ABC Facts of Michael Jackson’s Innocence vs. “MJFacts”

UPDATED November 6, 2019

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 want to do – however it looks like at the moment there is 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 facts testifying to his innocence. 

WHEN MJ FACTS ARE ACTUALLY MJ LIES

One of the first questions arrived from a reader in the 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 a website called MJFacts, only it is lies about MJ presented as “facts” which is a method showing that they do express an opinion and have an agenda of their own.

They collect every speck of dust about Michael and simultaneously shut themselves 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 only lies about MJ.

And 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 called 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 “mjfacts” guys quickly got over the shock and are now claiming the opposite without batting an eyelid. 

And 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 – 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 pedophilia 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 a separate question.

It has also become an interesting tradition for these people to intensify their hate against Michael each time 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 suddenly provoked!

Here are some of the readers’ questions inspired by the “mjfacts”:

“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?”

Here are some answers to these questions.

1. JORDAN SAID “CIRCUMCISED” AND WAS WRONG

No matter what “mjfacts” are saying now 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:

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 repeating Jordan Chandler’s wrong description. One of them is a manuscript by Michael’s worst hater Victor Gutierrez, published in 1996.  Here is a quote from its chapter called very much in Gutierrez’s style – “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, while the autopsy found that he was not. And the fact that “mjfacts” deny even this well-known fact tells you all you need to know about their approach to truth in general.

If they lie even here how many more lies do they tell in everything else?

2. JORDAN WAS MISTAKEN ABOUT THE COLOR TOO

The story of the blotch allegedly identified by Jordan is also exactly the opposite of what “MJfacts” claim.

This story is thrilling but graphic (consider yourself warned). 

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.

In May 1993 Michael was suffering from terrible migraines as for several months by that time he had been undergoing a new stretch of his scalp by means of  a baloon inserted under his 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 visited Evan and Jordan Chandler he had a splitting headache. To alleviate the pain Evan Chandler gave him an injection of Toradol, a powerful 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 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 seeing them with his own eyes it was easy for Evan to assume that MJ’s front private parts had a similar color scheme – light splotches, dark background.

The assumption that at least one light splotch should be on the penis too looked like a safe guess and being sure that with Michael’s vitiligo the success was guaranteed Jordan ventured his description to the police. The location of the splotch was not that important – with time vitiligo spots can change their configuration, 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 by these people.

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!”

‘Why?”

“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 in 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.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090630025648/http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jacksonsplotch.html

Horrendous as it looks on second thought you begin realizing that it was not that impossible to provide this description (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 MJ’s front; the short pubic hair is typical of black people as I hear;  and circumcision was wrongly assumed because most American men are circumcised, only Michael turned out to be different – the family was poor and didn’t have money for the procedure.

So the only thing that remains to find out is how “precise” was the splotch that allegedly fell when the penis was “erect”.

By calling it “erect” they are trying to explain why Jordan made a mistake about circumcision – he allegedly took the erect penis for a circumcised one. However these are totally different things and we have a special post about it.  That post includes an animation showing that during erection the foreskin slides and this makes a glaring difference between the two.

Jordan never saw MJ’s genitalia and didn’t know that the uncircumcised skin is free to move despite erection, and therefore claimed in his interview with Dr. Gardner (in October 1993)  that he had masturbated MJ “many times”. However when Michael’s naked photos of December 20th showed Jordan’s mistake about circumcision, the declaration he made a week later (on December 28th) dropped the point of “masturbating MJ”. Everything else stayed but that point was missing , which is an extremely significant and telling factor to note.

I understand your amazement and disgust at the graphic mode of this discussion, but please regard it as a 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 fate played a unique joke on Jordan. It turned out that he and his father made a wrong guess about the color of the splotch and therefore the general color of MJ’s penis (sorry for being so graphic).

They thought that the penis was black, but in reality it was light.

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. Some peculiarities of that description made us realize that the highly intimate part of MJ’s body had a totally different color from what Evan and Jordan Chandler expected it to be.

Declaration of Tom Sneddon, May 26, 2005

After long beating about the bush Sneddon finally says 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. He believes that the photos “substantially corroborate the description”, and he is making these statements “on information and belief” and “believes them to be true”.

The “accuracy” of this declaration is simply mind-blowing – it abounds in vague terms like a dark spot called a discoloration and it being found “at about the same relative location” as described by Jordan and all of the above as Sneddon’s “belief” that it’s 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.

Jordan Chandler’s guess was that Michael had a “light splotch which was the color of his face” – and Sneddon was talking about a dark blemish.

A dark one.

But isn’t a dark spot seen only on the light background (same as a light spot is seen only on the dark background)?

So Jordan thought Michael to be black in his frontal part and Sneddon found him to be white.

But is it possible to confuse a white skin spotted with dark with a dark skin spotted with white?

And what will be your opinion of the two cows below – is it possible to take the white cow for a black one even if they have some spots on their skin? 

The Chandlers imagined it black with one light splotch

These simple reflections made me realize that in the very first place Jordan made a mistake in the color of Michael’s penis. He didn’t know that in that part of his body he was predominantly white, so described it as dark with a light splotch on it.

This is why the photos 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 also bring back the foreskin went bust.

But it turned out to be white with a dark blemish on it

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 wholly indecent discussion?

• The light splotches on the buttocks were seen by Evan Chandler and this is why they were described correctly.
• The Chandlers assumed that Michael had a similar color combination on his genitalia too.
• But over there he was predominantly white, so Jordan’s incorrect story about a light splotch had to be changed by Sneddon into the correct story about a dark spot.
• Jordan’s another mistake was in the circumcision issue.
• When the photos showed his mistake Jordan’s initial claim made to Dr. Gardner that he had allegedly masturbated MJ had to be dropped and never recalled again.
• To cover up for this Jordan’s mistake Sneddon never mentioned “circumcision” but spoke of the “erect” penis instead.
• But the erect penis is not the same as circumcision as the foreskin slides during erection, and if the “masturbation” had ever really taken place Jordan would have noticed it.
• So there was no masturbation and this makes Jordan’s interview with Dr. Gardner just a worthless pack of lies.

The overall conclusion from the above is that the two distinctive details Jordan Chandler was counting on as his damnest evidence were both incorrect – Michael was not circumcised and his genitalia had a different color combination from the one Jordan expected it to be.

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 result was. In fact 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 to make the determination said that he had been told about it, thus revealing that he didn’t make the comparison himself.

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. See how exceptionally vague the final part of his declaration is.

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.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf

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 “MJfacts” 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 
• the book was the next best thing to his testimony which could be used as a replacement for Ray Chandler’s personal presence

The answer to the first point is NO – the decision to use or not use the book did not depend on Ray Chandler, though it was 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.

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 the whole family 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 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”.

FBI agents approached Jordan Chandler in September 2004. He said to them he had no interest in testifying against MJ, would legally fight any attempt to do so and that  he believed “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 threatened to show 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 by this threat 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 claim anything about those genitalia no one can introduce the photos of them either – and this is again in accordance with the great Sixth Amendment to the 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 accuse Michael on the basis of this bluff alone.

The judge naturally didn’t allow the photos, but the effect of his refusal 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 is that Sneddon just turned it into a theatrical performance as this was his only chance to influence the jury.

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, 1994 placing a tiny but crucial statement there that the “photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy”.

If you  don’t pay for the truth you’ll learn that “Photos MAY contradict Michael’s accuser”. And if you pay for it you’ll learn even more  – that  “photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia DO NOT MATCH descriptions given by the boy”.

This tiny piece is a fun fact on 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.

Here is the full USA Today text from behind the payment barrier:

 

We also know that Jordan lied from the fact that Larry Feldman didn’t like the photos so much that he demanded to bar them from the civil trial.

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

Yes, Jordan’s lawyer Larry Feldman filed a so-called multiple choice request. They requested Jackson to provide the photos to Jordan so that the boy could see them and then Michael should submit himself to a second search, and if Michael didn’t agree to this travesty of justice Feldman wanted the photos 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. “

http://variety.com/1994/biz/news/d-a-garcetti-denies-jackson-probe-ended-120071/

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.

http://site2.mjeol.com/important-article/jackson-grand-jury-disbanded-1994.html

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 it was said 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 in the US (February 6, 2003).

Another coincidence took place when Jordan Chandler’s declaration from the distant December 1993 was leaked to the media and disclosed to the public 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 1994 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.

On February 6, 2003 the Smoking Gun published Jordan’s declaration of 1993 which was part of a confidentiality agreement. Jackson issued a statement: “Someone has chosen to violate that confidentiality” and use the boy’s statements to further sully the star’s 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.

Tom Sneddon made his press release on February 6, 2003  which miraculously coincided with  the date when Bashir’s documentary aired in the US and Jordan Chandler’s declaration of 1993 was leaked to the public for the first time

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), we also understand how big a misdeed Tom Sneddon got 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 disbarred 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 began with the status of the 1993 investigation. Sneddon said that the case could be reopened if they found credible evidence against Jackson, which can be read as an admission that they had nothing credible prior to that.

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 go over it once again, guys, as you surely didn’t get the point and the reason why it is so terribly important.

Point 5 of the press-release cited the California law. It  explains that  in order to bring charges against MJ in addition to Jordan’s declaration Sneddon needed either a witness OR  other evidence. Sneddon never charged MJ. Therefore he had neither the witness, nor the evidence.

So according to the California law if a minor complains of abuse and makes a ‘confession’, this is not enough to bring charges against the accused person.

The California law also requires this witness to testify in court or other evidence to prove the case.

Now let’s see what Sneddon did or didn’t have of the required points.

• 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 confessed that he had nothing credible against him. Remember his statement:

• … under California law without a witness or other evidence to establish the corpus there is no case.

In other words in addition to Jordan’s declaration Tom Sneddon needed either Jordan’s testimony in court or credible evidence like the photos corroborating his description, but he had neither. And this is why the case could not proceed to court.

And if the photos couldn’t be used as evidence it means that they didn’t match Jordan’s description. No evidence means no match.

Or vice versa – No match means no evidence.

And this once again proves what we have learned in many other ways and 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 MJfacts boys grasping at a straw here – 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.

Here is the statement from the DCFS dated November 26, 2003 (when it was leaked to the press Larry Feldman made a row over it and threatened to sue the authorities for the ‘damage’ it did to the poor family. And yes, the same Larry Feldman represented the Arvizos too). 

The DCFS statement about Arvizos

And this is what the recent May 5, 2011 statement from the DCFS said:

• the Arvizos case against MJ had zero credibility 

• 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 and off for at least 10 years and during all investigations Michael was fully cooperative with the authorities and held nothing back.

• The DCFS says that in the 1993 case an extensive investigation was carried out.
• Michael was subjected to a battery of tests and interviews, answered the hardest questions possible, and did it for hours.  
• Michael was interviewed for hours 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 that as a result of them Michael 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.”

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/05/katherine-jackson-michael-jackson-today-show-child-molester-pedophile-los-angeles

We could stop at that after this final touch to the incredible anti-Michael saga, however two more questions arrived from the “MJfacts”.

7. ‘NUZZLING’ AND LISA-MARIE PRESLEY

One of them is about MJ allegedly “nuzzling” Brett Barnes. I had to look up the word “nuzzle” and found that it is something like “sniffing”.  I asked those 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 was there some nuzzling 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.

Goodness gracious! What would they say if this was a boy? [MJ with his niece Brandy Jackson]

I hear that this girl is one of Al Malnik’s children

In fact there are so many photos of Michael embracing and hugging little 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.

Is this “nuzzling” or what? [with Sage Romero]

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 from “MJfacts” and this one was about Lisa-Marie Presley:

“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 (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.

http://www.lisamarieonline.net/lisa/interviews/Playboy.php

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 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 to learn the frame of mind of a person, what he believes in and what ideas he brings 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”, 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.

Michael Jackson with Lisa-Marie’s children

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 the answers let me explore one more point 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 don’t care who paid what as one of the real reasons for that settlement was that 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.

We don’t know the end result but what we 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.

The Insurance company made a “one-time” offer to Jackson to contribute to his payment to the Chandlers. Jackson refused. Three weeks later the negotiations were still going on

Of course 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.

What’s obvious is 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 other side they evidently said that they would lose more in case Michael was unable to go on working.

The insurance company said that they weren’t especially happy but their deeds speak louder than words as they did offer money (evidently for reasons of negligence which would constitute an accident).

The money was offered on January 13 and that 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 was 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 one more question 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 “MJfacts” 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 “MJfacts” 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.

Seth Clerk Silberman is a lecturer at Yale University who arranged the first academic conference on Michael Jackson on September 23-24, 2004.

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 on the “MJfacts” 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 1996 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 Silberman:

 Jordan described Michael’s penis, “not circumcised” with “blotchy-pink” patches like a cow.”

http://thisdaymichael.blogspot.com/

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 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.

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 this post was made brought another discovery and another confirmation that all of the above is true.

It turned out that Diane Dimond always knew 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 the readers said the following:

Dimond also says that Jordan described some PINKISH spots on MJ’s genitalia

“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…”

http://dianedimond.net/the-enigma-that-was-michael-jackson/#commentshttp://dianedimond.net/the-enigma-that-was-michael-jackson/#comments

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 now revealing a little bit of truth I don’t know. Probably she just forgot what she wrote in the past or 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.

This is how Diane Dimond earlier described the scene of Michael’s humiliating intimate inspection and what Sergeant Spiegel, the photographer saw there:

In her book Dimond says Jordan described a DARK spot, while her 2009 comment confirmed that originally it was a PINKISH splotch. These liars  absolutely cannot get their story straight  and think they can get away with two opposite stories!

 “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.

• They found a dark spot there about which Jordan never spoke. Our good boy sent the police to look for a light splotch and imagine their amazement at seeing that the whole thing was so light that they could find only 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, and this is why Diane Dimond cooked a very simple story for the masses to consume – “there was a spot and this is all that matters”.

But what doesn’t matter to mass consumers, 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. Yes, yes, yes – Jordan Chandler did say that Michael was circumcised and even Diane Dimond agreed that he was “confused” over that issue.

And after that you still doubt the possible outcome of a civil trial in 1993, if it had taken place and 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.

UPDATED NOVEMBER 6, 2019

What I like about Michael Jackson’s detractors is that their publications often provide information that cannot be found anywhere else. Recently a horrible book by Darwin Porter “Jacko: His Rise and Fall” of 2007 came to my attention and you know what I found there?

The description of Michael’s genitalia given by a lab assistant who processed the films! And this description proves that we were right – the penis was white with a couple of dark spots to it. So the photos didn’t match Jordan’s description not only because Michael Jackson was not circumcised but because of a different color of his genitalia!

You remember that Jordan thought that Michael Jackson’s penis had a “splotch a light color similar to the color of his face” suggesting that its overall color was brown or black. But after Michael had to pose nude in front of a photographer and two doctors, the resulting photos didn’t confirm Jordan’s description and this brought confusion into the police ranks. Eventually they found a solution – they simply changed Jordan’s original version of “a light splotch” into some “brown spots” that were indeed found on the photos, hushing up the fact that the background for those spots was naturally the opposite of what was imagined by the boy.

When the new version was publicized the original description by Jordan Chandler was erased from all Internet sources. We found the original story only in the Smoking Gun article of January 6, 2005 which reproduced part of the 1993 report of Deborah Linden, Deputy Sheriff at the Santa Barbara Sheriffs department who interviewed Jordan Chandler and put down his description.

Darwin Porter, the author of “Jacko: His Rise and Fall” apparently wasn’t aware that Jordan’s description had been changed into its opposite and cited the words of a lab assistant who processed the film thinking that he was providing the damning evidence of Michael Jackson’s guilt.

Instead,  he provided us with new evidence of Michael’s innocence as the photos showed the OPPOSITE of what Jordan Chandler said, in terms of the color this time.

Here is a quote from Darwin Porter’s book:

“Too many persons witnessed Michael posing nude to keep their mouths shut. An assistant in the photo lab where the films were processed claimed, “It’s of normal size. There is very little pubic hair. It’s light brown, not jet black. His penis is white but with a brown blotch or two. There are pink and brown patches on his testicles, which are not large.”

Porter’s book also confirms that Reuters News Service did report that the photos of MJ’s genitalia didn’t match Jordan’s description:

“Right at this time, Reuters News Service dropped a bombshell. A bulletin went out that the photographs of Michael’s genitalia did not match Jordie’s description of them. This was in total contradiction to other reports, including those made by police investigators who had minutely examined photographs of Michael’s private parts.”

But the author gives a lame excuse to explain the Reuters News Services report – his speculations about “silencing a witness” have nothing to do with the key fact that Jordan’s description didn’t match the photos of MJ’s private parts.

“Money talks,” said a police investigator who didn’t want to be named. “Or, should I say, money silences. Millions can silence even the most talkative witness.”

The above closes the chapter of Jordan Chandler’s allegations – the story of a big lie and frame-up of Michael Jackson.

And now it is time to open a new chapter to find out how District Attorney Thomas Sneddon could falsify the evidence against Michael Jackson and the media vilifying him could propagate these lies for so long and on so massive a scale?