ABC Facts of Michael Jackson’s INNOCENCE
The boys from a certain MJ haters’ site are on a march against Michael Jackson again. Judging by the number of readers’ questions about their lies disproved by us years ago these boys are quite successful in brainwashing the public and there is a need to start educating people about the most basic facts of Michael’s innocence all over again.
This education process seems to be endless as it has to be renewed with each new generation of readers, and starting everything anew is the last thing I would want to do, however it looks like at the moment I have no choice.
This is why I’m making this post which is intended to answer the very basic questions about the Jordan Chandler case again.
But first here is a couple of words about those who keep spreading lies about Michael Jackson’s despite a mountain of true facts testifying to his innocence.
WHEN MJFACTS ARE ACTUALLY MJLIES
One of the first questions arrived from a reader in a form of a statement:
“There is this website called mjfacts that says they only provide the truth and facts without opinion. They say a few things like that Jordie never actually stated the MJ was uncircumcised”
Yes, there is this website, only it isn’t facts but lies about Michael Jackson and these lies presented as facts about MJ are actually the best manifestation of their opinion, views and also methods.
They collect every speck of dust about Michael and simultaneously shut the door to anything that may clean him of the allegations. Every day brings new facts of Michael’s innocence to their door, but the truth does not stick to them in principle as their job is to archive and preserve lies about MJ.
When their own lies become too inconvenient for them they pretend they never told them and begin saying the opposite, like they did it with the “circumcision” issue.
While Michael was alive and no one knew whether he was circumcised or not, their official story was that Jordan Chandler called him circumcised (he indeed call him that way). But when Michael died and the autopsy report revealed that he was not circumcised and this was contradicting Jordan’s story the mjlies guys quickly got over the shock and are now claiming the opposite without batting an eyelid.
Now they pretend they never said anything different.
This constant renovation of lies to keep them up-to-date betrays the goal they are really working for and it is creating the image of Michael as a “boy-lover” no matter what.
While being extremely preoccupied with Michael Jackson these boys cannot care less about real pedophiles. Considering the number of horrid ped-lia crimes uncovered lately one would expect them to handle these cases too and launch a crusade against the phenomenon in general (like we are doing it, for example), however this is the last thing you can expect of them and why they are not doing it is the most intriguing question in the whole story.
It has also become an interesting tradition for these people to intensify their hate against Michael each time some highly unpleasant facts are uncovered about real or suspected pedophiles. This time is no exception as I have just written two posts about Dylan Farrow accusing Woody Allen of sexually abusing her at the age of 7 and see what an avalanche of questions about Michael it has suddenly provoked!
Here are some of the questions asked by readers and inspired by the mjlies:
“They say a few things like that Jordie never actually stated the MJ was uncircumcised. Is this true? Where did he actually say that in his description. They also say that Barnes said MJ “nuzzled” him (???), Jordie correctly identified a blotch no one could have known about without seeing it, and that Ray Chandler DID allow his book to be used in court? Would you mind explaining/debunking these supposed facts?”
And here are some answers to these questions.
1. JORDAN MADE A MISTAKE IN CIRCUMCISION
No matter what the mjlies say Jordan Chandler DID claim that Michael was circumcised.
This fact was stated in the official Santa Barbara’s Deputy Sheriff’s report known as “Deborah Linden’s report” described in this article (now in the archive). An excerpt from it is provided below:
Photos of Jackson’s body confirmed ’93 claims
|JANUARY 6–As search warrants go, you won’t find one more intrusive than the one executed on Michael Jackson’s, um, person in 1993. And the results of that intimate Kodak moment from a decade ago could resurface in the performer’s upcoming molestation trial.A detailed recounting of the criminal probe of Jackson is contained in sealed documents reviewed by TSG. An affidavit from former Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department deputy Deborah Linden was filed in 1993 to secure court permission to photograph Jackson’s private parts. Investigators sought the images in a bid to corroborate allegations made by 13-year-old Jordan Chandler. The boy told police that Jackson frequently masturbated him, adding that he could provide a detailed description of the star’s penis as a way of proving the pair had been intimate.….The boy’s information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson’s penis was erect, the length of the performer’s pubic hair, and that he was circumcised.|
If the article disappears again as it once did, there are also several books to confirm the story Jordan Chandler was telling. One of them is a manuscript by Michael’s worst hater Victor Gutierrez, published in 1995. Here is a quote from its chapter named in a style very much characteristic of Gutierrez – “Privacy in Monaco” :
“Then he took off his clothes, and I noticed that he had very little pubic hair, and that his penis was circumcised.”
This is the description Jordan gave to the police. He did claim that MJ was circumcised.
And the fact that the mjlies boys are denying even this totally undeniable fact will tell you all you need to know about their approach to truth in general. If they lie even here – where it is simply impossible to lie – how much more do they lie everywhere else?
2. JORDAN MADE A MISTAKE IN THE COLOR TOO
The story of the blotch allegedly identified by Jordan is also exactly the opposite of what the mjlies say.
This story is thrilling but graphic, so now you know what to expect.
In her official statement the Santa Barbara Deputy Sheriff Deborah Linden wrote that Jordan had described to her Michael’s penis as having a “splotch a light color similar to the color of his face”. The light splotch was Jordan’s guess as this was how Michael’s buttocks looked like which Evan Chandler saw when he was making an injection to help Michael cope with his headache.
By May 1993 Michael was suffering from terrible migraines as for several months by then he had been undergoing a new stretch of his scalp by means of a baloon inserted under the skin. This was followed by a new scalp surgery done by Dr. Sasaki (who testified about it at the recent AEG trial).
Whatever stage of treatment Michael was in at that moment, on the weekend he was visiting Evan and Jordan Chandler he had a splitting headache. To alleviate the pain Evan Chandler gave him an injection of Toradol, a poweful non-narcotic painkiller which sent Michael into a kind of a haze.
This chance was never missed by Evan and he used it for interrogating Michael in this half-conscious state, however Michael didn’t tell him anything that Evan could in any way turn against his guest. Ray Chandler’s book describes the interrogation and the whole incident in his book. As regards the injection he said the following:
“Evan injected 30 mg, half the maximum dose, into Michael’s gluteus. But one hour later the star claimed he was still in a lot of pain, so Evan administered the remaining half and instructed him to lie down and try to relax.” [“All That Glitters”, p.47]
Gluteus is a medical term for buttocks, so Evan Chandler saw MJ’s gluteus at least twice. The buttocks had some light vitiligo splotches and after witnessing them with his own eyes nothing could be easier for Evan than assume that MJ’s front private parts had a similar color scheme.
The assumption was that at least one light splotch should be on the penis too. This looked like a safe guess and being sure that at least one light spot would be found there due to Michael’s vitiligo Jordan ventured his description to the police. The location of the splotch was not that important – with time vitiligo spots can change their configuration and grow bigger and thus change the whole picture.
Ray Chandler recalls Larry Feldman saying to Evan Chandler that it did not matter how Jordan would describe Michael’s splotches. No matter what he said the situation was a “no-loser” for their case, and this is a very telling way of how that false story was cooked in the Chandlers’ kitchen.
Lauren Weis, the Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney who was the first to record Jordan’s description on September 1, 1993 said to Feldman that vitiligo spots had a tendency to change and for this reason it was not a decisive factor. This is why Larry Feldman assured Evan Chandler that whatever Jordan said anything would be okay:
Lauren Weis told me today that this disease Michael says he’s got, vitiligo, that it’s capable of changing anywhere you look, so that anything Jordie says is irrelevant. It can change very quickly with this disease.”
“Shit, these guys seem to have an answer for everything.”
“No, that’s good for us!”
“Because if he’s right, he’s right. And if he’s wrong, we’ve got an explanation!” “Ha!”
“Yeah, it’s a no-loser for us.”
[Ray Chandler, “All That Glitters”, p. 202]
The second time Jordan gave his description of Michael’s private parts was on December 1, 1993. This time it was to Deborah Linden, the Santa Barbara Deputy Sheriff and it was this second report that was quoted by the above Smoking Gun article.
The Deborah Linden report abounded in explicit details provided by Jordan. The full description was as follows:
With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson’s below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive “splotches” on his buttocks and one on his penis, “which is a light color similar to the color of his face.” The boy’s information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson’s penis was erect, the length of the performer’s pubic hair, and that he was circumcised.
Horrendous as it looks on second thought you begin realizing that it was not that impossible to tell the same story (whether correct or wrong) without ever seeing those genitalia. Why?
The “distinctive splotches” on the buttocks were seen by Evan Chandler after which vitiligo was correctly assumed to be spread over the whole of MJ’s body; the short pubic hair is typical of black people as I hear; the circumcision idea expressed by Jordan was already determined to be totally incorrect – and the only thing that remains to be checked up is “the light splotch” and its placement on what is called here an “erect” penis.
By calling it “erect” they are camouflaging the fact that Jordan Chandler made a mistake in circumcision and pretend that circumcision and erection are the same thing. They are absolutely not and we have a special post about it, including the animation on how the foreskin moves even during erection and showing the glaring difference between the two.
Jordan never saw MJ’s genitalia and didn’t know how uncircumcised skin “behaves” during erection, and therefore claimed in his interview with Dr. Gardner (October 1993) that he had masturbated the male “many times”. However when Michael’s naked photos of December 20th proved that Jordan was grossly mistaken in the circumcision issue, his declaration made a week later (on December 28th) dropped the point of “masturbating MJ” from its description. Everything else stayed but that point was missing. A very tale-telling detail.
I understand your amazement and disgust at the graphic mode of this discussion, but please regard it as the necessary job to do to clear the innocent man of horrible slander and then the whole thing will sound less of a nightmare to you.
Now back to the splotch.
You will agree that with Michael’s vitiligo it was almost impossible to make a mistake in respect of splotches and this is why Jordan was so sure that at least one “light splotch the color of his face” would be found on MJ’s penis.
However the fate played an absolutely unique joke on Jordan. It turned out that he and his father made a wrong guess of the way MJ’s whole genitalia looked like and what the general color of MJ’s penis was (sorry for being so graphic).
They thought that it was black, but in reality it was white.
But how on earth do we know about the way it looked?
We know it from Sneddon’s declaration made on May 26, 2005 where he described the photos obtained from the strip search and some peculiarities of that description made us realize that the highly intimate part of MJ’s body had a different color from the one Evan and Jordan Chandler expected it to be.
After long beating about the bush Sneddon finally says in that document that there was a certain “dark blemish located at about the same relative location” as described by Jordan Chandler. Then he calls the “dark blemish” “a discoloration” and says that it was he who compared the photos with the description, and he believes that the photos “substantially corroborate the description” and he is making these statements “on information and belief” and that he “believes them to be true”.
The accuracy of this declaration is simply mind-blowing – it abounds in vague terms like a dark spot being called a discoloration and it being found “at about the same relative location” as described by Jordan and all this being Sneddon’s “belief” that it is true.
Though there is a lot more to say about this incredible document let me ask you to focus only on the dark blemish at the moment.
While Jordan Chandler’s guess was that Michael was supposed to have a “light splotch which was the color of his face” Sneddon is talking here about a dark blemish.
A dark one.
Am I missing something or can a dark spot be seen only on a light background and can a light spot be seen only on a dark background?
And what will be your opinion on two cows – is it possible to take a white cow for a black one even if they have some spots on their skin? And what will be the first thing you will notice – the whole color of the cow or a certain spot on its skin? Or will it be both as the skin is inseparable from anything painted on it?
These simple reflections made me realize that Jordan didn’t actually know the whole color of what he had allegedly seen and didn’t know that it was predominantly white (with probably some dark spots there). And he described it as dark and having a light splotch on it.
So it turned out to be the opposite of what he and his father expected.
No power on earth (even vitiligo) can change the color of the skin into its opposite within a couple of months only, and all Sneddon’s later attempts to prove that Michael had undergone an operation to change the color of his genitals and bring back the foreskin went bust.
He went through all Michael’s medical records and approached all his doctors including those in England, but the mammoth efforts to prove that during the three weeks Michael was in a rehab he grew back the foreskin and changed the color of his genitals went nowhere because all of it is simply impossible.
So what do we have as a summary of this totally obscene discussion?
- The splotches on the buttocks were seen by Evan Chandler and this is why they were described correctly.
- The short pubic hair is nothing unusual for blacks.
- The erect penis is not the same as circumcision as the foreskin is highly noticeable and moves even during erection, however in all his statements and media performances Sneddon still tried to pass one for the other.
- And the only two distinctive details Jordan Chandler was counting on as his damnest evidence were both incorrect – Michael was uncircumcised and his genitalia had a dark blemish standing out on a light background (and not the opposite as Jordan described).
It is even funny that with male anatomy being more or less the same it was possible for Jordan to make so many mistakes!
As a final note on the above let me say that none of the officers or experts who were obliged to compare Jordan’s description with the photos had a chance to do it. Some saw only the photos, others saw only the description and everyone counted on someone else to say what the comparison showed. Actually all of them said almost in unison that “they were told that it was a match”. Even Dr. Richard Strick, who was specially assigned by the government for making the determination said that he had been told that there was a match.
The person who told them this lie was Tom Sneddon. He was the one who made the comparison. He stated it in his declaration himself and declared that everything he said there was true and correct except the things he only believed to be true.
6. I believe evidence of Jordan Chandler’s knowledge, as evidenced by his verbal description and drawing, when considered together with the photograph of Defendant’s penis, substantially rebuts the opinion evidence offered by witnesses for Defendant to the effect that he is of a “shy” and “modest” nature and so would not have exposed his naked body in the presence of young boys.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct except for those statements made on information and belief, and as to those statements, I believe them to be true.
Executed May 26, 2005, at Santa Maria, California.
3. NONE OF THEM WANTED TO TESTIFY AGAINST JACKSON – EVER
Now it is time to handle the next statement from a reader who reads too much of mjlies and says that “Ray Chandler DID allow his book to be used in court”. This is evidently supposed to convey to us that:
- the decision to allow or not allow its use depended on Ray Chandler and it was a sort of a favor on his part and
- the book was the next best thing to his testimony which could be used as a replacement for Ray Chandler’s personal presence
My answer is NO, the decision to use or not use the book did not depend on Ray Chandler, and it wasn’t a favor of his but his greatest desire to have his lies read out in court while he himself was not present there.
And the second answer is YES, the book could be regarded as part of his testimony but only if he himself testified in court.
This last point is very interesting. If the book could indeed be regarded as his testimony, why wasn’t it possible to use it in court in his absence – as a sort of a declaration on his part?
This was not possible because in accordance with Amendment 6th to the US constitution every accused person has the right to challenge his accuser in court – cross-examine him and ask him inconvenient questions there. And this is exactly what Ray Chandler didn’t want to do. He vehemently objected to testifying against Jackson as he had nothing to prove his lies with and this is why he fought Michael’s subpoena tooth and nail.
We have proof of Ray Chandler’s refusal to testify in the form of a series of motions sent back and forth which ended in Ray Chandler’s complete victory discussed here in great detail. He managed to prove that he was a sort of a journalist (a self-publisher of his book) and therefore could enjoy the immunity granted to journalists by the Shield Law.
In the recent blogtalk radio show with King Jordan Thomas Mesereau didn’t mention this episode as it was evidently another Michael’s attorney who subpoenaed Ray Chandler to the 2005 trial. But who subpoenaed him doesn’t matter – what matters here is that Ray Chandler refused to speak against Michael in court and preferred to spread his lies in the media where he didn’t face the danger of a cross-examination by Michael’s lawyers.
And when he chose not to testify there, this simultaneously meant that his book could not be submitted to the court either as according to the 6th Amendment if you accuse someone of something you should go to court to prove it as the accused person also has the right to defend himself against the accuser.
But if the accuser is afraid of some questions and wants to send his book to represent himself in court, this won’t do as the book cannot answer questions which will naturally arise from the other side. So it is either this or that, and that fake “permission” from Ray Chandler to use the book while he himself will hide in the bushes means nothing, or rather shows Ray Chandler and his advocates for what they really are – big liars and falsifiers of the truth.
Of all Chandlers only June Chandler ventured to come to court while all the rest of them refused.
Jordan Chandler refused twice – first in 1994 (he cooperated with the police for several months after the settlement until June 1994) and the second time he refused was in 2004 when he said that he would sue them if they insisted on his testimony and in closing the conversation dropped a mysterious phrase that “he had done his part”.
Parts are usually played by actors in some theatrical performances which the Jordan Chandler case actually was.
And Sneddon was part and parcel of this theatrics himself.
4. SNEDDON’S BUFFOONERY WITH MICHAEL’S PHOTOS
Sneddon knew that Jordan would not testify at the 2005 trial as he gave his pointblank refusal already in September 2004, but despite that Sneddon still waved the photos of MJ’s genitalia in the courtroom teasing the jury and the public, frightening Michael out of his wits and impressing the media with this spectacular gesture while all the time knowing that he could not show the photos in court.
Why couldn’t he?
Exactly for the same reason why Ray Chandler’s book could not be used without his personal testimony in court. If there is no accuser to speak about the accused person’s genitalia no one can introduce the photos of them either – and this is again in accordance with the great Sixth Amendment to Constitution for which I have a huge respect.
It was Tom Sneddon who didn’t have respect for the Constitution as he knew that he didn’t have his witness but nevertheless tried to introduce a piece of evidence about which only that witness could testify. It was a complete bluff on Sneddon’s part and its sole idea was to create the impression that the photos were a match to Jordan’s description.
Sneddon deliberately wanted to send shock waves about MJ throughout the nation and the world, and thus accuse Michael on the basis of this bluff alone.
The judge naturally didn’t allow the photos but the effect was indescribable. Everyone thought that Sneddon had some crucial evidence on his hands but the judge was so “awe-struck” by the celebrity that he left this evidence out and thus allowed the “criminal” to get away with his crime.
But the stark truth of the matter is that Sneddon did not have a single shred of evidence against Michael.
The other prosecutor in the 1993 case, the Los Angeles DA Gil Garcetti had the decency to distance himself from Sneddon’s tricks and at the end of a year long investigation in September 1994 publicly declared Michael innocent “like all of the rest of us in this room”.
It was only Sneddon who continued prosecuting and persecuting Michael though all he had on his hands was “what the boy said”. And “what the boy said” was a big lie.
Let us sum up why we are so certain about it.
First of all we are certain about it because we’ve analyzed every detail of Jordan’s description with its splotch, circumcision and other crap and proved that he made every mistake that was ever possible to make in this type of a description.
We are also certain that Jordan made gross mistakes while telling his lie as the USA Today published an article on January 28, 1993 placing a tiny but crucial statement there that the “photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy”.
This tiny piece has a fun of its own as the headline available in the USA Today archive for free says that that photos MAY contradict Michael’s accuser, however if you pay money for the news you will get the full story – that the “photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia DO NOT MATCH descriptions given by the boy”. Funny how the story changes from “maybe” to something definite depending on whether you pay for it or not.
We also know that Jordan lied from the fact that Larry Feldman didn’t like the photos to such a degree that he demanded to bar them from the civil trial.
Yes, Larry Feldman filed a motion in court that was a so-called multiple choice request – Jackson was to provide the photos to Jordan so that he would first see them and then submit himself to a second search, and if Michael didn’t agree to this travesty of justice Feldman demanded that the photos should be barred from the civil trial. For the full of this totally incredible story go here please.
We also know that Jordan lied from the simple fact that Tom Sneddon did not arrest Michael then and there, and never brought charges against him in 1993 at all.
We also know it from the fact that two Grand juries looked into all the evidence in 1994 and found nothing to indict MJ for:
“Several Jackson camp insiders have appeared before either the L.A. or Santa Barbara County grand jury, including former security consultant Anthony Pellicano, Jackson’s mother Katherine and several housekeepers. Miko Brando, a driver for the singer, and Norma Staikos, Jackson’s executive assistant, have also testified. While grand jury testimony is sealed, sources said that none of the witnesses so far have offered anything that would directly implicate the singer. “
JIM MORET, Anchor: After three months of investigating child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson, the Santa Barbara County grand jury disbanded Friday without announcing any action. One juror told CNN he did not hear any damaging testimony during the hearings.
And we also know that Jordan Chandler told a horrible lie about Michael from Tom Sneddon’s own press release where he admitted that he had no evidence against Michael Jackson. However he said it in so roundabout way that no one really noticed it.
5. SNEDDON ADMITTED HE HAD NO EVIDENCE AGAINST JACKSON
By some inexplicable coincidence Sneddon’s press-release I am talking about was made on the same day when Bashir’s film aired (February 6, 2003).
By an even more inexplicable coincidence Jordan Chandler’s declaration from the distant December 1993 was leaked to the media and published for the first time ten years later and also on February 6, 2003 – exactly on the day when Bashir’s film aired and Sneddon made his press-release.
Jordan’s declaration was part of the 1993 confidentiality agreement and when it was leaked Michael Jackson issued a statement saying that both sides were supposed to respect the obligation of confidentiality but someone had chosen to violate it and use the boy’s initial statements to further sully his character.
I wonder who that “somebody” might be and how come all the three events happened on one and the same day? And what do you think?
In his press-release Sneddon addressed the issue of MJ “sleeping with boys” and spoke about the prior Jordan Chandler’s case.
Sneddon complained that in order to do something with this terrible Jackson he needed new, “credible” evidence or new “victims” willing to cooperate, and called on the public for help in finding those “victims”.
As a side note let me say that now that we know how dear a price the Connecticut State Attorney Frank Maco paid for using the word “victim” just once (for Dylan Farrow in the Woody Allen case), you will understand how big a misdeed Tom Sneddon was getting away with when using the same word for Michael Jackson.
There is also a very big difference between the way it was used by Frank Maco and Tom Sneddon.
Frank Maco mentioned it with reference to a girl who was a very likely victim of sex abuse as all other evidence testified to it too, and Sneddon used the same word for non-existent victims of MJ or people who had not yet even complained about anything at all!
And we know that the State Attorney Frank Maco was almost disabarred for using that word just once in respect of Woody Allen while the Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon spoke of Michael’s “victims” on a routine basis but nevertheless left the office with honors and the highest pension in the state. Equality, you know…
Sneddon’s February 6, 2003 press release opened with the status of the 1993 investigation. Sneddon said that he was still waiting for credible evidence against Jackson. This means that prior to that moment he had nothing credible to rely on:
1. The Status of the Prior Investigation. A number of years ago at a press conference in Los Angeles with the then L.A. County District Attorney, Gil Garcetti, we described the investigation as “open, but inactive.” It was stated that the case could be reactivated upon the discovery of new, credible evidence or victims willing to cooperate. Nothing has changed. The investigation remains “open, but inactive.”
In point 5 of the same press-release Sneddon explained why he couldn’t act against Jackson (for example, solely on the basis of Jordan’s declaration of December 1993 or his description).
It was because the California Law didn’t allow him to go forward if he had only a confession of a claimant, but didn’t have a witness OR other evidence:
5. California Law and a Child/Victim’s Right to Refuse to Testify and Cooperate in Investigations. Under California law a child/victim must voluntarily cooperate with law enforcement. Neither testimony nor an appearance in court can be mandated. Therefore, an investigation without a cooperative victim or a percipient witness to establish the corpus for a crime is not prosecutable. While it may seem strange that even if a person made an admission or a confession, under California law without a witness or other evidence to establish the corpus there is no case. See CALJIC Instruction 2.72.
Let’s get over it once again, guys, as you surely didn’t get the point and the reason why it is so terribly important.
According to the California law if a minor complains of an abuse in a ‘confession’, this is not enough to bring charges against the accused person.
The California law also requires a witness to testify OR other evidence to prove the case.
Now let’s see what Sneddon did or didn’t have.
- A confession from a complainant he did have – it was Jordan’s declaration made to Larry Feldman (or something similar obtained from Jordan by the police).
- The witness Sneddon didn’t have as Jordan refused to testify (and twice too).
- But even if the witness refused Sneddon still had one more chance to proceed with the case. All he needed for it was the “other” evidence to prove the minor’s complaint.
This alternative was given to him by the California legislators sometime in 1995 when the law was changed under the DA pressure and allowed prosecutors to bring charges against the accused on the basis of evidence alone, even in case minors refused to testify. It was an exception to the Sixth Amendment I admire so much and was made specifically for children and for sex abuse cases only.
However Sneddon still didn’t bring any charges against Jackson and in his press-release practically declared to the whole world that he had nothing credible against him. Remember his statement:
- While it may seem strange that even if a person made an admission or a confession, under California law without a witness or other evidence to establish the corpus there is no case.
In short in addition to the confession Tom Sneddon needed either a witness or credible evidence, but he had neither and this is why the case was not reopened.
And if there was no evidence it means there was no match between the photos and what Jordan described.
NO EVIDENCE = NO MATCH.
And this dots all the i’s and crosses all the t’s in this incredible story of Jordan Chandler.
6. CHILD PROTECTIVE AUTHORITIES DIDN’T HAVE ANYTHING EITHER
Sneddon’s press-release of February 6, 2003 has one more very important point.
Point 4 mentioned that there were certain documents made by the Child Protective authorities which were confidential and were therefore not subject to disclosure:
4. Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 investigations are within the purview of the Child Protective Service Division of the Department of Social Services. By law those investigations are confidential and not subject to disclosure.
I practically see our mjlies boys grasping at a straw here – and what if these undisclosed documents have something terrible against Jackson?
To their disappointment the Department for Children and Family Services has made several statements to the effect and clearly stated that they had nothing against Jackson either.
The recent May 5, 2011 information from the DCFS said the following:
the Arvizos case had zero credibility (the DCFS 2003 statement about Arvizos was leaked to the press and Larry Feldman even threatened to sue the authorities for the ‘damage’ the truth of the DCFS statement did to the poor family).
- The 1993 similar statement from the DFCS is not available to us, but their information released in 2011 addresses both Arvizo and Chandler cases and says that in both cases Michael Jackson was cleared.
- The DCFS says they investigated MJ on an on and off basis for at least 10 years and during all investigations Michael was fully cooperative with the authorities and held nothing back.
- In the 1993 case an extensive investigation was carried out. Michael was subjected to a battery of tests and interviews and answered the hardest questions possible, and did it for hours. And all this in the absence of his lawyer.
Here is the article which broke the news that the DCFS investigated Michael Jackson in both 1993 and 2003 cases and in all investigations they conducted he was fully cleared:
“With Katherine Jackson ratcheting up the debate about her son Michael Jackson’s relationship with children by saying he was no child molester, a well-placed government source tells RadarOnline she’s right.
The Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services absolutely agrees with Katherine that her son never molested any child in cases the department investigated,” a source told RadarOnline.
Michael Jackson was investigated by DCFS on and off for at least 10 years. The department undertook a first extensive investigation of allegations made by an underage accuser in 1993.
“Michael was fully cooperative during all of his interactions with DCFS,” the source said.
“Michael was interviewed for hours without his lawyer. He held nothing back.
He couldn’t understand why these allegations were being made against him. DCFS cleared him on any wrongdoing in all investigations.
“Did Michael put himself in precarious situations that most normal people wouldn’t? Absolutely . . . The questioning was very, very hard on Michael, he just couldn’t fathom that anyone could accuse him of being a child molester.”
Another accuser, in 2005, “had absolutely no credibility,” the source said. “There were differing accounts of what happened from the accuser and his family members.”
If there are no more questions on this issue let me go over to the other two questions which arrived from the mjlies.
7. ‘NUZZLING’ AND LISA-MARIE PRESLEY
One of the two questions was about MJ allegedly “nuzzling” Brett Barnes. I had to look up the word “nuzzle” and found it was something like “sniffing”. I asked the people who asked the question for proof that this terrible crime was indeed committed by MJ and while they are looking have checked some sources myself.What I found is indeed astounding.
Not only something that looked like nuzzling was indeed found but open embraces were found too – however not in respect of Brett Barnes or boys in general (with them it was mostly food fighting), but in respect of very many girls instead.
In fact there are so many photos of Michael embracing and hugging girls that these photos are the best proof of a saying that fathers always want sons to be born to them, but dote most on their daughers.
The way Michael looks in these photos it seems that he is simply dying of happiness and admiration for these little girls.
While I was coming across more and more photos of Michael admiring these little ones (the pictures posted here are just a fraction), one more question arrived and this one was about Lisa-Marie Presley:QUESTION:
“I have a question on Lisa Marie. She said in one interview she was sure Michael was innocent, but at another around the same time she said she often worried he was guilty. And of course there was the ambiguous Oprah answer that “only Michael and the kid know.” Why can’t she seem to make up her mind? Better yet, how could she be so close to him for so long and not know if he was guilty or not? What do you think she really believes?”
Oh, so Lisa-Marie Presley “often worried that he was guilty”? Really?
This is news to me as I have never seen or heard Lisa-Marie Presley “worry about his guilt” and do it “often” at that. She did speak at length about their differences and sometimes called him an idiot and other bad names, but each time she thought it necessary to clarify that it concerned only their relationship as a man and woman, and it was not in any way connected with children.
Here is a typical sample of what she usually says (the sample is taken from an interview with the Playboy Magazine in 2003):
PLAYBOY: Did you and he ever have children join you in your bed?
LISA-MARIE PRESLEY: Never. Never, never, never, never. I never saw him sleep in bed with a child, ever.
PLAYBOY: Did you ever see him with photos of nude children?
PRESLEY: Never. Never.
PLAYBOY: Do you have any reason to think he’s a child molester?
PRESLEY: If I’d had any reason to suspect that, I would have had nothing to do with the guy. I had no reason to, other than the allegations themselves. The only two people who know are Michael and that kid in the room. I’ve never seen him behave inappropriately. He was great with my kids. He does have a connection with kids, babies. He’s a kid, and other kids sense that in him.
Yes, sometimes Lisa-Marie does follow other people’s foolish ideas and repeats their usual mantra that “only that kid and Michael know what happened in that room”.
This silly statement is made by lots of people (including Aphrodite Jones, for example) thus showing to us that no amount of facts proving anyone’s innocence is enough for these people. The only way they think they can know the truth is to “be in that room”. Otherwise they will be groping in the dark, poor things.
Let me say to these people that “being in one room” with a molested kid and the abuser is absolutely not the decisive point here. Child abusers are extremely inventive and a child may be molested in front of everyone without the people around them noticing it. How do I know it? I do and please don’t ask me how I came to know it. I was also a little child once but still remember that incident like yesterday though half a century passed since then.
A much surerer way to know the truth is learn the system of values of a person, his beliefs, thoughts and ideas he is bringing into this world. If the person talks about child molestation in each of his films and regards it as a mere trifle as Woody Allen does, and spreads ideas that “half the country does it”, I agree that this will be reason enough to prick your ears and stand on the guard of your children.
But with Michael Jackson who at age 35 would blush at profanities or run from dirty jokes said in his presence? Every person who knew him noted that Michael had the purest heart anyone could ever imagine and that nothing of the kind was ever on his mind…
If Lisa Marie keeps repeating that silly story about “not being there” I suggest that someone asks her to recall whether she ever left her children alone with Michael.
The answer she would give to herself will explain to her that if she had ever doubted Michael she would have never allowed her children to even come up close to him – whether alone or in her presence.
No, she never doubted him. Actually I don’t even know what we are discussing here. Lisa-Marie already said that she had never had any doubts about Michael:
- “If I’d had any reason to suspect that, I would have had nothing to do with the guy.
- … He was great with my kids. He does have a connection with kids, babies.
- He’s a kid, and other kids sense that in him.”
8. DID THE INSURANCE COMPANY PAY?
As an extra bonus to those who want some answers here let me explore one more question often discussed by fans and non-fans alike.
During the recent King Jordan’s blogtalk radio show Thomas Mesereau was asked whether there is evidence that the Chandlers were paid by the insurance company:
QUESTION: “Was there any evidence that it was settled by an insurance company or paid by them?”
To this Thomas Mesereau said the following:
“My understanding was that the insurance company did not pay. Now the settlement agreement was written, and again, I was not involved in that settlement – you should ask Howard Weizman about that settlement, I was not involved, I didn’t even know Michael at the time, I got to know him eleven years later but my understanding was that the settlement agreement was written to permit the possibility that the insurance company would pay but I was also told that the insurance company did not pay. That’s my understanding. There are some people running around saying that an insurance company paid it and that’s why it was settled and my understanding is that it is not correct.”
Thomas Mesereau’s reply upset a lot of people.
To many it sounded like a complete disaster, though to me it absolutely didn’t. I really don’t care who paid what as I know the real reason for that settlement – it was simply because Michael could no longer stand the torture. He was so fed up with the whole thing that was ready to do anything to make it go away.
However to those who are super-sensitive about this issue let me say that I have found evidence that the insurance was indeed going to pay money in a settlement agreement and the dispute was actually not so much about the possibility of payment, but mostly about the sum they were ready to part with.
What the end result was I don’t know, but what I know for sure is that two weeks before the settlement the insurance company offered a certain sum to Michael’s team as a “one-time” offer only, but the defense attorneys didn’t accept it and three weeks after the initial offer their negotiations with the insurance company were still in progress.
All these details come from this article published in the New Sunday Times dated January 30, 1993:
Jackson ‘sought insurance help pay boy’
The New Sunday Times
January 30, 1993
London, Sat. – Michael Jackson asked his insurance company to the multimillion dollar payout to the teenager who filed a child molestation suit against the pop star, it was reported yesterday.
The newspaper Today said it has documents showing that the Illionois-based Transamerica Insurance Group was astounded by Jackson’s demand and told Jackson his personal liability policy didn’t cover sex allegations.
Despite the company’s position that Jackson wasn’t covered, Transamerica attorney Jordan Harriman made “a one-time only” offer to Jackson on January 13 to resolve the claim – but Jackson rejected it, according to the paper. Today said negotiations were continuing.
“Our client relationship precludes us from discussing it,” said Cheryl Friedling, spokeswoman for what is now known as TIG Holdings Inc. in the Los Angeles suburb of Woodland Hills.
Jackson’s lawyers announced an out-of-court settlement this week with a 14-year old who had filed a civil suit accusing the pop star of molesting him during a five-month campaign of seduction.
None of the lawyers involved would disclose financial terms of the settlement, but a source close to the case said that Jackson was paying US $15 million to the teenager.
If we are to believe the article it would be an overstatement to say that the insurance company insisted on payment to the Chandlers.
But on the other hand this is what the insurers said to the paper while the fact that they offered money is suggestive of the opposite.
It is obvious that when Michael’s lawyers approached the insurers they agreed to do something about it and even made an offer to Michael, and this means that Thomas Mesereau simply doesn’t know of the deal.
The details we get from the article are as follows:
Michael’s insurance company was Transamerica Insurance Group Holdings Inc. based in Los Angeles. Instead of defending Michael in a civil trial his lawyers (Johnny Cochran and his team) started working with both Michael and the insurance persuading them that the settlement would be the best way out in the circumstances. To Michael they promised that the insurance company would agree to cover the cost of the settlement and to the insurance they evidently said that they would lose more in case Michael was unable to go on working.
The insurance company says that they weren’t especially happy but their deeds speak louder than words – they did make an offer of money (evidently for reasons of negligence which would constitute an accident).
The money was offered on January 13, which was two weeks before the settlement.
This initial offer apparently convinced Michael that the agreement with the insurance company was well on the way and the only thing that remained to be done was agreeing on the sum.
And indeed, though the offer was said to be “one-time” only three weeks later on January 30 the negotiations were still going on.
The sum of the settlement with the Chandlers is named here as $15 million (just as we thought). The amount offered by the insurance company is unknown, but even if their offer was much lower it was surely not rejected as one should be a complete fool not to take money from the insurance.
And this means that the insurance company did pay and that at least some part of the settlement amount was covered by the insurance policy.
So it looks like in this insurance situation everyone is right – Brian Oxman who said in his Motion that the insurance company had paid money, Michael who never spoke about it but who saw the first insurers’ offer and was right in hoping that they would eventually pay, and even Thomas Mesereau who says that it is his understanding that the company did not pay.
It is obvious that they did, only the amount was probably not big enough to cover the whole sum of the settlement (or probably it was).
However none of it matters of course. Michael was innocent anyway – irrespective of all this insurance business.
Will there be any other questions, guys?
9. ANOTHER QUESTION
As soon as I asked for further questions one more arrived and reminded me of a very important point. The question was:
Could they have been referring to the penis, that being “a light color similar to the color of his face”? The wording is not completely clear, and will probably give those who want to believe the description matched a reason to cling to their assumption. As far as I can remember, I’ve read a response to that somewhere on your website, but I don’t remember what you said.
I am really happy to be reminded of it as I completely forgot that the mjlies guys are now actively promoting the idea that Jordan’s words were simply misunderstood and his description of a light color referred to the whole genitalia and not just a splotch on that intimate part of MJ’s body.
The mjlies said:
“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.”
By “fans” they mean me as I am the only one who ever talked about that issue. Naturally I took the idea seriously as English is a foreign language to me and to check whether I understood Jordan’s words correctly I needed someone else to look into the subject.
And I did find such a person. And he is not just someone for whom English is a native language – he is also a MJ researcher who claims to be a big authority on everything connected with Michael.
His name is Seth Clerk Silberman and he is a lecturer on gay and lesbian studies at Yale University who even arranged a two days academic conference on Michael Jackson in September 2004.
In fact Silberman may easily turn out to be one of the authors at the mjlies site as he is also propagating the false story that Jordan allegedly knew of MJ’s non-circumcision state. Silberman openly lies on this issue misquoting even his hero Victor Gutierrez and trying to adjust Gutierrez to their present lies about Jackson and make Gutierrez’s story of 1995 up-to-date.
However while lying about one thing Silberman doesn’t yet know that he needs to lie about the other thing too in order to make Jordan’s description fully consistent with their present understanding of it. When Silberman was making his “studies” no one yet spoke of the dark spot and light penis, so Silberman happily corrects Jordan Chandler in one thing but leaves the rest of his story intact.
This results in the following combination from this learned guy Silberman:
Jordan described Michael’s penis, “not circumcised” with “blotchy-pink” patches like a cow.”
Silberman’s activity around Jackson is extremely interesting in and of itself , but the crucial fact which is of interest to us now is that this big university authority on Michael Jackson interprets Jordan’s words on the color point in exactly the same way as I did, and this means that I understood Jordan’s description correctly.
Silberman also says that Jordan described the penis as having blotchy pink (light) patches – which was actually the scene consistent with what Evan Chandler saw on Michael’s buttocks. And I understood Linden’s affidafit (summed up by the Smoking gun) in exactly the same way.
However Tom Sneddon very conveniently explained to us that the only thing they managed to notice there was just one dark spot. So much for the “match” between Jordan’s words and the photos. Okay?
As regards Seth Clerk Silberman’s chameleonic stories please look up the post made two years ago when we first noticed the strange transformation that are happening to lies about Michael Jackson. It is called Rewriting History or Michael Jackson’s Unpredictable Past.
Now it has been changed a little bit. The changes concern not the essence of the story but the way I now perceive people who are so dedicated to slandering Michael that they are even ready to change the past for him.
The point is that I no longer see them as Michael’s haters. These people have an agenda of their own and need Michael for their cause. This is why they spread lies about him at every possible forum including universities and are always ready to morph the facts of the past into their opposite when these facts become too inconvenient for them and no longer fit their agenda.
It is their agenda that matters and not Michael Jackson. For them Michael is simply a means to achieve their goals.
10. DIANE DIMOND KNEW THE TRUTH BUT LIED ALL ALONG
The next day after making the post brought another discovery and another confirmation that all of the above is true.
It turned out that Diane Dimond had always known of Jordan’s real description of Michael’s genitalia and has been simply fooling us all along.
Lynette sent us a revealing comment from Diane Dimond who in November 2009 wrote an article called “The Enigma that was Michael Jackson” and in one of her replies to readers said the following:
“Jordie Chandler was apparently confused about whether Jackson was circumcised. However, what he described about discolorations on Jackson’s penis was proven to be correct. In the opening chapter of my book I describe the day police went to serve a “body search warrant” on Mr. Jackson. They were looking to see if the boy’s description of Jackson’s ERECT penis as having pinkish splotches on it were correct.
This was important to prove or disprove…”
Forget about the “erect” penis crap and look at the pinkish splotches instead.
Oh boy, saying that was very reckless of Diane Dimond. Very reckless indeed.
By saying it she proved to us once again that:
- Jordan Chandler imagined MJ’s penis to be dark and have some pinkish splotches on it, same as his buttocks
- that she always knew Jordan’s description to be incorrect and was simply fooling us all along.
Why she is telling a little bit of truth now I don’t know. Probably she just forgot what she wrote in the past or simply knows that people are too lazy to compare what she says now with what she wrote in her book of 2005, and thinks that she can get away with both stories.
It is only with the nosy us that both stories don’t work and we are even nuisance enough to remind her of her earlier version.
And this is how Diane Dimond described the scene of Michael’s humiliating intimate inspection in her book. She is speaking about the photographer who was taking pictures of the event:
“While I was on Mr. Jackson’s left side, Dr. Strick asked Mr. Jackson to lift his penis. Mr. Jackson questioned why he had to do that, but he did comply with the request. When Mr. Jackson complied with Dr. Strick’s request to lift his penis, I observed a dark spot on the lower left side of Mr. Jackson’s penis.
It’s unclear whether Sergeant Spiegel actually had time to snap a photograph of the mark he saw. But law enforcement sources, as well as Chandler family sources, said that the dark patch on Jackson’s genitals was found exactly where young Jordan Chandler said they could find such a mark. It’s important to note that the dark spot was only visible when the penis was lifted – as during sexual arousal”.
See how many lies Diane Dimond manages to cram into so short a piece:
- The suggestion that the dark spot was not snapped is untrue as it was photographed and even described by Tom Sneddon in his declaration of May 26, 2005
- The penis was not just simply “lifted”. To see whether there were any spots below the foreskin Michael should have had to draw the foreskin back by some 5-6 or more centimeters (this is how long the foreskin is) because it is only after this procedure that the result may more or less resemble the state of “sexual arousal” she is describing. The resulting condition is absolutely not the same as “erection” but Diane Dimond naturally doesn’t elaborate on this point and this is where one of her most sophisticated lies is.
- And they found a dark spot there about Jordan never spoke. Our good boy sent the police to look for a light splotch there and imagine their amazement at seeing that the whole thing was so light that they could find just one dark spot there – at least in “about the same relative location” they described according to Sneddon.
Of course it is very easy to confuse people’s minds with all this crap about spots, especially when nothing adds up there, and this is why Diane Dimond cooked a very simple story for the masses to consume – “there was a spot there and this is all that matters”.
But what doesn’t matter to the masses, matters very much in court where experts will be closely examining every detail and where they will be finally able to tell a dark spot from a light one. And this is exactly why Jordan Chandler never took his story to court – because this is where they do look into details and don’t take media trash stories at their face value.
And by the way it was very nice of Diane Dimond to confirm that Jordan “was confused whether Michael Jackson was circumcised”. It once again answered the question this post started with at all. Yes, yes, yes – Jordan Chandler did say that Michael was circumcised and even Diane Dimond agreed that he was “confused” there.
And after that you still doubt the outcome of a possible civil trial in 1993 if the parties had not settled?
Of course Michael Jackson would have been cleared of all charges. He would have probably died in the process from the sheer humiliation of it, but he would have certainly been acquitted.
That’s for sure.