    No, they do know the truth but are changing it on purpose to adjust Michael Jackson to the agenda of their own.

    Yes Helena they do know the truth the trouble that they have with us is that we know it too. That is how we can recognize them as quickly as we can around here.
    They want to infiltrate our blog and make us fight amongst each other because they are working on the old divide and conquer theory of warfare. That and some kind of new carpet bombing technique of comment after comment slamming one or the other of us and praising the others while they sit back and wait to see if we quit.
    Well I am not going to quit and I am not going to leave comments on our board that insinuate that we should. I am going to remove them. I don’t give a damn about their right to free speech.I don’t think they should have one. I have a right not to be harassed on a forum that I participate in, that is doing wonderful work for Michael and I will not allow anyone on here that attempts to berate people that I consider not only fellow administrators but friends as well.They can take their free speech elsewhere and play with it there.The true beauty about being American is that I also have the rest of the Bill of Rights and that includes the one that says I don’t have to read that crap if I don’t want to.
    I will tackle the one last thing that “they” keep trying to say. They would like the world to believe that Michael Jackson fit some profile. They say that he is a classic in this case.
    THERE IS NOTHING LESS TRUE THAN THAT STATEMENT.
    I have worked from time to time in a prison hosptial. I have met and assessed many convicted p********.I have never met one that enjoyed water balloon fights, climbing trees and not one has ever had an amusement park in their backyard.Nope not one.
    That profile was written by someone for law enforcement purposes. Yes they collect child p***. They collect so much of it that it litterally falls out of the spaces that they squirrel it away in. Their computers are so filled with it it would nauseate the average person. I have never seen one case where they had adult girlie magazines to entice children. Why would they? They are trying to make a CHILD believe that they are sexual.
    They say that all P******** say they would never harm a child because they don’t think what they are doing is harming a child. Bullshit! What they don’t want the world to know is that they know they are harming a child and that harm is what gives them pleasure.
    The whole agenda is that they would like to have the age of consent lowered so that they would not get in trouble for assaulting a child. The thing that alot of people don’t know and are not aware of is that in every state if a child is under the age of 13 and a person assaults that child there are special sentencing guidelines that label that person a dangerous offender. It makes the sentence in prison longer and they will be a level 3 or 4 offender if they ever get to leave prison and will be subject to registering their whereabouts at all times.That makes it extremely uncomfortable and difficult to reoffend which is what they want so badly. These people lives are consumed with what they want and they are predators on the prowl at all times. What they want are our children.
    What they dont tell you is that they don’t want CONSENT.The reason that they choose children is because they CANNOT CONSENT.These people are insidious liars and manipulators.Anyone that would think that they don’t have an agenda with Michael is fooling themselves. I have one question for people that want to label Michael with this handle. Do you honestly think that you declaring him such a thing is going to futher a cause that you will never win? Society as a whole is never going to allow their kind to have what they want Michael Jackson or no Michael Jackson it is time for them to give it up and go back into hiding. We will meet them on every front and I don’t care what they say. I am a professional too and I say Michael was not a P********.
    Now what I wrote above is exactly why they did not want us working together because they knew someday I would say what I just said.

    Like

  59. lynande51 permalink
    February 17, 2012 4:56 am

    @ Lynande51 — so did that article definitely state that Katherine never saw any checks written out for millions to others and which prompted her to call her son a “faggot?!” I knew that was untrue the minute I read it, but I never knew that Katherine was asked about it under oath. If so, why didn’t the Grand Jury ever prosecute that ol’ perjurous LaToya?!

    Sly no,that article didn’t but there are several that explain what Katherine said that were written in The Albany Times Union and Jet magazine among other publications. I get mine through High Beam and it is worth the extra expense to have that vast number of articles that you can search through by date. If you try just searching there with the key words Michael Jackson there is just too many.
    As for LaToya she was never deposed and her statement was on TV not in court so there was no risk of perjury. There are articles that suggest that she offered but the case ended before the date she was supposed to be deposed. She can say what she wants to on TV without being held for perjury. Gossip is just gossip though Michael did consider suing her and her husband.

    Michael Jackson May Sue LaToya
    Date: February 11, 1994 Publication: Chicago Sun-Times Author: Bill Zwecker
    Attorneys for Michael Jackson confirm they are considering filing a $450 million defamation lawsuit against the singer’s sister LaToya. In response, LaToya’s husband, Jack Gordon, says, “There will never be peace. If he (Michael) sues us we’ll countersue for $1 billion. We’ll subpoena every document, every piece of paper . . . and (take depositions from) every child involved in this. Let him sue.”
    As expected, former Michael Jackson bodyguard Miko Brando, son of Marlon, was the first witness before the Santa Barbara County, Calif., grand jury looking into criminal allegations involving Jackson.

    But here is just some of what Katherin said about LaToya in a Article from Jet the Cover Story on January 10th 1994.

    Neither abused children, Mrs. Jackson emphasized. “And for LaToya to get out there and say that I called him (Michael) a faggot was ridiculous. That made me so upset, I told Joseph if I could have gotten to her I would have slapped her down for telling a lie like that on me … Michael is not gay and she knows that, too!”

    I only include a small quote because the rest of it is about Michael having to pay the taxes on Havenhurst and gifting the family home back to Katherine. It seems that Joseph was in a legal battle and in order to protect their house he deeded half of it over to La Toya and her husband Jack Gordon.Actually it might have been just LaToya and then she got married to Jack Gordon. They didn’t pay the taxes on it and Michael had to pay the taxes and buy back the house so his mother wouldn’t lose it. It also goes on to say that they believe that Jack Gordon was behind it and putting LaToya up to it. This was after a brutal beating that landed LaToya in the hospital so if she was afraid of him she probably would say anything about whoever he told her to to stay alive.
    Of course in the years that followed LaToya did say that in several interviews that Jack had forced her to say what she said there are several videos on You Tube where she says what it was like to live with Jack Gordon.

    Like

  60. lynande51 permalink
    February 17, 2012 4:26 am

    Here is a portion of a transcript of an interview with Bill O’Reilly the evening of the verdict. His guests were Howard Weitzman and Robert Shapiro who incidentally was consulted in the Chandler case because of the extortion charges that were being investigated. He did not represent anyone but he was consulted and gave input regarding cross examination if you believe the Chandler version of who was in their corner. Even He agreed that Sneddon was out of line when it came to prosecuting Michael.

    ROBERT SHAPIRO, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I was a little bit surprised, but I wasn’t stunned, Bill. But what I was surprised about was when Mr. Sneddon at his press conference said well, we learned from this case. Well, 37 years of practice, this is not law school, and this is not a place to learn.

    I know that the events of the body search always include that Michael became upset. Tom Sneddon was quoted in Vanity Fair, Maureen Orth’s 1995 article to say “he threw a fit”. Well I would imagine that he did become upset to a degree but why do we accept that whole thing as a fact? When I read what Howard Weitzman said after the verdict about Sneddon it suddenly struck me that maybe it wasn’t just Michael that got mad. Maybe Sneddon got mad when he wasn’t able to arrest Michael based on the description? What was Sneddon doing there in the first place? He was a DA and has investigators that investigate for him. If he was there it was because he would have needed to be there to call a judge for an arrest warrant in the event that the description matched. If you have read some of the documents online that were addendums to the 2003 Statement of Probable Cause you know that a District Attorney has to call along with a Detective to get this addendum to search additional places or seize additional evidence. The 2003 Search warrant came with an Arrest Warrant. In the Time Magazine article that I posted here earlier there was a paragraph that stated that if Michael was to refuse the search he would be arrested. There had to be an arrest warrant in the event he refused. There would have had to be an arrest warrant in the event there was a match to the description. This is not me making suppositions it is me stating a legal fact. How do we know that? Because that was the whole purpose of getting the warrant for a body search and photos in the first place.

    O’REILLY: Mr. Weitzman, your reaction, sir?

    HOWARD WEITZMAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I agree 100 percent. Remember, I dealt with Tom Sneddon 12 years ago. I remember the search warrant for the photographs of the genitalia and the way he conducted himself. In my opinion…

    O’REILLY: Then just explain your context to Sneddon for the audience to bring them up to date.

    WEITZMAN: Well, I represented Michael Jackson 12 years ago in this investigation and the ensuing settlement between he and the complaining witness back in 1993, Jordy.

    So I dealt with Mr. Sneddon. I felt then, as I felt today, that he had a mind-set with respect to Michael. And he intended to go after him.

    The reason he went for the photos in 2005, dictated a Declaration that said he believed what he was told and if what he was told was wrong he wasn’t responsible, is because he wanted to humiliate Michael. It was as simple as that. When he said afterwards that he had given no further thought to the case he was lying through his teeth because a Lexis search showed at least 10 articles ( some say it was over a hundred) that he was quoted in, not including the Orth article. I wonder just how angry Sneddon got that day when he was not able to arrest Michael because the Lexis search that was posted online includes an article that was found in the Chattanooga Times that Sneddon had called Pricilla Presley, Lisa’s mother, twice in regard to Michael and his dealings with young children. Who does that? A man that is far too personally involved and has an agenda that’s who.Sneddon was a man filled with hate that is all there was too it.
    Why do we continue to discuss the description on haters terms? It was not a match. If it had matched Michael would have been arrested right there on the spot. That was why Sneddon was there to make that call that would arrest Michael Jackson. No other reason.
    Well after the trial Tom Sneddon didn’t want to return evidence that was taken after the defense asked for it. I believe that Sneddon convinced himself that Michael was guilty because it was the only way he could get out from under what he had done to Michael. He basically stole Michael’s right to live where he chose which was Neverland Ranch. He did it in 1993 when the photos were taken and he stole his life out from under him with that shameful trial and his obvious hatred of Michael.I’ll leave a link to an article by Roger Friedman who says it much better than I do.

    Be a man Tom give the stuff back and stop being a sore loser.

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/11/19/867/02974
    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/05/14/424/93094
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161784,00.html

    Like

  61. Ms. Sly permalink
    February 17, 2012 3:17 am

    @ Ares, thank you for your sincere apology and I accept and hope we are on the same page now. You shocked me with your nice apology and I appreciate it so much bc I WAS definitely offended to be labeled an MJ hater! Sometimes when I ask questions, people construe this to mean I am against him, but I am just trying to understand the 100% truth myself so that I can defend him against the haters who may raise all types of objections. I do not want to be stumped if someone says, “Yeah, but what about this or that….?”

    @ Kaarin22, I had thought too that if the Grand Jury had been stupid enough not to believe Katherine, then his brothers could have been called in because, no doubt, some or all of them are uncircumcised too and they have all seen Michael’s genitalia too at some point in their lives. But no, I do think that would have been way too invasive because it was, after all, MJ’s trial, not theirs….but I am sure they would have complied to save their dearly beloved brother…..and even Rebbie and Joe might have testified if need be and possibly LaToya. Only Janet might have been excluded since she was much younger than MJ.

    @ Lynande51 — so did that article definitely state that Katherine never saw any checks written out for millions to others and which prompted her to call her son a “faggot?!” I knew that was untrue the minute I read it, but I never knew that Katherine was asked about it under oath. If so, why didn’t the Grand Jury ever prosecute that ol’ perjurous LaToya?!

    @ Raven, I know Katherine’s photo of Baby Michael is real. I was the one who first brought up that photo. I was rather questioning this one with Lisa Marie’s husband Michael in it http://i43.tinypic.com/jg2o7q.jpg

    Like

  62. lynande51 permalink
    February 17, 2012 2:41 am

    The autopsy says that he was not circumcised. It is a legal document by a medical professional. If people want to know if he was circumcised they should read the autopsy. Circumcision is used as a defining charateristic of the male human body just like dental records used to be used because they are part of a persons medical record. If someone were to die that was circumcised it would state that as well.

    Like

  63. February 17, 2012 1:13 am

    “I like that they say MJ fought tooth and nail to have it not included… no mention of the fact that Sneddon only wanted to enter the photos towards the end of the trial and not with Jordan’s description, right?”

    I think it’s because Sneddon knew he couldn’t introduce them. They needed Jordan Chandler to introduce them because of MJ’s cross examination right.

    Like

  64. February 17, 2012 1:09 am

    I like that they say MJ fought tooth and nail to have it not included… no mention of the fact that Sneddon only wanted to enter the photos towards the end of the trial and not with Jordan’s description, right?

    The idea that the description of him being circumcised is something only mentioned by Bob Jones is false – Bob and Stacy took that description from the facts available at the time. Also JRT’s edition of his book references the circumcision/not circumcised thing in his Lisa Marie update back in the 90s. It’s been known as a fact for years and years, it was only when 2005 came about that it seems some revisionist history switched on.

    Like

  65. ares permalink
    February 17, 2012 12:04 am

    Ms. Sly,i apologize. I didn’t read you comments as i should and i thought that you were one of those people that often come here as “fans” of MJ’s only to provoke οr make ironic remarks. I should have read you reply more carefully. I’m sorry for being rude and for offending you.

    Like

  66. Maral permalink
    February 16, 2012 11:52 pm

    the simple fact is, if it was a match he would have been arrested on the spot. and trust me if it was a match someone would leak the photo and JC’s description. two grand juries let the guy go. and frankly i don’t think if it was a match in any way judge Melvin would appose to it being summited as evidence. it would be relevant.

    and serial cm? are they serious? in 50 years of his life only 3 accused him. and the alleged molestation accrued 5-10 years apart. no kiddyporn was found. and he was around 1000s kids. those who grew up around him (Omar, Cascios, Mac, Wade, Brett,…….) says NOTHING happend. those who was with him occasionally say nothing happend. how does that make this man a serial cm?

    Like

  67. Ms. Sly permalink
    February 16, 2012 8:35 pm

    Hey Ares, I am NOT a hater at all for your information! And therefore, DO NOT ADDRESS ME ON THIS FORUM with all your stupid, ignorant remarks. You don’t know what you’re talking about and you don’t know WHO you are talking to. Please do not reply to this, unless it is with an apology, and do not talk to or about me at all because you are wrong.

    Like

  68. February 16, 2012 8:16 pm

    I was going to post the link to the baby photo but I see it has already been provided.

    For me, it’s pretty impossible to tell, both from that angle in the photo and Michael’s age here. It would take someone with better eyesight and more experience with male children than me, lol!

    @Ms. Sly

    The photo is real. It was provided by Katherine Jackson for inclusion in her book “My Family, The Jacksons.” I don’t think Katherine would have had any reason or incentive to use a fake photo in her book.

    Like

  69. February 16, 2012 7:25 pm

    Guys, I never even knew how right I was when I said that haters are rewriting history! Please look at the question asked one month ago and the “best” answer it received (it was chosen as the “best” by the Asker). These guys ask each other questions and choose the best answers themselves!

    Here is an excerpt from their yahoo correspondence:

    Asker:
    Is it true that Jordy Chandler, accurately described markings on Michael Jackson’s genitalia?
    1 month ago

    Answered by “Johnny Rubber”:

    Yes absolutely, here’s what Thomas Sneddon had to say in a signed court document….

    Now many Jacko fans claim that Jordan said Michael Jackson was circumcised. When in fact, the autopsy stated that he wasn’t . This is untrue and the whole story came from the Smoking Gun website, which they lifted from Bob Jones book. The article was removed from the Smoking Gun website a long time ago proving that it was a unreliable and untrue source. To this date there is no reliable or any official source to say that Jordan Chandler said that Michael Jackson was circumcised.

    Asker’s Comment:

    Thank you for the great information I’m more convinced than ever that Michael Jackson was a serial child molester.
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120115064843AAeLDtP

    Like

  70. lynande51 permalink
    February 16, 2012 4:52 am

    With Benoquin Cream you have to be very careful to apply it only to the areas that still have pigmentation or you can cause a chemical burn to the surrounding area. You must wash your hands and wait an hour or 2 before touching any other area of skin or certain fabrics. It was not his penis that Debbie treated it was one of his buttocks or so the story goes.

    Like

  71. February 16, 2012 2:19 am

    Michael was never circumcised. It is pure fantasy that a circumcised male can become uncircumcised in adulthood. And what about the brothers? Would such a query be too intrusive?

    Like

  72. nan permalink
    February 16, 2012 1:41 am

    Poor MJ..they really did make it up as they went along.
    As far as Jordan goes , I dont think he was drugged to say what he did..
    I think just like how the Arviso had to come up for a reason for turning on MJ, so did Jordan ..so Evan created the scenario about the tooth being pulled..
    That to me is why Jordan made it clear in his interview , without being prodded at all , than this was when he told his father.He made a point of it , covering their behinds..
    The apple doesnt fall far from the tree..That kid was just as ambitious and greedy as his dad, if MJ wasnt going to be around to help them …he wanted to be compensated also imo.
    He went around at NYU saying his parents made him do it, so that doenst sound like someone who has been fed false memories.
    That sounds likea scumball who wants the money but none of the blame…
    I think the reason that he guessed that he was circumcised incorrectly , was becasue he was Jewish of course.
    There is no way he could have claimed to have been doing what he was doing, and have gotten it all wrong…
    But I really am not so sure that knowing MJ as well as they did …that they thought this incredibly shy man would actually strip naked in front of a room full of people to prove his innocence and expose these scumbags for what they were
    I think they thought he would write a check before it came to that..
    So on top of everything else, MJ did what would horrify most any of us,,,and let these strangers do a close up photo session of his privates..how degrading and experience..and yet he did it rather then pay these people off..

    .
    Tom Sneddon was not at MJ house waiting for an autograph..He was waiting for someone to say it matched so he could put the handcuffs on him..
    It didnt match…for certain or he would have been arrested..
    It didnt match, Sneddon didnt care..
    I think one of the huge reasons that tthe insurance settlement was paid was the insane attitude of Tom Sneddon.
    If the Chandlers had told Sneddon that MJ had a vagina…he would have seen a vagina..
    the man was out of control and just like after the 14 not guilty verdicts…he refused to acknowledge them and was considering another investigation..

    Like Mr Sanger said about MJ..”How many times do you have to be exonerated , to be …exonerated?”

    Like

  73. ares permalink
    February 15, 2012 5:22 pm

    @Ms. Sly

    I thought that you hater, ooops, i mean people thought that watching pictures of naked kids was considered a proof of being a pedophile and people should get arrested for that. You are keep watching and commenting on that picture of naked MJ again and again SOOOOO someone should call Sneddon and have you ass arrested for child pornography. Pervert!!! 🙂

    Like

  74. February 15, 2012 2:34 pm

    “We have had people recently claim that Jordan didn’t say he was circumsized. (Revisionism at its best. Orwell and “1984″ comes to mind.) Well, if he didn’t say that then why did the prosecution need to question Katherine before the Grand Jury about whether Michael changed the appearance of his genitalia?”

    EXACTLY. A very good point. However the need for us to “find proof” for something which is so obvious is disturbing, isn’t it? It shows the tendency and the direction haters are taking us into. I think that now we should collect all articles mentioning Jordan’s mistake on about MJ’s alleged “circumcision” (if there are left any) and store them on our computers and display them on this and other blogs of MJ’s supporters.

    I am being serious, guys.

    We know about Jordan’s circumcision mistake and still remember it, but will it be the same with future generations?

    And I am particularly disturbed by the media’s concerted efforts in hush up and erase this evidence. If they were archiving all their lies about Michael it would be understandable, but they do the opposite – they leave their lies almost intact and in full view of everyone, but get rid of the evidence which is needed to find out the truth!

    I bet that all those “declarations” of Jordan Chandler and the text of the horrendous lawsuit Larry Feldman filed on his behalf will stay, but Jordan’s description presented as “proof” of all those lies will be totally erased!

    It is a highly selective approach. Lies can be found out to be lies only in case you have something to compare them with. But if lies is all that stays on the internet they will go unchallenged. And this is what they are aiming at.

    Indeed Orwell and his “1984” comes to mind!

    Like

  75. February 15, 2012 2:00 pm

    “The answer to your last questions in the post, it might sound stupid, but could these people be paid for continuing to spread lies, i wonder….”

    Jovana, I think they could. But if this is the case, then the question is – who is paying? And the next question will be – why are they doing it?

    Like

  76. February 15, 2012 1:43 pm

    “Wait a minute! Am I seeing a dark penis and one dark testicle in the link?! How do we even know if this photo is real tho?’

    Sorry, I didn’t get your question.

    “when Michael first got “close” to Nursie Rowe, wasn’t it because he was bleaching his penis and some of the cream burned him and he called her over to the rescue? What year was that?”

    We’ve heard of one case of Michael trying to bleach something on his genitals as Dr. Klein told us. Whether it was accidental or intentional we do not know, but it resulted in a burn which Klein (and probably Debbie Rowe) had to treat. Klein told him to never apply Benoquin to his genitals and from what we know the matter never arose in the future.

    This accident took place in the spring of 1993 – at least several months before Jordan Chandler made his allegations and at the time when Michael’s love affair with Lisa-Marie Presley was starting (in early May 93 they went together to an event arranged by Jimmy Carter).

    Considering the period when it happened it shows that Michael had an injury in that part of his body exactly at the time when Jordan claimed there was “masturbation”, etc.

    Like

  77. Suzy permalink
    February 15, 2012 1:21 pm

    It’s funny because when haters make all kind of ridiculous excuses such as that Michael might have restored his foreskin or that Jordan didn’t actually say he was circumsized (we have heard this ridiculous claim from haters recently), then that’s a sign that they know the description didn’t match and they need to make up some excuse to explain that.

    We have had people recently claim that Jordan didn’t say he was circumsized. (Revisionism at its best. Orwell and “1984” comes to mind.) Well, if he didn’t say that then why did the prosecution need to question Katherine before the Grand Jury about whether Michael changed the appearance of his genitalia? The fact Katherine was questioned about it makes it obvious that the description did NOT match!

    Like

  78. February 15, 2012 1:12 pm

    The fact alone that “Investigators have been attempting to determine whether Jackson has done anything to alter his appearance so that it does not match a description provided to them by the alleged victim, who turned 14 in January” proves that Jordan’s description did not match.

    EXACTLY. It tells us all we need to know.

    The description “provided to them by the alleged victim” DID NOT MATCH. They thought that he had “altered his appearance” and were attempting to determine whether “he had done anything” to alter his genitals. So the description and the photos were DIFFERENT.

    And now we even know HOW different they were.

    Like

  79. February 15, 2012 12:41 pm

    There is no way that Jordan could have seen it let alone be involved in the activities he claimed. This would make sense because at that point the vitiligo had spread to Michaels arms and face. The disease usually starts in the groin area so most likely most of the pigmentation would be stripped in that time.”

    Tatum, I think there is a saying “The proof of the pudding is in the eating”. Though it probably doesn’t apply here very well, still the matter of PROOF is terribly overlooked in Jordan’s case. For a boy who took part in writing a script of a “Robin Hood: the men in tights” film it was absolutely no problem to invent a story. ANYTHING can be invented and it is only the PROOF of the story which matters.

    As regards Michael’s vitiligo the Chandlers not only saw Oprah’s show, BUT Michael also lifted up his shirt and showed it to Jordan (as he said to Pellicano) AND Evan Chandler gave him some injection in his buttocks to ease his headache (on the weekend Michael spent in Evan’s home). For Michael all these things were innocent matters, but when you deal with con-artists they begin to present a great danger.

    Evan saw Michael’s buttocks, Jordan saw his body under his shirt and it was a purely technical matter afterwards to make further guesses about his genitals and build a “story” around it. However the guesses they made about Michael’s private parts were ALL WRONG – both in the color and circumcision.

    What OTHER proof do we need then? He NEVER saw Michael’s genitals, no matter what “story” he told about it, and this is all the proof of the pudding we need.

    This of course means that Jordan Chandler became (at least at a later stage) a willing participant in the scheme, but I do not rule it out at all. Why does everyone think that Jordan was such a sweet baby? Even Adrian McManus said that he was rude and demanding when she saw him in Neverland.

    Jordan was clever and ‘reasonable’. When his father started all that massacre, Jordan realized that the future he was facing was carrying the name of a “MJ boy” for the rest of his life either with money or without it. And he made his choice.

    However when the criminal proceedings ended without any indictment of MJ, he was very happy about it (as Gutierrez tells us in his book). He plunged into a pool in his clothes and said to his surprised brother that he didn’t realize it yet, but “it is a good day”.

    Like

  80. Jovana permalink
    February 15, 2012 12:41 pm

    The answer to your last questions in the post, it might sound stupid, but could these people be paid for continuing to spread lies, i wonder….

    Like

  81. Ms. Sly permalink
    February 15, 2012 12:28 pm

    Wait a minute! Am I seeing a dark penis and one dark testicle in the link?! How do we even know if this photo is real tho?

    Another question — when Michael first got “close” to Nursie Rowe, wasn’t it because he was bleaching his penis and some of the cream burned him and he called her over to the rescue? What year was that?

    Like

  82. February 15, 2012 11:30 am

    “you don’t have to be afraid to look at it. It’s a beautiful pic of a beautiful child.”

    Suzy, I’m absolutely not afraid to look at these pictures. There is nothing to be afraid of. In my time small children used to run naked on a beach and no one paid attention or was afraid to look, though I always thought it was unsafe for them from the point of view of hygiene.

    It was also normal to have pictures of their own small babies in everyone’s home (or those sent by relatives of their children, grandchildren, etc.). We still have a naked picture of my grandma somewhere in our photo albums.

    I’ve seen that lovely picture of Michael as a baby before but never really examined it for ‘circumcision’ because it is absolutely unnecessary. The autopsy said that he was non-circumcised and that’s it. Circumcision is a one way road, you cannot have the foreskin back!

    There are problems of incompatibility of your own tissue and the tissue of the donor, a danger of it falling off again and impossibility to reconnect all the innumerable nerves. The healing process must be inhumanly painful on a long-term basis, and it will surely leave scars, which will prevent men from having erection – in short it is an absolutely pointless and crazy thing to do, and as far as I know no one has these operations.

    To think that someone could be first circumcised and then returned to the original state is almost the same as thinking that first you can have your head cut off and then (some time later) have it reattached.

    Like

  83. Suzy permalink
    February 15, 2012 11:05 am

    The fact alone that “Investigators have been attempting to determine whether Jackson has done anything to alter his appearance so that it does not match a description provided to them by the alleged victim, who turned 14 in January” proves that Jordan’s description did not match. Had it matched they would not have had to be so desperate as to call Michael’s mother and ask her if Michael did anything to alter his appearance so that it does not match the description. This was a desperate and pathetic prosecution!

    Like

  84. Linda permalink
    February 15, 2012 10:54 am

    @vmj

    And previously I felt guilty towards Michael because I had to examine him from this side. Now it is different because I regard it as a purely medical or biological issue which all of us have. And somehow Michael’s image stays clean as ever for me even after that.

    I still guilty talking about MJ’s privates. The poor guy had no privacy in any aspect of his life. That was bad enough, but don’t we know, the way things leak on the internet, he must have lived in fear of those pics leaking, even though they were supposedly locked in a vault?

    I can’t imagine even going through that body search, let alone the fear of my privates being splashed all over the web. But the lies about his private area are important to expose and I will do that no matter how uncomfortable it makes me feel. Some things should just be personal and private. Poor Michael didn’t have that option, and I guess we don’t either. In our efforts to vindicate him we have to refute ALL the lies, and it has to get personal.

    Black dick light splotch, versus white dick, dark splotch. Circumcision versus non, BIG discrepancies , so I guess we have no choice but to talk about it, but I still feel like I’m invading his privacy, still knowing I need to do that to make people understand about the lies spread and still being spread.

    Like

  85. lynande51 permalink
    February 15, 2012 8:52 am

    Here is an article from the Los Angeles Times about Katherine Jackson being called to testify at the Grand Jury in Los Angeles in 1994. Their were two reason that they subpoenaed her to question her. One is what LaToya said on television because her statement was that Katherine had shown her million dollar checks to peole that Michael had written out. The other was to confirm that Michael had not been circumcised as a new born.

    Grand Jury Calls Michael Jackson’s Mother to Testify
    March 16, 1994|JIM NEWTON, TIMES STAFF WRITER
    Michael Jackson’s mother, who has steadfastly proclaimed her son’s innocence in the face of allegations that he sexually molested a 13-year-old boy, has been ordered to testify before a Los Angeles County Grand Jury on Thursday afternoon, one of Jackson’s lawyers said Tuesday.
    “In all the years of my experience, I’ve never before seen the mother of the target of an investigation called before the grand jury,” said Howard Weitzman, one of two lawyers representing Jackson, who has been under investigation since last summer. “It’s just done in real poor taste. It borders on harassment.”
    Jackson’s mother has frequently given interviews and made public appearances to defend her son, but a source close to the investigation said she may be questioned about Jackson’s physical appearance. Investigators have been attempting to determine whether Jackson has done anything to alter his appearance so that it does not match a description provided to them by the alleged victim, who turned 14 in January.
    Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti said Tuesday he expects to wrap up the Jackson investigation within the next month or so. Although grand juries are meeting in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties, Jackson’s attorneys say they have been told that neither grand jury is considering an indictment, at least for the time being.
    Because they can issue subpoenas, grand juries often are used to elicit statements from witnesses who otherwise are reluctant to speak to investigators.
    Weitzman said Jackson was “very, very upset” to learn that his mother had been called to testify. Officials from the district attorney’s office declined to comment.

    Once a male is circumcised it can not actually be replaced because the rim of the foreskin if you can find a photo looks beaded that is because underneath that is a band that draws tight. Think of the opening of a sleeve or the bottom of a pair of excersize pants and how you can pull a string or an elastic band and the opening gets smaller but can still stretch to accomodate your hand or foot as they go through the opening. Once the penis fully erect the foreskin draws back but does not completely uncover the glans of the penis.The glans is a mucous membrane meaning it is always moist. As intercourse or masterbation occurs the foreskin slide up and down covering and uncovering the glans penis ( picture your head going in and out of a turtleneck shirt some men have turtlenecks some men have crew necks) . It is because of the natural lubrication and sensitivity of the glans that it cannot be touched because it would be far to painful to touch it directly.
    Katherine would not have been called to confirm any discoloration or the effects of the Vitiligo on her sons genitalia because he was in his mid twenties when he was first seen with the condition so she would not have known how it had effected his body.

    Like

  86. Suzy permalink
    February 15, 2012 8:45 am

    This is the picture Sly talks about but I don’t think you can see in it whether he was or wasn’t circumsized: http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/11300000/MJ-as-a-baby-michael-jackson-11349865-376-443.jpg

    Helena, you don’t have to be afraid to look at it. It’s a beautiful pic of a beautiful child.

    Like

  87. Tatum Marie permalink
    February 15, 2012 5:49 am

    I agree. There is no way that Jordan could have seen it let alone be involved in the activities he claimed. This would make sense because at that point the vitiligo had spread to Michaels arms and face. The disease usually starts in the groin area so most likely most of the pigmentation would be stripped in that time.

    Like

  88. February 15, 2012 2:34 am

    “I meant in my post that I’m sure he wasn’t left uncircumcised as a child, then got circumcised later, then way later in life got the skin sewn back on so Jordy could be wrong.”

    Sly, it is impossible to get the foreskin back! You can probably make a sort of an operation (though I’ve never heard of it) but even in a case like that it will take months and months for heal – which MJ never had as he was away from the US for 3 weeks at the most.

    Foreskin isn’t a tiny thing which can be cut and reattached later. And the autopsy report showed that Michael was simply a non-circumcised man the way nature made him! No tricks, no operations, no nothing.

    P.S. I am embarassed to talk about it because I never discuss it even with my husband, not to mention a public blog. And previously I felt guilty towards Michael because I had to examine him from this side. Now it is different because I regard it as a purely medical or biological issue which all of us have. And somehow Michael’s image stays clean as ever for me even after that.

    It’s very late here, so good night to everyone for now.

    Like

  89. Ms. Sly permalink
    February 15, 2012 2:20 am

    No, I meant in my post that I’m sure he wasn’t left uncircumcised as a child, then got circumcised later, then way later in life got the skin sewn back on so Jordy could be wrong. And why be embarrassed about these details? This is just LIFE. This is just BIOLOGY. This is just HUMAN. But better still, this is just PROOF that MJ has always told the truth about his total innocence with little boys and so FOR THAT we should all be very happy to examine his penis thoroughly!

    Like

  90. Ms. Sly permalink
    February 15, 2012 2:15 am

    You haven’t seen that photo?! I DID think you were the expert!!!! I’ve seen it at least 2x that I can recall. I think there is one in Katherine Jackson’s first book about the family. Please go get the book TODAY if possible and check it out. I can’t remember where I saw it again. It definitely looks uncircumcised to me, but I don’t have a lot of experience with baby boys. I had a little girl. This is IMPORTANT tho because some people may think that Michael had his foreskin re-attached. The picture is living proof to the public that he was not circumcised as a tot so I’m sure he didn’t GET circumcised later in life and then later still get recircumcised (so to speak) just for Jordy’s testimony to be false! So I’m pretty darn sure he has full foreskin in that tub photo. Go see our boy!!!!!!!

    Like

  91. February 15, 2012 1:27 am

    Sly, since you evidently think that I am a sort of an authority on these issues, I’ll give you my reply though I haven’t seen that photo and am not used to discussing these things in public (or anywhere else). However I am afraid I’ll have to – for MJ’s sake.

    1. A non-circumcised penis will always be covered by foreskin unless there is an erection. So in a toddler you will evidently see it as it is, in a covered state.

    2. However when there is an erection, the foreskin draws back and just seeing it (from afar) may look like circumcision. Someone with a terribly poor sight will probably take one for the other – but only in case this other person doesn’t masturbate.

    3. If he does masturbate the foreskin starts moving closing the head fully and drawing back again. So even if you have a poor sight it is impossible not to notice it.

    4. If the other party is requested to masturbate (as that liar said) the non-circumcison becomes even more evident because now you not only see it but also feel the foreskin moving.

    5. And the texture of penis under the foreskin is different – it is a different color and less coarse. It is very delicate and looks and feels like the inside of your cheek.

    So from whatever side you look at it it is impossible to take one for the other. Simply impossible.

    The only situation when one can be taken for the other is in a normal intercourse with a WOMAN (if she isn’t really looking, in the dark and is not touching him with her hand).

    This is the ONLY situation when one can be taken for the other. The only situation.

    Here is a link to how the foreskin works: http://www.circumstitions.com/Works.html

    P.S. I apologize to everyone for all these details.

    Like

  92. Sly permalink
    February 15, 2012 12:54 am

    I’ve seen the same black-and-white photo more than once of a naked toddler MJ climbing into (or out of) the bathtub. His penis is over the rim of the tub. Does it present as circumcised or uncircumcised in the photo? Thank you.

    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

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: