Skip to content

Michael Jackson’s strip search depicted by Gutierrez, Dimond and Taraborrelli. WHO IS THE WORST LIAR?

January 2, 2017

Here we are again discussing the old lie about Michael Jackson which his foes seem to be totally incapable of leaving alone.

It has been 23 years since Jordan Chandler gave a wrong description of Michael Jackson’s genitalia, but they are still trying to prove the impossible and claim all sorts of things – first it was a ‘match’, then the boy ‘didn’t say’ it and now the poor boy ‘made a mistake because it just appeared that way to him’.

So, hateful as the subject is, we still need to review it again, this time drawing information from such unusual sources like Diane Dimond and Victor Gutierrez. 

CIRCUMCISION AGAIN

The initial Jordan Chandler’s statement is known almost to everyone. It prevailed for decades since the time the lie started and until Michael’s death. According to that version Jordan allegedly saw Michael’s genitalia, described him as circumcised and the police photos allegedly showed that this was“correct”.

The USA Today and a few honest media outlets reported that there was no match between Jordan’s statement and the photos, but Michael’s haters and the public who took the story at its face value preferred to side with Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon who was claiming the opposite.

When Michael Jackson died this lie was fully disproved as the doctor making the autopsy made a note in his report that the decedent was not circumcised.

This was a major setback for Michael’s adversaries, but they quickly regrouped their forces and changed their theory into the opposite one. Now they claimed that ‘Jordie never said Jackson was circumcised’ and demanded documentary proof of Jordan’s words.

The insolence of this new approach took everyone by surprise as millions of people still remembered what they heard from the media for years when Michael was alive.

As to the documentary proof, Jordan’s description was contained in the 1993 report of the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department Deputy Deborah Linden. The report was never released to the public, but was detailed in some haters’ books published at the time (for example, the one by Gutierrez) as well as some media – the January 6th, 2005 issue of the Smoking Gun, for example, which claimed that they had viewed the Deborah Linden affidavit, and reproduced it on their website.

Their description is almost the exact replica of what Jordan Chandler said to Deborah Linden:

smoking-gun-excerpt“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.

However the above was not enough for Michael’s haters and as regards the Smoking Gun they suddenly became too choosy and disregarded this source of information with a scorn uncharacteristic of them before.

This pulling-the-rope game (“Jordan said it”- “No, he didn’t”) continued approximately until the time when Michael’s supporters received help from totally unexpected quarters.

Obviously unaware of the latest trends in their hate movement against Jackson their front person, Ms. Diane Dimond suddenly confirmed that Jordan was indeed mistaken on the circumcision issue. In the discussion that followed her 2009 article about Jackson she said that Jordan was really confused on this point, though the rest of his description was, in her opinion, ‘exactly right’.

The additional bonus of Diane Dimond’s comment was that she repeated the gist of what Jordan Chandler said to the police, so we didn’t have to look for any other source in our need to explain to Michael’s haters what Jordan Chandler actually said about Jackson (a ridiculous situation).

Here is Ms. Dimond’s exchange with Michael Jackson’s critic which appeared after the autopsy report was published, in November 2009, when Michael’s supporters naturally started asking questions why they had been told a lie about that circumcision for so long.

Eilowny November 18, 2009 at 1:54 am
Ms. Dimond, Please help…, The Michael Jacksons Freaks make me worry <> I saw this quote on YouTube, “The boy said MJ was circumcized, but he was not. ” I don’t remember the circumcision thing in your book. Is this another lie? I used to think that rational people can just look at the facts and believe the victimized child, but the disinformation is all around. Please, if you choose comment on this.

Diane Dimond is detailing Jordan Chandler's description [November 2009]

Diane Dimond is detailing Jordan Chandler’s description [November 2009]

Diane Dimond November 28, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Eilowny- 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 and they took along a police photographer to take pictures. Jackson’s attorneys had said that since Jordie and Jackson had gone swimming together (and changed clothes in front of each other) there could have been a perfectly innocent explanation as to how the boy could have seen and then described Jackson’s genitalia. However, Jordie was claiming to have seen the splotches on the side of Jackson’s penis that was exposed only when he was in a sexually aroused state. The photographs taken that day remain under lock and key in a bank safety deposit box in Santa Barbara, California. The Police and the District Attorney representatives there the day the search warrant photos were taken say Jordie’s description was exactly right.
http://dianedimond.net/the-enigma-that-was-michael-jackson/#comments

Never mind the rest of Diane Dimond’s arguments (we will get to them later) – at the moment the only thing we are interested in is her confirmation that Jordan was ‘confused about circumcision’. So Jordan did call Michael circumcised, and the autopsy proved that he wasn’t, and this was the last nail driven into the coffin of the MJ haters’ new lies about the same old story.

But even that setback did not make them accept the simple fact that Jordan was a liar. Instead they thought of another way to explain Jordan’s mistake. Some scraps of it have reached me before, but their complete theory was recently presented to us in this very blog in a comment by someone who worded it in the form of an innocent question (a note for MJ’s fans – please never, ever be fooled by the “innocence” of their questions).

The comment was long and detailed and showed that they are working really hard on vilifying Jackson against all odds and this time their effort took them to the forum where males discuss the length of their foreskin. Here is the first part of that comment with the respective links deleted from it:

“I have found the guts to research this circumcision issue some more, and I’ve stumbled on some forum and a website dealing with it which might be of interest. (Warning: This might get disgusting; it certainly was to me.)

Here’s a forum entry of guys discussing their short foreskins, the person making the thread stating: “And a soon as I start to get hard [the foreskin] disappears completely.”

Here’s a website dealing with the lengths of foreskins which also states that uncircumcised men might appear to be circumcised. The question would still be whether it would be possible to mistake someone as circumcised while masturbating him, because – quite obviously – these websites do not deal with mutual masturbation. Another question would be why the coroner would come to the conclusion that Michael’s penis appeared to be uncircumcised if it had been that hard to tell.”

So the essence of their latest theory is that Michael could have a short foreskin and this is why it could be taken by Jordan for circumcision. In this connection a special emphasis is made on the word ‘appear’ in the coroner’s autopsy report which indeed said: “The penis appears to be uncircumcised”.

The train of thought of Michael’s opponents must be that if it ‘appeared’ that way to the coroner, it could very well ‘appear’ the opposite way to Jordan Chandler.

But the word ‘appear’ is not a sign of uncertainty for medical professionals and is often usual by them to describe the different phenomena they observe. In fact, the very same autopsy report has another sample of it – in one sentence it says that the decedent ‘is a 50 year old man’ and in the next sentence the report says that the decedent ‘appears the stated 50 years’.

autopsy-report-he-appears-to-be-the-stated-50-years-old1CIRCUMSTANCES: The decedent is a 50 year old man.

EXTERNAL EXAMINATION:  The body is that of <> an adult Black male who appears the stated age of 50 years.

[excerpt from Michael Jackson’s autopsy report]

As regards the idea about Michael possibly having a short foreskin, it could indeed be short as this condition is typical for approximately 42% of all uncircumcised males. Wiki says about it:

In 1966, Schöberlein researched uncircumcised penises and discovered that in his sample, 50% of young men had full coverage of the glans, 42% had partial coverage of the glans, and 8% of the glans were uncovered.

And the fact that ‘short foreskin disappears from view entirely once a male is erect’ is also true and correct for all uncircumcised males, as the opposite condition, when long foreskin remains overhanging the erect penis (can’t believe I’m discussing it) is actually considered a pathological state and in some cases even requires surgery.

So all of the above simply does not matter while the most crucial factor about the foreskin that really matters is completely ignored by Michael’s haters.

They seem to constantly forget that Jordan Chandler claimed that he ‘masturbated’ Jackson and if that had been true he would have noticed the so-called ‘gliding mechanism’ that accompanies the foreskin – however he didn’t.

You don’t know what ‘the gliding mechanism’ is? Well, Wiki has a whole article about it which explains that the foreskin always glides irrespective of its length and arousal condition.  Medical sources even call this gliding mechanism the “hallmark physical characteristic” of intact, uncircumcised male genitalia.

Here are only some examples from Wiki and other scientific sources (warning: adult content).

  • “The foreskin is mobile, fairly stretchable.”
  • “The term ‘gliding action’ is used to describe the way the foreskin moves during sexual intercourse. This mechanism was described by Lakshamanan & Prakash (1980), stating that “the outer layer of the prepuce in common with the skin of the shaft of the penis glides freely in a to and fro fashion…” Indian Journal of Surgery. 44: 134–137
  • “During intercourse, the natural penis shaft actually glides within its own shaft skin covering.” O’Hara K (2002). 
  • “During intercourse the loose skin of the intact penis slides up and down the shaft of the penis. This is known as the `gliding mechanism,’ <> [ slick ‘sheath within a sheath.’” 
  • The penile skin (including the foreskin) is free to move over the penile shaft because the double-sided nature of the foreskin makes the penile skin system considerably longer than the penile shaft and also because the penile skin is only connected to the underlying structures at the pelvis and at the base of the glans (at the sulcus). This ability to move is the hallmark physical characteristic of the penile skin system (see this animated diagram). 

Anyone who wants to verify the above can watch the animated diagram, but for us it is crystal clear that whether long, medium or short the foreskin is a natural part of the gliding process and this gliding phenomenon cannot escape the attention of anyone who masturbates or is involved in masturbating another person.

However Jordan claimed that he had been involved in this process and by making this false claim made a fatal mistake in his big lie about Jackson.

Here is the reminder of what Jordan Chandler said to Dr. Richard Gardner in his interview in October 1993:

–  “… But he had me masturbate him.”

– “On how many occasions?”

– “About ten.”

The reason for Jordan’s big mistake was that both he and his father Evan were circumcised and never experienced that gliding mechanism themselves, so they had no idea of that small but crucial detail and didn’t expect any complications from this side of their story.

SECOND QUESTION

Now that we’ve answered the first part of our well-wisher’s question we can handle the second part of it. It concerns Taraborrelli’s description of Michael’s body search in “The Magic and the Madness” book and was presented to us with the following comment:

Some people believing in Michael’s guilt like bringing up Taraborrelli’s description of the strip search which goes as follows (in the 2004 edition).<>

“Crying softly now, Michael slipped off the boxers and stood, naked, stripped not only of his clothing but of the one illusion he’d always had: that of his invincibiliy. All eyes went straight to his penis, which did not appear to be circumcised.
‘Is the subject circumcised?’ asked the doctor. Everyone stepped in for a closer look.
‘Yes, he is…’
‘No, he’s not…’
‘Yes.’
‘No’
‘Oh my God’ Michael whimpered. He looked dizzy, as if about to faint.
‘You don’t know?’ asked one of the detectives of Michael’s physician.
Michael’s medic became indignant. ‘Sir, I have never seen his penis before now.’
‘Well the subject is clearly NOT circumcised’ decided the other doctor, finally. He made a note of his finding.
Yes, he did have patchy coloured skin on his buttocks, as Jordie described.
Yes, he had short pubic hair.
Yes, his testicles were marked pink and brown.
However, no matter how many ways they looked at it, all seemed to agree that his penis was uncircumcised. But, did that matter? In fact, an uncircumcised penis can look circumcised when aroused. If Michael had been sexually excited when seen by Jordie, would anyone, let alone a thirteen-year-old boy know if he was circumcised or not? But there was now doubt about the identity in question.”

To be frank, seven years ago I was also taken by Taraborrelli’s description of that horrible scene and was so shocked by Michael’s torture that fully believed this account not paying attention to its details, and it is only now that I notice how false and damaging to the truth these details are.

Their falsity becomes obvious when you compare the description of the same scene with the other sources available to us now. And though the books in question were written by Michael’s worst haters it is thanks to them that we will be able to finally establish the truth.

Yes, this is the strange and winding road the truth sometimes takes.

TWO OTHER BOOKS

The books to compare Toraborrelli with will be a boylover’s novel authored by Victor Gutierrez and published in 1996 as a certain “Jordan Chandler’s diary” (which he never kept according to Jordan’s family), and a more serious book by Diane Dimond “Be careful who you love” published almost ten years later, in 2005.

The latter book is indeed more serious because Ms. Dimond clearly used some of the documents provided to her by Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon.

In fact on one of the opening pages of her book she expresses a deep gratitude to her anonymous source for his ‘information, guidance and trust’ and speaks of this person with nothing short of reverence. This type of glowing praise in combination with secrecy can refer only to Tom Sneddon:

“You know who you are and that I cannot name you. You must also know I am profoundly grateful for your information, your guidance, and your trust”

You will be amazed, but Diane Dimond’s book has an acknowledgment to Victor Gutierrez too.

'Ms. Dimond's Experience With Victor Gutierrez as a Reliable Source of Information Regarding Mr. Jackson

‘Ms. Dimond’s Experience With Victor Gutierrez as a Reliable Source of Information Regarding Mr. Jackson” [Excerpt from the court documents, click to enlarge]

Despite or thanks to the fact that he is a self-admitted NAMBLA conference attendee (“North American Man Boy Love Association”) Gutierrez was one of Ms. Dimond’s best sources.

This is what she herself said about him when Michael Jackson sued both of them for a lie about a non-existent video tape and she hid behind the Shield law shifting all the blame onto Gutierrez and simultaneously calling him her best and most reliable source.

By the way Tom Sneddon helped her out then by making a statement in her support to the judge, so Diane Dimond really has a lot to thank Sneddon for.

Ms. Dimond’s other source was a practising pedophile Rodney Allen from Canada who first tried to frame up Michael Jackson with another of those ‘child abuse’ scams, but was seized by the Canadian police in the middle of the process and was later sent to prison on pedophilia charges.

So it is to sources like these that Ms. Dimond gives her acknowledgment for helping her to “understand the nuances” and “being her navigators over difficult waters”.

“To all my sources over the years: You helped me understand the nuances. I couldn’t have asked for better navigators over difficult waters. A reporter’s work is only as good as her sources. Most of you were seeking truth, as was I”.

Diane Dimond's acknowledgments to her sources

Diane Dimond’s acknowledgments to her anonymous sources

Considering that we know who these sources were, her note about her work being ‘only as good as her sources’ is an extremely pertinent one. And the fact that she teamed up with two boy lovers in her campaign against an innocent person puts the final and especially dirty touch to her story and hopefully reputation.

Well, now that we are aware of Ms. Dimond’s close ties with her ‘navigators’ it is no longer a surprise that the descriptions of Michael Jackson’s awful body search in her and Gutierrez’s book are nearly identical – the two were working in a really close cooperation with each other.

Let us see what they say.

THE NIGHTMARE SCENE

GUTIERREZ  (1996):

“On December 20, authorities from Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties went to Jackson’s ranch to conduct the examination of the singer’s body and photograph and videotape it. From Santa Barbara, there was District Attorney Thomas Sneddon, Detective Russ Birchim, and photographer Gary Spiegel. From Los Angeles, there was Detective Sicard.

The gate of the ranch opened at 4 p.m. to admit the authorities, but four of Jackson’s guards demanded that before entering they say the password which Jackson’s lawyers had given to the Santa Barbara D.A. Jackson’s two lawyers, Johnnie Cochran and Howard Weitzman, who had arrived by helicopter. They told the detectives that another helicopter had followed them. Upon hearing this, the detectives noticed that the ranch was surrounded by three helicopters.”

DIMOND (2005):

“As agreed upon, the investigative team had arrived at Neverland at 4:45 P.M. Among them were Santa Barbara district Attorney Tom Sneddon, Santa Barbara police detective Russ Birchim, Santa Barbara sheriff’s office photographer Gary Spiegel, LAPD detective Frederico Sicard, and Dr. Richard Strick, a dermatologist.<>

A prearranged password was provided to security members manning the gates before the team was granted entry to the property. Once inside, the officials were directed to a parking area adjacent to one of the estate’s main buildings, where Jackson’s criminal defense lawyers, Johnnie Cochran and Howard Weitzman, stood waiting.

The two attorneys had just flown in via helicopter from Los Angeles. As they stood speaking with officials on the driveway, three helicopters hovered far overhead. From their markings it was clear they were from the news media.

Pulling the district attorney aside, Cochran quietly explained that his client was “apprehensive” and “reluctant” about the pending body search. The lawyer asked for patience and then left the group in the driveway while he went back inside the expansive Tudor-style mansion to try to convince Jackson to allow the lawmen to carry out what they came to do.<>

One hour passed before the second Jackson attorney, Howard Weitzman, finally rapped on the vehicle’s window to inform the team of a further delay. The lawyer appeared helpless to change the situation but suggested that the district attorney set a deadline he could take back to his client.

Tom Sneddon, who is not known as a man who likes to be kept waiting, said simply, “Ten minutes.”

Clearly, Jackson took the deadline seriously because in exactly ten minutes his attorney was back to report that his client was finally ready.”

GUTIERREZ:

“Cochran explained to District Attorney Sneddon that Jackson did not feel like cooperating, and asked Sneddon to have patience. According to Cochran, this was not easy for the singer. Fifteen minutes later, Jackson’s other lawyer, Weitzman, asked them to continue waiting. Sneddon replied that they had already waited almost an hour. Weitzman told Sneddon that he needed some more time to prepare his client. Sneddon gave them 10 minutes. Finally, the attorneys notified the authorities that Jackson was ready. It was agreed that they would examine the singer first before taking photographs, and that Jackson’s attorneys and Sneddon would wait outside the room.

When the doctors and others authorities entered the room, Jackson was sitting on the sofa wearing a brown seethrough robe.  Detective Russ Birchim presented himself and said that he knew this procedure was going to be uncomfortable for him and that he appreciated his cooperation. Jackson thanked him and they shook hands.

Not more than two minutes had passed when Jackson pointed at Detective Birchim and asked him, “Who are you?” They had just met and shaken hands, but Jackson had already forgotten. Jackson asked Dr. Forcast if Birchim would be present during the examination, to which the doctor said “yes.” Jackson suddenly became angry and stared at the detective, shouting, “I don’t want you here! Get out of here! Get out of here! I told you to go! Go!”

Then Jackson asked Detective Sicard who he was and if he was going to be present as well. The detective identified himself as a Los Angeles police officer, but didn’t have the chance to respond in greater detail before Jackson shouted, “You get out of here, too!” Jackson got up from the sofa and his doctor grabbed him to hold him back, when Jackson hit him to break free.”

DIMOND:

The security office was very close to the main residence

The security office was a few meters away from the main residence

“The team was escorted to a building away from the main house to what appeared to be the ranch’s security office, where they were introduced to Jackson’s two personal physicians – Dr. David Forecast, an MD from London, England, and Dr. Arnold Klein, a Beverly Hills dermatologist who has often been cited as the doctor who provides Michael Jackson with the skin-bleaching cream he uses daily. <>

Jackson’s chief of security, Bill Bray, and a personal Jackson photographer named Louis Swayne were also in the office when the team arrived.

The security office building and its garage

The security office building and its garage. Right behind this building is the main residence

After some time, the sheriff’s photographer and the two detectives, Birchim and Sicard, were led upstairs to a compact room just to the right of the second-floor landing. The officers immediately noticed Michael Jackson, who was seated on a small couch and wearing only a beige bathrobe. At his side was Dr. Forecast, the attending physician who had reportedly squired Jackson through his drug rehab program just weeks prior.

Jackson appeared uneasy as the group filed in. The close quarters suddenly felt even more cramped with Detectives Birchim and Sicard, Doctors Strick, Klien, and Forecast, and Jackson’s photographer, Louis Swaye, all but hovering over the pop star.

To ease the strain, Detective Birchim reached out his hand to make an introduction. “I am Detective Russ Birchim of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office. I realize this procedure is unpleasant for you, and we appreciate your cooperation,” he told the entertainer.

Detective Sicard politely introduced himself as well.

“Thank you,” Jackson replied in a soft voice.

The atmosphere in the small room remained tense as Jackson’s attorney Howard Weitzman accepted the official copy of the search warrant from Birchim.

“I’d like to see the search warrant affidavit also,” Weitzman said, referring to the victim statement that often accompanies a request for a warrant.

Up until this point, Jackson’s attorneys were completely in the dark as to what exactly the boy had told authorities. They had no idea what it was that police were looking for on Michael Jackson’s body.

“I don’t think so,” Detective Birchim shot back.

Weitzman laughed and said, “It never hurts to try.” He then left the room and closed the door behind him.

Police photographer Gary Spiegel was readying his equipment outside the door when suddenly he heard Michael Jackson explode in a rage.

“Who are you?” Jackson shouted, pointing a finger at Detective Birchim.

“Detective Birchim from the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department,” the officer replied, puzzled at Jackson’s question. It had not been two minutes since their formal introduction.

“Is he going to be here, too?” Jackson asked as he turned to face Dr. Forecast who sat next to him on the couch.

“Yes,” Jackson’s physician replied.

“I don’t want you here. Get out!” Jackson shouted at Detective Birchim, directing the officer toward the door. “Get out! I said to leave; you get out!”

The now-enraged Jackson pointed to Detective Sicard next. “Is he going to be here, too? Who is he?”

“I’m Detective Sicard from LAPD,” Sicard spoke up.

“Get out of here. You get out of here, too,” Jackson ranted. The star struggled to rise from the couch as Dr. Forecast worked to restrain him. As the tirade continued, Jackson reached over and slapped his physician in an attempt to break free. <>

Noting that the sparsely attired singer was both “hysterical” and “completely uncontrollable,” Birchim stepped in and attempted to calm him down. He asked Jackson if his attorneys had explained the search warrant procedure, including the requirement that law enforcement officials observe the warrant service. Seemingly oblivious, Jackson continued to scream and struggle as Dr. Forecast fought to control him.”

GUTIERREZ:

“According to Detective Birchim, “Jackson was hysterical and totally uncontrollable. I tried to calm him, and asked him if his lawyers had explained the procedure to him, which included agents of the police being present.” But Jackson paid no attention to the detective’s words and he continued shouting and trying to break away from his doctor.

“I didn’t know why Jackson wanted to get away from his doctor. I didn’t know if he wanted to attack me or go to his room,” the detective wondered. Once again, Detective Birchim told Jackson to speak to his lawyers and have them explain the law to him. When the detectives left the room, Jackson shouted “sons of bitches!”

DIMOND:

“It was unclear why Jackson was trying so violently to leave the couch, and for a moment, Birchim was unsure if his intention was to attack him or to flee the room.

“Mr. Jackson, I am going to ask your attorneys to confer with you to explain – “ Birchim began.

“You assholes!” Jackson screamed as the detective stepped out into the hallway to consult with Howard Weitzman.

Telling the criminal attorney that his client was “out of control,” Birchim explained that police would be unable to perform the search given Jackson’s present state of hysteria.<>

“Can you go downstairs and summon Johnnie Cochran to the room?” Weitzman asked Birchim. “Tell him he is needed immediately.”

The detective found Cochran downstairs speaking with the district attorney. Explaining that the lawyer was needed immediately, Birchim trailed the lawyer as he raced up the stairs. Once in the room with Jackson, Cochran took over, attempting to soothe the star and the examination back on track. Birchim returned downstairs to speak with the district attorney.

Minutes later, Johnnie Cochran rejoined the officials downstairs. Jackson, he explained, was refusing to have the procedure commence with the two officers in the room. He asked the district attorney if it would be possible to have the genital examination and photos done without the detectives present. Cochran said it was the only way to accomplish the examination.

It was agreed that Drs. Strick and Klein, as well as photographers Spiegel and Swayne, would initiate the procedure on their own. The two detectives, Sneddon agreed, would leave the room.

At 6:04 P.M., according to Birchim’s sworn declaration, the examination finally began behind closed doors as the rest of the group waited in the hall. Even Dr. Forecast had been asked to leave.”

GUTIERREZ:

“The lawyers agreed with D.A. that the examination would be done with only two photographers and two doctors. The two detectives and Jackson’s doctor, Dr. Forcast, would have to leave the room.

The D.A.’s photographer, Gary Spiegel, prepared his equipment to take the photos of Jackson’s genitals in full detail. “I took two photographs of the singer seated on the sofa,” the photographer recalled. “At the same time that I was taking my pictures, Jackson’s photographer began to do the same.

Jackson’s dermatologist told Jackson that we wanted to photograph his genitals, and asked him to take off his robe. Jackson protested, saying ‘Why do I have to do that! Why are you doing this to me?’ But Jackson took off his robe and also took off his gray bathing suit.

Then Jackson’s dermatologist said for the rest of us to turn around and not look. This seemed strange to me since there were only two doctors and two photographers. I didn’t know who he was referring to. The doctor then said that he would not look, since he had never seen the singer’s genitals, and he wasn’t going to do it now.”

DIMOND:

“Spiegel wrote in a declaration to the court: I entered the room. In the room, I saw Mr. Jackson sitting on a sofa against the far wall. <> I took two photographs of Jackson sitting on the sofa. Mr. Swayer was to my right and when I began to take photographs so did he. Dr. Klein made a statement that we were interested in photographing Jackson’s genital area and directed Jackson to stand and remove the robe he had on.

Jackson protested, saying things like “What do I have to do that for?” and “Why are they doing this?” In my opinion, Jackson’s demeanour was a combination of hostility and anger.  Jackson complied with Dr. Klein’s request to remove the robe and to lower the pair of gray swimming trunks he was wearing. As Mr. Jackson was complying with Dr. Klein’s request, Dr. Klein made the statement that others in the room should turn their heads so as not to view Jackson’s genital area.

At the time, I found this peculiar because the only persons in the room at the time were Mr. Jackson, the two doctors, me, and the other photographer. Dr. Klein also made a statement that he was not going to look. He said he had never seen Mr. Jackson’s genital area and he was not going to do so at this time.

As Mr. Jackson lowered his trunks, he said something to the effect of, “I don’t know why they are making me do this” or “Why are they making me do this?” Mr. Jackson’s attitude was, in my opinion, still one of hostility and anger.

I took several photographs of Jackson’s genitals from his right side first and moved to his left side. The other photographer switched positions from Mr. Jackson’s right side to his left side as I shifted positions.

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.<>

GUTIERREZ:

“I took several photographs of Jackson’s genitals. First the right side, then the left side. When I was photographing Jackson’s left side, the D.A.’s doctor asked Jackson to lift up his penis. Jackson asked why he had to do that, but he did it. When Jackson lifted his penis, I noticed a dark stain below the left side. Jackson began to move quickly towards my side of the room. I wasn’t sure if he was coming towards me or in the direction of the door, which was behind me. He made me move to the side and he went through the door, and his dermatologist followed after him.”

DIMOND:

“Mr. Jackson [then] started moving quickly in my direction. I was not sure if he was coming after me or headed to the door, which was directly behind me, but as he came at me I took a step to the side and out of his path, if he was headed to the door. He went past me toward the closed door with Dr. Klein right behind him. When he got to the door he apparently opened it and yelled at someone on the other side of the door that he wanted “pictures of them too”. I did not see who he was pointing to, but it seemed obvious to me at the time that it must have been Detectives Birchim and Sicard.

At Dr. Klein’s insistence Mr. Jackson returned to the position he had been at by the sofa, prior to going to the door. As he did, he pointed at me and told me he wanted pictures of me too. <>”

GUTIERREZ:

“Jackson’s dermatologist convinced him to return to the room. When Jackson was returning to the room he saw the two detectives and shouted, “I want photographs of you two afterwards!”

The photographer continued. “Jackson turned his back to us and dropped his bathing suit so that we could take photographs of his behind. I took two photographs of his behind. Then the dermatologist told him to take off his shirt and let us see his chest, back and legs. Each time I took some photos, Jackson and his dermatologist asked me, ‘Are you done?’ ‘Don’t you have enough?’ ‘How many more?’ “

DIMOND:

“… at Dr. Klein’s request Mr. Jackson turned his back to us [the photographers] and lowered his trunks so we could see and photograph his buttocks area. In my opinion Mr. Jackson’s attitude had changed from one of hostility and anger to one of rage. Dr. Klein directed Mr. Jackson to remove his shirt and show us his chest area, his back area, and his legs. During the session and after or during every couple of photographs M. Jackson and Dr. Klein would keep asking, “Are you done?” “Don’t you have enough?” “How many more?” and other statements and questions of this nature.

At one point Mr. Jackson asked me directly, “Who are you?” I ignored the question and kept photographing. Mr. Jackson then asked Dr. Klein, “Who is he?” and either Dr, Klein or Dr. Strick told him I was just a photographer doing my job. I was under the distinct impression that if Mr. Jackson knew I was a law enforcement officer the session would have ended. <>

After I exposed twenty-three frames of film Dr. Klein asked me in a strong tone of voice if I was done. I was asked in such a manner that it was more like a demand than a question. I told Dr. Klein that I was not done yet and that I wanted to talk to the lawyers before proceeding.”

At this point the first variations between the two stories appear. Gutierrez closes the scene with details which are hardly believable, however he wouldn’t be Gutierrez if he didn’t add his own embellishments to any subject he describes.

GUTIERREZ:

“I explained to the D. A. that it was difficult for me to work under these conditions, and that I needed 12 photos of Jackson’s completely naked body and 4 of his genitals with a ruler.” D.A. Sneddon spoke to Jackson’s lawyers and they agreed that the photographing would end with the nude photos and the photos with the ruler. So the police photographer put a new roll of film in his camera and gave the other roll to Detective Birchim , who put it in an evidence bag with the date and the hour and secured it in his briefcase. But Jackson refused to cooperate and said that if they wanted more photographs, they would have to do it another time. After discussing it with his lawyers, the singer persisted in his refusal to continue with the session.

The D.A. and Jackson’s lawyers agreed that the rest of the photos would be taken in Dr. Klein’s office, where Dr. Klein would examine Jackson in the presence of the D.A.’s doctor. Also, the photographs would be taken by the singer’s photographer, who would provide copies to the D.A. With the agreement made, the authorities finished the session and left the ranch.

The copies of the photographs from this entire process were kept by the D.A. in a safe-box at a bank in Santa Barbara, which safe deposit box requires two people to open it.”

Diane Dimond’s version depicts a different way the body search terminated and considering all circumstances it looks more credible to me.

DIMOND:

“Sergeant Spiegel left the room to confer with the district attorney, who in turn tried to negotiate again with Jackson’s attorney Howard Weitzman for more time to shoot the pictures. But it was already too late. Unbeknownst to Spiegel and Sneddon, Jackson had already departed through another door. It was Detective Birchim, outside for a smoke, who suddenly spotted the star leaving from the second-floor stairway. Birchim recalled in this declaration:

He was fully dressed, including a black fedora hat and red jacket. Jackson walked from the stairway, turned right, and entered an open doorway leading to a large open-air ground-floor parking structure.

I contacted Mr. Cochran and advised him his client had just exited the building. Cochran joined Mr. Jackson in the parking area and put his hands on Jackson’s shoulders. Several seconds later Jackson reappeared in the doorway and with great gusto, slammed the door leading into the parking area. At approximately 19:00 hours we departed Neverland Ranch and returned to Santa Barbara.”

The first floor of the security office building where Michael Jackson's strip search took place

The first floor of the security office building where Michael Jackson’s strip search took place

The room on the second floor of the security office building where Michael Jackson’s body search most probably took place [Floor plan from the original Neverland brochure]

We see that both accounts are based mostly on the affidavit of the police photographer Gary Spiegel, which is a document we don’t dare to dispute.

And now that we’ve learned of the way it really was from the sergeant who was the direct and main participant in that horrible body search let us compare it with what our friend Randy Taraborrelli has to say about the same event.

TARABORRELLI (2003):

“The photo session, set for 20 December, promised to be as torturous as experience as Michael ever had in his life. Present from Santa Barbara would be its District Attorney, Thomas Sneddon, as well as a detective, photographer and a doctor. From Los Angeles, were Michael’s attorneys, Johnnie Cochran and Howard Weitzman, and Dr. David Forecast, one of Michael’s physicians from the United Kingdom, as well as another detective and another photographer (employed by Michael), all of whom had arrived by helicopter.

After everyone arrived at Neverland, it took Johnnie Cochran and Howard Weitzman an hour to get Michael to leave his bedroom and go into the parlour, where the photos were to be taken. Finally, Michael came into the room, wearing a brown robe. It was agreed that his attorneys and Sneddon would leave the room and not be present for the photos. Bodyguard Bill Bray was allowed to remain, as would the two detectives and two photographers and two doctors.

As everyone was getting settled, Michael took a look at one of the detectives and, for no reason anyone could think of (except that he may have mistaken him for someone he knew), began shouting at him. ‘You! Get out! I don’t want you here for this. Get out!” Michael then tried to storm from the room. However, one of the doctors grabbed him. “Hold on, Michael,’ he said, ‘hold on.’

Johnnie and Howard, upon hearing the ruckus, came back into the room. ‘Get these sons of bitches out of here,’ Michael screamed at them, now referring to everyone in the room. He was agitated beyond all measure and actually seemed high, though everyone present hoped that was not the case.

The District Attorney’s photographer, Gary Spiegel, began taking photographs of Michael while he was still seated on the couch. Michael blocked his face with his hands, as if thwarting a paparazzo.

Finally, an anguished Michael was told to stand on a platform in the middle of the room as if about to have his pants hemmed by a tailor. He was still wearing a bathrobe. ‘Please don’t make me do this,’ he said, his doe-like eyes watery. ‘This is terrible. Don’t make me.’

‘Sir, we have no choice,’ said one of the detectives.

Then, while standing on that platform and staring at a picture of Elizabeth Taylor on the wall, Michael took off the bathrobe. Under it, he wore a bathing suit.

‘You’ll have to take it off, sir,’ said the detective.

Still staring at the photograph of Elizabeth, Michael slipped off the bathing suit . . . under which he was wearing boxers.

‘Sir, please.’

Crying softly now, Michael slipped off the boxers and stood, naked, stripped not only of his clothing but of the one illusion he’d always had: that of his invincibility.

All eyes went straight to his penis, which did not appear to be circumcised.
‘Is the subject circumcised?’ asked the doctor. Everyone stepped in for a closer look.
‘Yes, he is…’
‘No, he’s not…’
‘Yes.’
‘No’
‘Oh my God’ Michael whimpered. He looked dizzy, as if about to faint.
‘You don’t know?’ asked one of the detectives of Michael’s physician.
Michael’s medic became indignant. ‘Sir, I have never seen his penis before now.’
‘Well the subject is clearly NOT circumcised’ decided the other doctor, finally. He made a note of his finding.
Yes, he did have patchy colored skin on his buttocks, as Jordie described.
Yes, he had short pubic hair.
Yes, his testicles were marked, pink and brown.
However, no matter how many ways they looked at it, all seemed to agree that his penis was uncircumcised. But, did that matter? In fact, an uncircumcised penis can look circumcised when aroused. If Michael had been sexually excited when seen by Jordie, would anyone, let alone a thirteen-year-old know if he was circumcised or not? But there was now doubt about the identity of the person in question.”

I then took several photographs of Jackson’s penis,’ said Gary Spiegel. ‘First the right side, then the left. When I was photographing the left side, the D.A.’s doctor told Michael Jackson to lift up his penis. He didn’t want to, so there was a lot of discussion about that. Finally he did it. Then, he angrily jumped off the platform. “That’s it,’ Jackson said. “That’s enough.’ He put on his robe and ran out of the room.’

The detectives looked at each other, one of them moved towards the room in which Michael’s attorneys had been waiting. Then as the detective headed back into the living room, Michael’s lawyers stomped down the hall to get their client back before the waiting cameras. The copes were uncomfortable as they listened to what most would have guessed to be a rebellious teenager arguing loudly with strict, disappointed parents. Then, after fifteen minutes of cries, shrieks and pleas – silence. A moment later, the sound of one loud plaintive wail resonated through the house. Michael had been broken. He pounded his bare feet hard against the wood floor, moving towards the room he had worked so hard to make perfect for waiting guests.  

‘When this whole thing is done, I want pictures of you,’ Michael said, pointing angrily at one of the photographers, ‘and you, too,’ he said, jabbing his finger at the other one.

Again, Michael stood naked. More pictures. Then videotape.

‘Please,’ Michael said, his tone now pleading. ‘Can we stop now?’

One of the doctors produced a ruler.

‘That’s it,’ said Michael’s physician. ‘Mike, get dressed. This is a joke. I can’t believe it myself. ’

Michael quickly put on his robe. “Don’t you ever, ever, ever let that happen again, he said, unleashing his anger on poor Bill Bray, who just sat in the corner the whole time looking mortified.

‘But I didn’t do nothing’, Mike,’ Bill said. ‘Why you hollerin’ at me?’

Ignoring Bill’s questions, Michael stepped off the platform and ran from the living room. ‘How could this happen to me?’ he screamed on his way out. He was shaking. Observers said it looked as if he was about to have a melt-down. ‘How could this happen to me?’ he kept repeating.

Now that we can fact-check Taraborrelli’s account by the numerous details drawn from the police photographer’s affidavit we see that his narrative is simply a piece of fiction. To a very slight extent it is sympathetic to Michael Jackson, but at the same time extremely damaging to the truth about him.

WHO IS THE WORST LIAR?

Interesting, but from the point of view of facts (not their interpretation) the most accurate description is that of Ms. Dimond. It is clear that she received exclusive information about Michael’s strip search from her anonymous friend Tom Sneddon or her other contacts with the police, so when it comes to things like “who stood where” and “what they discussed” her story seems the most reliable of all.

It is also a big surprise that Gutierrez’s account of the scene is almost devoid of his usual embellishments. This is probably because this time he was drawing inspiration not from his pedophilia fantasies, but from real information provided by someone who was in contact with the police, possibly even Ms. Diamond, who could very well share with her associate the text of Sergeant Spiegel’s statement which is laying the basis for that scene in both of their books.

And where did Taraborrelli draw his inspiration? I’m afraid that his information was mostly coming from Gutierrez’s love story. The only other source about the Chandlers and Michael Jackson was Ray Chandler’s book which was also released in 2003, but it didn’t contain a single word about the strip search, and this leaves Gutierrez as the most probable source. Gutierrez’s novel came out in 1996, six or seven years before Taraborrelli’s updated version of Michael’s biography and during those years Taraborrelli had ample opportunity to study and use Gutierrez which he actually did – and this post is another proof that this was not the first time he was doing it.

Instead of fact-checking Gutierrez as a proper researcher would, Taraborrelli used his largely false narrative as a basis for his own story and added to it a more sympathetic interpretation of the events that would befit the stance of a ‘friend of Michael Jackson of 40 years’ he positioned himself in.

However a combination of someone else’s lies with a little bit of sympathy from a ‘friend’ is no less damaging to Michael than the outright hate from his most vicious chroniclers like Gutierrez or Stacy Brown, for example.

You wonder what Taraborrelli’s own embellishments of this particular scene were?

To begin with, there were no detectives during that strip search. The only people allowed there were the two doctors and two photographers. The photographers were taking pictures only and there was absolutely no videotape and not even a possibility for it.

There was no ‘platform’ either as Michael was photographed standing beside the sofa. There were no “shrieks”, “pleas”, “whimpering” and “wails” as Michael’s prevailing attitude was that of stoic anger, which was sometimes broken by fits of rage when he shouted at them or banged the door.

And he was not “high” – both Michael and even Dr. Klein looked slightly strange as they were so stressed out that both immediately forgot what happened just a couple of minutes before that, so Michael constantly asked “Who are you?” and Klein asked everyone to turn their backs when Michael had to lower his trunks though there was nobody in that room except the four of them.

And there were no anecdotal details like additional boxers under Michael’s bathing trunks. And he was not looking at the photo of Elizabeth Taylor on the wall either – it was the security office, and the security office was no place for keeping the photos of Michael’s friends there.

And Bill Bray was not present during the body search – he was in another room, though of course he was mortified and this is probably the only point where Taraborrelli is factually correct.

And there was no argument between the detectives and doctors for the simple reason that the detectives didn’t take part. And the doctors didn’t discuss any circumcision either because Michael and Dr. Klein didn’t know what the police were looking for and Dr. Strick, who was the only doctor who knew, wouldn’t tell them – same as the police photographer, he was afraid that Michael would end his cooperation at any moment, so all those present tried not to add to the overall tension and kept silence instead. The strained silence was broken only by Michael’s questions why and Dr. Klein’s occasional questions whether it was enough for the police.

The only meaningful conversation took place when Dr. Strick asked Michael to lift his penis and Michael asked why, but still complied. And it was then that Gary Speigel, who was photographing it from below, saw a dark spot.

dr-richard-strick

Dr. Strick said that he was ‘told’ that it was a match

Dr. Strick could not see it as he was standing and not lying on the floor and this answers another of our well-wisher’s questions – why Dr. Strick couldn’t compare what he saw with Jordan’s description then and there, and why he later said that he was only ‘told’ that it was a match.

So Dr. Strick didn’t see that dark spot, but it doesn’t matter anyway.

It doesn’t matter because it was a dark spot while Jordan Chandler said it should be a light one.  If we recall Jordan’s statement to the police the splotch he allegedly saw on Jackson’s genitalia was “a light color similar to the color of his face”. And Ms. Diane Dimond was kind enough to confirm this fact in her 2009 comment, because among the other things she said was the following one:

 “…the police were looking to see if the boy’s description of Jackson’s erect penis as having pinkish splotches on it were correct.”

Pinkish, not dark.

But this is what she said in 2009, and when her book was released right after the 2005 trial, she was saying the opposite – that the boy described a certain dark patch. This was a lie all right, but it was told in support of the declaration of her benefactor Tom Sneddon who was describing what Jordan allegedly said and the affidavit made by the photographer, Sergeant Spiegel, who was describing what he actually saw.

A quote from Diane Dimond’s book where she repeats Sneddon’s lie about Jordan:

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.

You will ask why Jordan thought that Michael could have a pinkish splotch on his penis?

toradol-injection-to-mj-from-ray-chandlers-book

Evan Chandler gave Michael an injection of Toradol into his gluteus [excerpt from Ray Chandler’s book]

This is because he and his father saw Michael’s buttocks when Evan Chandler was giving Michael an injection of Toradol (see Ray Chandler’s book about it ) and his buttocks were evidently spotted with some pinkish splotches, so hence the supposition that the penis would have at least one too.

And when Taraborrelli was writing his umpteenth version of his so-called biography of Michael Jackson he could have at least taken the trouble to check up Ray Chandler’s book and find the correct explanation why Jordan knew the real color of Michael’s buttocks, instead of propagating his own ideas about it which did Michael absolutely no good.

As to the ‘exact’ place of that dark-pinkish spot, Sneddon’s declaration said that it was found in the following place:

“…on the right side of Defendant’s penis at about the same relative location as the dark blemish located by Jordan Chandler”.

However Sergeant Spiegel clearly says that he saw a spot on Michael’s left side:

“While I was on Mr. Jackson’s left side, Dr. Strick asked Mr. Jackson to lift his penis. When Mr. Jackson complied <> I observed a dark spot on the lower left side of Mr. Jackson’s penis”.

So rounding up this indecent discussion we have to conclude that the match was indeed a ‘perfect’ one. Everything fitted in, with the only exception that Jordan spoke of a light spot and Sergeant Spiegel saw a dark one, that Jordan allegedly saw it was on the right side and Spiegel saw it on the left, and that Jordan called Michael circumcised and the autopsy report said that he was not. As to the rest of it, the description was correct – Michael was a male and he had buttocks and a penis.

In other words the end result is really impressive. With the exception of Sergeant Spiegel’s true account we have a varied collection of false statements which are all different from each other, but are still in direct opposition to facts. Each player is telling his own story and out of this multitude of variants you can’t choose a single true one because none of them are true.

ALL of them lied about Jackson. Only each of them lied in his own special way – even our friend Taraborrelli whose books about Michael Jackson are kept in the home of almost every fan and whose quotes are spread all over Wiki and the internet.

And which of these people is the worst liar I will leave it to you to decide.

As to Michael Jackson here he is with his own description of the strip search he had to endure. In a televised statement broadcast live from Neverland on December 22, 1993 he said (excerpt):

Superstar Michael Jackson speaks during a televised statement broadcast live from his Neverland ranch near Los Olivos, California, in a  December 22, 1993 photo.

“It was a nightmare. A horrifying nightmare.”   [Michael Jackson’s televised statement live from Neverland on December 22, 1993]

“I had no right to refuse examination or photographs, and if I failed to cooperate with them, they would introduce that refusal at any trial as an indication of my guilt.

It was the most humiliating ordeal of my life, one that no person should ever have to suffer.  And even after experiencing the indignity of this search, the parties involved were still not satisfied and wanted to take even more pictures.

It was a nightmare. A horrifying nightmare. But if this is what I have to endure to prove my innocence, my complete innocence, so be it.”

 

 

 

 

* * *

For anyone interested in Diane Dimond’s ties with Gutierrez and Rodney Allen and how Tom Sneddon comes into the picture let me recommend a very well documented article by blogger Paula who did her own independent research of this case.

Not only did Paula put a lot of time, effort and money into tracking down the documents for her blog, but she also had interviews with the people cited there, including Rodney Allen whom she contacted in prison and who answered some of her questions in the correspondence that followed.

The article is called THREE STOOGES (DIMOND, GUTIERREZ, AND ALLEN) and here is the link:  https://turningthetableonthechandlerallegations.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/three-stooges-dimond-gutierrez-and-allen/

50 Comments leave one →
  1. dorito permalink
    February 21, 2017 11:30 pm

    Helena one thing comes to my mind when haters say that Jordan never said he was circumcised is then tell me exactly why in the hell did sneddon act like a crazy man, going through his medical records, asking his mom to come to the grand jury to testify indeed if he was uncircumcised or if he had done anything, jumping to conclusions that he maybe restored the foreskin (lol lol) if jordan never said he was circumcised??? huh??? why would he do ALL that if Jordan had never said anything??? like the evidence is glaring at them, you don’t need a document of Jordans description (which thankfully we have) to figure that out… as I’ve said before all common sense goes out the window when they talk about michael, it’s unbelievable…

    Like

  2. January 15, 2017 12:36 pm

    “I would love to see the mental health report on him.” – Nannoris

    Oh, I would love to see it too. But I agree with Asma – Robson doesn’t produce the impression of a mentally ill person. This is indeed a character disorder and ‘someone who has no qualms about doing something despicably hurtful to others for his own gain.’

    With regard to this kind of personalities there is an exceptionally interesting study which I would like to share here with you. But before that I need to look up all those bits and pieces of Robson’s emails on Daily Michael (had only a brief look). If the Estate ever gets their full text this will probably be the end of that case.

    Like

  3. Talia Gifty permalink
    January 15, 2017 12:11 pm

    😊😊😊

    Like

  4. January 15, 2017 10:50 am

    Talia, sometimes I act as a complete idiot. It’s only now that I’ve realized that I wrote that additional piece about Gutierrez to a post about Michael’s strip search. So now it seems I will have to remove it from here. The technical side of how to go about it fully escapes me.

    Like

  5. Talia Gifty permalink
    January 15, 2017 8:16 am

    Thanks, Helena for commenting back. I appreciate it. Also thank for the information you put down as well for me. 😃

    Like

  6. January 15, 2017 7:09 am

    “I pray everything is okay and your taking a break. If you so enjoy yourself and GOD bless you.” – Talia Gifty

    Talia, thank you very much for your support. I just entertained some guests visiting us and the research also takes time, not to mention the need to put it down on paper after that, and then cut it drastically to make it shorter – so hence this break. You cannot imagine how much material has to be excluded because the post cannot be even longer than it is.

    Like

  7. Talia Gifty permalink
    January 14, 2017 7:53 am

    Hey, Helena. I just want to thank you for this blog. I hope your doing great. I pray everything is okay and your taking a break. If you so enjoy yourself and GOD bless you.

    Like

  8. Talia Gifty permalink
    January 13, 2017 9:47 am

    Thank GOD it’s all over. The Michael Jackson episode with Ralph Fiennes playing in it is cancelled due to the family and fans standing together and making a complaint about it. I am so happy. But still the haters are upset about it. And causing quite the stir on Twitter. It’s so irritating to see this over and over again.

    Like

  9. Talia Gifty permalink
    January 10, 2017 10:49 pm

    Sorry typing in a heap of anger. I meant to say and what is annoying is some of the people mostly like haters

    Like

  10. Talia Gifty permalink
    January 10, 2017 10:48 pm

    They just can’t stop making horrible disrespectful jokes about Michael Jackson. Just saw Ralph Fiennes picture. Why? And what’s is some people who are most likely haters are saying it serves Michael right to be played like this. They call him those horrible unspeakable and untruthful names that the media brainwashed them to believe. I just ugh. These people need to stop. It’s stupid and nonsense and it all needs to stop.

    Like

  11. Asma permalink
    January 10, 2017 1:28 am

    Nannorris, thank you so much for the second link. Reading it as we speak. I agree with you, I would love to see a mental health report on WR as well if that would be feasible. The thing that WR strikes me though based on his great ease to lie and switch stories is not that he is mentally ill, but character disordered. Someone who has no qualms about doing something despicably hurtful to others for his own gain. Of course no one can say for sure. He might have a true mental illness, but mentally ill people are not necessarily character flawed in lying and accusing without remorse an innocent person of a grave wrong doing, particularly since MJ’s children will be experiencing the brunt of the hurt. Thank you again for the link!

    Like

  12. Asma permalink
    January 10, 2017 1:11 am

    Hi Helena,

    Thank you and well said to you too regarding your response to Cinderalla (and your entire blog posts and comments). Also, you are so correct regarding these people’s modus operandi. It’s old and quite frankly it is akin to gas lighting and any other manipulative tactics of this caliber. I hope with the attention now being placed on tactics such as these, it will start coming to light on how Michael Jackson is the most, illusioned? if that is even a word, public figure in modern history. The more I read about him and even see photographs and videos of him in his normal state, I can’t help but feel shaken at how the media manipulated and fed us this image of him that in so many ways was so unlike himself. I never believed the horrible things about him not because I was a fan, but because as I mentioned I was just able to discern the reporting. However, I still did not know till this day how many likely affairs he had with women and how normal (and handsome) he looked even as he got older without the make-up Karen Faye plastered on him (and putting the blame on him). He was/is *never* shown for his most natural self. I agree with you to the core, fake news is NOT a trifle that people seem to think it is.

    Now, I had no idea that Dimond is now embarrassed about her connection to Gutierrez. That is interesting! She should be ashamed! The blog post from Paula you posted the link for shows *exactly* why I have been exasperated with her since 1993 when I was a mere teenager and even moreso during the raiding of Neverland ranch. In the society of professional journalists code of ethics link I posted earlier down below there are four principles and in the very first principle is “Seek Truth and Report it” and the very *first* bullet point within that principle states “Take responsibility for the accuracy of their (journalists) work. *Verify information BEFORE releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.* She mangled the very first bullet point and systemically all those after by making claims *without* verifying the existence of this supposed x-rated video of MJ with a minor, the existence of the “stack of love letters” and more all because her “best source” NAMBLA member (based on everything I read about him) Victor Gutierrez “said so.” That is NOT verification. If any one of her sources claims there is a piece or pieces of evidence out there of a legally potent nature, a true investigative journalist makes sure with their their *own eyes* that it is there. She released “information” before verifying and absolutely *insisted* on their existence *even when* she was warned not to do that.

    What is her banning people who ask about her best source going to do for her now? *She* messed up and *she* needs to be not just called out on it, but made to be held accountable in whichever way that is possible for the public to do. One of the other bullet points in the first principle is to “gather, update and CORRECT information THROUGHOUT the life of a news story.” Not to mention in the final principle the third bullet point states that journalists should “ACKNOWLEDGE mistakes and CORRECT them PROMPTLY and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.” So tell me then, how “banning” those when the ask her questions regarding, in her *own* words, her “best source” helps to support her own claim of being an “investigative journalist”? She wrote a whole book based on the information he provided! Maybe she needs to stop “banning” people and take the time and *learn* what an “investigative reporter” actually is.

    Like

  13. nannorris permalink
    January 9, 2017 9:35 pm

    Also interesting to me, that Joy seems to want to distance herself from her sons lawsuit , much in the same way as June Chandler , when under oath

    Liked by 1 person

  14. nannorris permalink
    January 9, 2017 9:27 pm

    I just wanted to mention something that I found kind of interesting in reading Ivys work….The estate specifically asks WR if he has claimed to be abused by anyone else including the Johnny Young dance school, which Helena has mentioned in another article…I am going to have to look for that one and review it..very interesting ,that they may have com eot the same conclusions
    After reading Ivys work , it seems WR is without a conscience, and has no qualms about lying to anyone about anything..
    And I wouldnt put it past WR himself , inserting that garbage into the ROL fakeness for MJ birthday., especially since he refers to himself as a master od deception..
    I would love the estate to be able to check his own computers in that search .
    i truly think he is mentally ill , also
    I would think once these things started coming out , particularly that he used Helen Yu to shop his book , before he contacted his supposed first group of lawyers, , those same lawyers kicked him to the curb, and he ended up with bottom rung group..
    It is astounding how he would drag his entire family into this fiasco, obviously he doesnt care how many people he destroys in this scorched Earth attempt to cash in..
    I would love to see the mental health report on him..

    Like

  15. nannorris permalink
    January 9, 2017 8:07 pm

    more info from dailymichael confirming that Wade has no problem lying in an attempt to extract cash form the Jackson estate
    http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate/339-excerpts-from-wade-and-joy-robson-depositions-and-emails

    Like

  16. wkatrina permalink
    January 6, 2017 1:00 pm

    Ofcourse Wade Robson does not dance anymore. He has his hands up or rather his mind full, over this case.

    Like

  17. wkatrina permalink
    January 6, 2017 12:28 pm

    Jordan was confused because he had NEVER seen Michaels Private parts.Stuck there between police Dr .Klein and other people such as policephotographers or maybe forensic ones,.Then Diamond and Guitierrez eagerly awating for the results.All Jordans
    classmates and others his age may not have known much about circuncision anyway
    In brief; Much ado about nothing.- Interesting is that Diamond, Guitirrez, Taborelli etc. had to have their names in print over this embarassing and shameful procedure. And Jordan could not ask his mother.Maybe she would have known..

    Like

  18. Talia Gifty permalink
    January 5, 2017 8:12 pm

    Yes. Thank you, Esmeralda.

    Like

  19. January 5, 2017 7:59 pm

    @Riro

    Maybe there is something that could put your questions to an end shortly. When it comes to this issue (as with all others actually) the Chandlers become their own enemy. Why, would you ask?

    Their lawyer, Larry Feldman, made a multiple choice request at the time. Either MJ would have to give Jordan the pictures of his genitals and then the boy had to make a second description (screams “cheating”), MJ would have to make a second strip seach ( a definite no, as the first one was already very traumatic), or, pay attention to this, the pictures of MJ’s genitals would have to be barred from a trial as evidence. Yeah, you read that right. The damning “evidence” would have to be left out.

    So I think this makes it clear. If those pictures were damaging to the Chandlers at the extent of Feldman asking for them to be excluded from a trial, it means they didn’t match Jordan’s description. This has been discussed in this blog btw.

    Link to Feldman’s multiple choice request: http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-05/local/me-8514_1_michael-jackson

    Like

  20. Talia Gifty permalink
    January 5, 2017 5:42 pm

    Well said, Helena.

    Like

  21. January 5, 2017 5:34 pm

    “just putting this link from dailymichael up regarding the estate response to Robson ..it is a very interesting read, includes the fact wade was shopping a book deal BEFORE he filed his lawsuit ..well worth the read http://dailymichael.com/” – nannoris

    Nannoris, oh, at last this is something we can discuss. I’ve had a brief look and it is indeed well worth the read. And this is only the tip of the iceberg – imagine how much more truth we learn when/if other information from the discovery process becomes available to us?
    I sense a big battle coming.

    Like

  22. January 5, 2017 5:19 pm

    “After examining the Spanish version there are definitely a few things he left out in his later version. Gutierrez included more information from Sergeant Spiegel account.”- mjjcritic

    Well, then the Spanish version shows that Gutierrez had exactly the same information about that strip search as Diane Dimond, and that both descriptions were based on Sergeant’s Spiegel’s report. And both are correct.

    Let me remind those who missed this point that when Tom Sneddon threatened to introduce Michael’s intimate photos at the 2005 trial (which he could never do as it required the presence of Jordan Chandler, who refused to take part) Sneddon did not even try to subpoena Dr. Strick and Sergeant Spiegel to the trial.

    This is an extremely important fact which betrays that Sneddon never really meant it and all of it was just a show. The thing is that all photos should be verified by the photographer who made them – this is the requirement of the law. Otherwise anyone can bring any photo and say “it’s him”.

    To avoid such situations Sergeant Spiegel was to be called as a witness to verify the photos, but Sneddon did not even move his little finger to do it. The list of the people he intended to call as witnesses did not include Sergeant Spiegel, and this means that Sneddon was bluffing from the very start of it.

    Like

  23. January 5, 2017 4:52 pm

    Asma, you’ve said it so well that all I can do is repeat your words:

    The overanalyzing discussion of whether JC actually thought or didn’t think Michael was circumcised or not is so pointless at this juncture. The fact of the matter is his description did not match, MJ’s official autopsy clearly says that he was not circumcised, the Chandlers desired civil suit over a criminal trial, the grand juries in both matters found zero evidence, Michael was exonerated, and no evidence of any wrong doing was found at all despite the fact he was being monitored on a microscopic level for over a decade and more. The pointless discussion of JC’s 13 year old psyche is simply insignificant to this greater scheme. It’s distraction is what it is, to keep the inane conversation going, so it in turn can sell more slanderous and smutty stories.

    The discussion is indeed pointless, but this is the usual modus operandi of Michael’s haters and trolls who frequent this blog. The goal is to involve us in a never-ending discussion and distract attention from much more important issues – for example, from the now undeniable fact that Diane Dimond and Tom Sneddon lied about Jordan’s description and that they used the services of people with pedophilia inclinations like Gutierrez and Rodney Allen to try and put behind bars an innocent person.

    Now Diane Dimond feels so uncomfortable about her association with Victor Gutierrez that I hear that she bans everyone who tries to ask her about him.

    Like

  24. January 5, 2017 3:28 pm

    Cindarella, I’ve studied the links provided by you and am now a big expert on circumcision having even more proof that the matter is crystal clear and Jordan Chandler never saw MJ’s genitalia.

    1) On the site you’ve sent me to the Jews discuss mostly the frenulum and not the foreskin proper, and what happens to both during circumcision.

    And frenulum is still another distinction of an uncircumcised male. It is a membrane or bridge similar to the one we have under our tongue (put your finger under your tongue and you’ll feel what’s like). The frenulum on a penis is the same kind, only attached to the foreskin.

    The overwhelming majority of circumcised males don’t have the frenulum either, it as it is cut during circumcision. The remaining percentage is tiny and results from the circumcision process going wrong for some reason.

    Scientists say about it:

    “If you are circumcised, your frenulum may not be a concern, because most or all of the frenulum was likely removed along with the foreskin during circumcision. Because not all circumcisions are created equal, some people may experience a partially intact frenulum or develop scar tissue after circumcision.”

    2) The religious Jews on that site explain that circumcision may indeed be different. Two thousand years ago it was a custom to have only the tip of the foreskin cut, but this practice stopped at around 140 A.D. The explanation why a more severe method came into practice is very interesting:

    …it did become more strict during the Hellenistic period, Jews were integrating into Greek society which included much public nudity. Until that time, Jewish ritual circumcisions were much less severe. They only removed a small portion of the foreskin (usually just the “overlap”). By reading I Maccabees 1:11, you can see that they “they hid the fact of circumcision by drawing forward the prepuce so that they resembled the Hellenes.”

    Rabbis sought to prevent Jews from hiding their circumcisions and therefore their Jewish identity by drastically altering the required procedure for brit milah.

    In about 140 CE, Jewish law was altered so that radical circumcisions called Periah must be performed. Periah consists of the complete stripping and shearing of the foreskin.

    The old variant is now called Biblical Circumcision: Brit Milah and the new one is “Pharisaic (since ca. A.D. 140) and Modern Western Circumcision: Brit Peri’ah. The difference is shown in this diagram: http://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision2.html

    3) The more severe “Western type” circumcision was first acquired by British moralists in the 19th century and then became widespread in the US. The main reason was their fight against masturbation – the process to which foreskin and its “gliding mechanism” were essential.

    This illustration of circumcision comes from the urology textbook:

    “In the United States circumcision emerged at the same time as in Britain and for much the same reasons: hostility to masturbation.”
    “Doctors circumcised boys to denude, desensitise and disable the penis to such an extent as to make masturbation impossible, or at least not worth the effort.” [History of circumcision]

    Thus the very idea of modern day circumcision was to bring that “gliding mechanism” to zero, and this is why the US circumcised males are totally unaware of it. Jordan and Evan Chandler didn’t have it and had no idea that Michael Jackson as a uncircumcised male should have a freely-gliding foreskin.

    4) Circumcision is a fairly standard procedure in the US. It is part of the medical insurance and is done to most baby boys in hospitals within the first 24-48 hours of their life. Even today the circumcision rate is still very high – over 60%, while in 1980 when Jordan Chandler was born it was much higher.

    The procedure is still popular because being uncircumcised in the US is a kind of a stigma. It has been promoted as part of “social acceptance” and of being “regular” in contrast to not circumcised males whose condition automatically placed them as coming from a poor background, being an immigrant, etc. and someone who was born not in a hospital but in a less sanitized condition or at home.

    The poor background is exactly where Michael Jackson came from and this is why he was not circumcised, which Jordan and Evan Chandler could naturally never expect.

    “The History of circumcision” site says:

    “With or without parental consent, hospital practice raised the incidence of neonatal circumcision to 90 per cent in the late 1970s and early 1980s.”
    “The myth that was particularly effective was exploiting middle class anxieties about conformity and social status was that an uncut boy would be made to feel weird and inferior to his circumcised classmates in school locker-rooms.”
    “The normal human penis became a strange and alien anomaly to the new generation of Americans – physicians and laymen alike – most of whom had never seen one.”
    The Victorian masturbation hysteria was apparently still alive and well in American medical textbooks in the scientific seventies. Here is a quote from the 1970 edition of Campbell’s Urology, the standard urology textbook:
    “Parents readily recognise the importance of local cleanliness and genital hygiene in their children and are usually ready to adopt measures which may avert masturbation. Circumcision is usually advised on these grounds.” http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=0

    5) Present-day research sites list at least 20 anomalies resulting from circumcision. The following 3 of them make it utterly impossible for Jordan to have overlooked that Michael was not circumcised (if he had he ever seen his penis which he never did):

    “Circumcision is not simply the cutting off of useless skin. Author Gary L. Harryman enumerates what circumcision destroys:
    ..11. The frenulum, the sensitive “V” shaped tethering structure on the underside of the glans is also usually amputated, severed, or destroyed.
    13. The “gliding” mechanism. If unfolded and spread out flat, the average adult foreskin would measure 15-20 square inches, the size of a postcard. This abundance of specialized, self-lubricating skin gives the natural penis its unique-hallmark ability to smoothly “glide” back and forth within itself, permitting non-abrasive intercourse.
    14. The pink to red to dark purple natural coloration of the glans.
    http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/gmas/gmas04.shtml

    So being circumcised Jordan Chandler didn’t have a foreskin, had his frenulum destroyed, had no idea of the gliding mechanism, and the surface of his glans was rougher and changed its natural color into a darker one.

    Needless to say the uncircumcised Michael Jackson looked absolutely different.

    6) Grasping at their last straw MJ’s haters now evidently claim that Jordan Chandler could have a milder, “biblical type” of circumcision when only the tip of the foreskin is removed and everything else is left intact. And comparing himself with MJ he supposedly saw no difference and thought that he also had that mild and “biblical type of circumcision”.

    Well, despite this theory being totally ridiculous, they are very much welcome to prove their point.

    Please remember to prove that the circumcision of Jordan Chandler was performed by a Rabbi, and explain why this Rabbi was ready to break the law adopted in 140A.D. which forbade them to make a milder type of circumcision for 2 thousand years after that.

    Also please prove that Evan Chandler was so religious a Jew that he turned to a Rabbi at all and also explain why Evan changed his name to Chandler as his real name Charmatz “sounded too Jewish”.

    Another question to Michael Jackson’s haters will be why they are ignoring information about the other inconsistencies in Jordan’s description and why their lovely Diane Dimond cannot keep her story straight about the color of the spot Jordan Chandler allegedly saw.

    And unless all those questions are answered in a clear and precise way please don’t disturb us here any more.

    Like

  25. Cinderella permalink
    January 4, 2017 10:37 pm

    The matter is crystal clear anyway. There was no match. Jordan Chandler was telling lies.

    Unfortunately Helena the matter is not crystal clear. Haters will merely point out a site such as the Mothering forum, where Jewish circumcisions were discussed (http://www.mothering.com/forum/265-religious-studies/493117-jewish-circumcision-frenulum.html – link is safe with no graphics). While the stories are anecdotal it is clear that Jewish circumcisions vary not just between the different Jewish persuasions but also from Rabbi to Rabbi (or technically, mohel to mohel), resulting in any number of variations in post-circumcision foreskin length. Thus it is entirely possible that any Jewish male may experience the gliding mechanism that you spoke of, so haters can then argue that it’s not necessarily true that Jordan would have noticed a difference between the feel of his and Mike’s penis while masturbating.

    Like

  26. Talia Gifty permalink
    January 4, 2017 6:15 pm

    Nannorris, I just read it. It was worth the read. This whole case just keeps getting crazier and crazier. But it is good see a silver lining in this whole mess. Thanks you so much.

    Like

  27. nannorris permalink
    January 4, 2017 5:47 pm

    just putting this link from dailymichael up regarding the estate response to Robson ..it is a very interesting read, includes the fact wade was shopping a book deal BEFORE he filed his lawsuit ..well worth the read http://dailymichael.com/

    Like

  28. January 4, 2017 3:11 pm

    After examining the Spanish version there are definitely a few things he left out in his later version. Gutierrez included more information from Sergeant Spiegel account.

    “Jackson told his dermatologist that he did not want to be photographed, but his doctor convinced him and I could take more pictures,” said Sergeant Spiegel. “At the request of his doctor, Jackson turned his back on us and pulled off his bathing suit so we could take pictures of his butt. I took two pictures of his butt. Jackson had his left arm at his waist, I asked him if he could raise his arm and cooperated. Then his dermatologist told him to take off his shirt and let us see his chest, back and legs. Every time I took some pictures, both Jackson and his dermatologist asked me, ‘Are you done?’, ‘Do not you have enough?’ ‘how many more?’. On one occasion Jackson asked me, ‘Who are you?’, I ignored the question and continued photographing. Then he asked his doctor, who only replied that he was a photographer who was doing his job. I think if Jackson found out I was a police sergeant the session would have ended right there. The Jackson dermatologist, in my opinion, was rushing the process. After I took about 23 pictures, the dermatologist asked me, in a way that was more like a demand than a question, if it was over. I replied that not yet and that I wished to speak with the lawyers before proceeding. I did not take the time of the session but I estimate that it was between 10 and 12 minutes. I explained to the prosecutor that under those conditions it was difficult for me to work but that I had taken the photographs that I had been asked for. But he needed to take pictures of Jackson completely naked and photos close to his genitalia using a ruler. I needed almost 12 photos of her naked body and four of the genitalia with a ruler. ”

    There was also a scene where the after they left the ranch the prosecutions doctor said that Doctor Forcast told Michael that the police department were red heads. There was also a an account told before Gutierrez described his version of events from an anonymous detective who (allegedly) saw Jackson naked. Keep in mind I had to rely on Google translate for this so the translations may not be completely accurate.

    Like

  29. Asma permalink
    January 4, 2017 3:01 pm

    By the way just to clarify my recent post, Helena I was not referring to you at all in your technical refutation on this topic. *That* is necessary and you demonstrate a truer and more factual picture and I appreciate the hard work you put in. Facts are facts, even with circumcised body parts, short and long foreskins and all. I am referring to those who get so hung up on proving this one aspect as “true” and forego all the other combined evidence, incidences and hard facts, in order to establish confusion and plant doubt. It is so obvious what they are trying to do. Furthermore, I want to clarify that I am not pointing the finger at anyone who post on here either, but to the general attitudes and climate of discussions that surrounds this aspect as the focal point.

    I am trying to post the full excerpt from Carrie Fisher’s 2011 book “Shockaholic” regarding Evan Chandler, but I seem unable to with my phone. I shall do so once I get on my computer.

    Like

  30. Talia Gifty permalink
    January 4, 2017 8:52 am

    Lastly, I understand that this blog is for everyone. And you are able to ask questions. I am not trying to control anyone. All I wanted to point out is, if you look at MJ FACTS site, other hater sites or what people say on youtube videos that are nothing but lies about Michael. Yes, you begin to have doubts. You actually do begin to believe it or become uncertain about his innocence. For some they see the light and continue to believe he was innocent. And for others they get sucked into the trap that many others have fallen into like those haters. Anyway, I know where you guys are coming from. I had my doubts but I truly believe now Michael is innocent. Even when sometimes it seems lies are more better to believe because this situation is complicated. It’s all just rooted in lies and it is time for the truth. And Helena and many of us are doing are best to show that to the world.

    I am not trying to offend anyone. Just wanted to get this out to guys.

    Like

  31. Talia Gifty permalink
    January 4, 2017 8:43 am

    Asma, Thank you for pointing that out. And Helena, you are doing a great job. You should not have to prove yourself to anyone. Let them believe what they want. They already seem like they are stubborn to even listen.

    Like

  32. Asma permalink
    January 4, 2017 6:31 am

    Helena,

    Well said. I could say a lot on this too (except for the gliding stuff, those things go over my head) but I was wondering with Carrie Fisher’s passing over this past week there is an excerpt in one of her books where she talks about her conversation with Evan Chandler. Have you read it? He was her dentist and he was bragging about Jordan’s new friendship with Michael and said something to the effect of, “You know, my son is *very* good looking.” I’ll have to look for the exact words, but it rightfully creeped Fisher out. My point in bringing this up is, there have been several witnesses that noticed father Chandler’s odd behavior over the entire situation. From the beginning he did not behave like a protective father over his son who may be a victim of sexual abuse, but instead acted like someone who was willing to “pimp” his son out if you will, for material benefit. My observation, Jordan Chandler was being groomed alright. But it wasn’t by Michael. His parents (namely his father) were grooming him from the start and likely coached him the graphic details based on the entirety of the evidence (as you said the matter IS *crystal clear*), the inference is not in the least bit far fetched.

    The overanalyzing discussion of whether JC actually thought or didn’t think Michael was circumcised or not is so pointless at this juncture. The fact of the matter is his description did *not* match, MJ’s official autopsy clearly says that he was *not* circumcised, the Chandlers desired civil suit over a criminal trial, the grand juries in both matters found zero evidence, Michael was exonerated, and no evidence of *any* wrong doing was found at all despite the *fact* he was being monitored on a microscopic level for over a decade and more. The pointless discussion of JC’s 13 year old psyche is simply insignificant to this greater scheme. Just look at the whole case and the environment which he came from. Look at what outside observers have said about the Chandlers, the Arvizos, and Robson as well as those who have interacted with them on a more closer level.

    I am reading Paula’s blog which you so kindly provided, and was it not our friend Diane Dimond that said she interviewed an expert on pedophiliac criminals and that they like to keep mementos of their victims? Well then, with a raid of 70 police officers, a 12 plus year FBI monitoring and phone/computer use tapping, forensics analysis and more…is it not telling that zero evidence, zero wrong doing let alone “mementos” of any sort were found? With this picture, who then *cares* what this kid’s thirteen year old perceptions were saying on the matter of circumcision. It’s distraction is what it is, to keep the inane conversation going, so it in turn can sell more slanderous and smutty stories.

    Like

  33. January 4, 2017 5:54 am

    “In actual fact, in the 23 years since the description was given, nobody has brought up the subject of the gliding mechanism.” – Cindarella

    In actual fact I did bring it up six years ago, in an update to this post: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/all-you-wanted-to-know-about-it-but-were-always-afraid-to-ask-part-1/ A quote from it: “even in the erect state the foreskin will move anyway as nature has made males that way!”

    The term “gliding mechanism” was not used because at the time I had no idea that there is a medical term for it. Six years later we finally know it.

    As to why I haven’t returned to this subject for so long, it is because this is not a porn site and I don’t feel comfortable discussing it, and secondly, the matter is crystal clear anyway. There was no match. Jordan Chandler was telling lies. Period.

    Like

  34. January 4, 2017 5:45 am

    “I honestly never intended to make Michael appear guilty by what I wrote. I just simply wanted to discuss those things.” – Riro

    Fine. Let us leave it at that.

    Like

  35. Cinderella permalink
    January 4, 2017 4:15 am

    With all due respect Helena, if haters are to be refuted over the short foreskin issue then your arguments need to be solid and sans speculation.

    First of all it isn’t a ‘theory’ but a fact. And secondly, Jordan wouldn’t have to translate one thing into another. All he had to do was expressing surprise to the police that Michael was different in this respect. They would have translated it for him.

    No, you have a theory that the gliding mechanism would be considered important by either Jordan, law enforcement, or both. That is not a fact. Even though I consider myself experienced I had never heard of such a thing as the gliding mechanism when trying to differentiate between a short foreskin and a circumcised penis, and even you, someone who has had experience with penises – recall you described the glans as feeling somewhat like the inside of your cheek – had not considered it in the seven years you have written your blog.

    In actual fact, in the 23 years since the description was given, and in all the time that we have known Jordan allegedly described Mike as circumcised, nobody has brought up the subject of the gliding mechanism. That tells us it isn’t as obvious as you make it out to be and remains an arcane descriptor when it comes to classifying an uncircumcised vs. circumcised penis when there is a short foreskin, with looks alone, whether the glans is showing or is covered by the foreskin, being the defining characteristic.

    You have tried, but failed, to refute haters in any meaningful way. I’m sorry.

    Like

  36. Riro permalink
    January 3, 2017 10:10 pm

    Helena … I’m not certain if I understand your post correctly or not. What you are implying (or not even just implying, as it seems to me) is that the questions I posted were motivated by a wish to “vilify” Michael. I have to say I’m quite shocked about this. I would’ve never guessed that my questions would be taken out of context to such an extent.

    Let me be absolutely clear: I never meant to vilify Michael in any way. Believe it or not, Michael still has a huge place in my heart. All I wanted to do was share my thoughts and research on the circumcision issue and see what other people have to say. I’ll openly admit that I’m not certain the description didn’t match because I simply have no knowledge about anything to do with circumcision, foreskins or the like, and therefore, I have no idea whether an uncircumcised penis could be mistaken for a circumcised one. I’m not some sort of undercover hater coming to your blog, masking my intent to “vilify” Michael by asking an “innocent question”. I have absolutely no intent of that sort. I’ve been following your blog for many years, and I’ve spent quite a while pondering the allegations and only recently started having doubts regarding Michael’s innocence that I would consider worth mentioning. If somebody asked me, I would probably still say that I believe Michael to be innocent, but I’m not certain of it. If having questions in my mind is enough to be considered a hater, I have to say that I find that quite shocking and sad. That’s not what I would consider objective, and this type of environment will probably scare a lot of people away from your blog who are in search of objectivity. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that sites like MJ facts are an objective alternative. Not in the slightest. I’ve been on their site, too, and guess what happened? Before I even received a proper answer (actually, I never received a proper answer to any of the specific questions that I asked), I was asked what I “believed”, as if that had anything to do with the points I had made. So, I come to two different sites with questions that I have and pretty much get accused of being a hater on one and probably some sort of raving fan on the other. That’s quite tiresome. And it isn’t helping Michael or anyone, to be honest.

    Now, back to the circumcision issue, I was still skeptical whether that gliding process would be very much detectable in case of a very short foreskin, so I tried to figure that out and pretty much immediately stumbled upon someone stating on some website that his foreskin was quite short but could indeed be comfortably stretched “half over the head” when erect. Trust me, I really don’t like discussing that, I just think it’s important.

    I also believe that in a case of mutual masturbation that this would have been detected even by a 13-year old who has no idea about those things. Jordan, as far as we know, was inerrogated about Michael’s private parts for a long time, and I’m sure he would have mentioned that the masturbation just felt different on Michael. He wouldn’t have necessarily called Michael “circumcised” or “uncircumcised”, the uncircumcised penis would have been concluded by the adults listening to Jordan’s description.

    Something else that has come to my mind is the fact that in Gutierrez’s book, there is not only that description of Michael’s private parts but stuff about Brett Barnes as well. Here’s a page from Evan’s “chronology” that you posted: https://vindicatemj.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/page-one-ec-d1.jpg Michael supposedly said that masturbation worked differently with Brett because Brett wasn’t circumcised. If this is true, I would have to conclude that Michael and Jordan discussed circumcision. If Michael had been uncircumcised but just had a very short foreskin, I’m quite sure he would’ve said so in such a conversation, meaning Jordan would’ve known that Michael wasn’t actually circumcised. I cannot really imagine it any other way. What do you think?

    By the way, that “chronolgy” by Evan, do you know when he wrote that? Because in that interview with Dr. Gardner, Jordan claimed that he never gave his father any specifics about the abuse. If Evan wrote this before the interview took place, that would totally refute that. And it’d make it look even more suspicious than it already is. I mean, what kind of parent would write a “chronology” of the sexual abuse his son had to go through? That drawing and description in Gutierrez’s book was apparently by Evan, too, wasn’t it? I’m not sure about the handwriting, but Gutierrez does say that this description was given to Evan by Jordan, and I would interpret that as: Jordan talked, Evan wrote and drew. This is clearly not a kid’s handwriting. So, what kind of parent would sit down with his sexually abused son to discuss the private parts of the abuser? If the motive was not to come up with a description, to come up with a story.

    Regarding the differing accounts of the strip search, I also think that this is very odd. Gutierrez’s wording is quite different from Diamond’s, and that certainly wouldn’t be the case if they were both quoting from an actual document in their hands.

    And regarding “the spot” … Dr. Strick saw Michael’s genitals and described them as being very oddly colored. Would he have done that if there’d been only a single spot somewhere on the lower side? I don’t know, but maybe “the spot” was the only thing that really matched the description after all. Ray Chandler also wrote that it took ages for Jordan to explain to Feldman where any splotches were located on Michael’s privates. If it all came down to “the spot”, why would that be? What’s with the rest of the description when Sneddon talks about “the spot” in the motion?

    All of that taken together makes me doubt there was a match.

    I would like to end my comment by saying that I’m sorry I made you believe that I’m here to “vilify” Michael. I’m not. But I’m also quite disappointed that you would throw me into that box, just because I asked the questions that I asked. I honestly never intended to make Michael appear guilty by what I wrote. I just simply wanted to discuss those things.

    Like

  37. Asma permalink
    January 3, 2017 6:42 pm

    Hi Helena,

    Thank you for your response. I will reply in full in a little bit, for now I will say thank you so much for the links and even for paula’s information and interview. I will read your post on Mr. NAMBLA tonight as well. He sounds like a real character! How in the world are these people so involved and quoted in Michael’s case? It floors me and makes me sick. You inspired me to search further into Journalistic ethics. Every profession has their own version of some kind of hippocratic oath and I *know* journalism is no different. I found this link which I hope you, and your team would like to have. Maybe you already have and know it, but just in case, here it is and I hope you might find it handy in the future. Here you go:

    http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

    I’ll speak to you soon, thank you again so much for the information!

    Asma

    Like

  38. January 3, 2017 5:21 pm

    For anyone interested in Diane Dimond’s ties with Gutierrez and Rodney Allen and how Tom Sneddon comes into the picture let me recommend a very well documented article by blogger Paula who did her own independent research of this case.

    Not only did Paula put a lot of time, effort and money into tracking down the documents for her blog, but she also had interviews with the people cited there, including Rodney Allen whom she contacted in prison and who answered some of her questions in the correspondence that followed.

    Here is the link: https://turningthetableonthechandlerallegations.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/three-stooges-dimond-gutierrez-and-allen/

    Now that I’ve refreshed my memory of some details of that story, Sneddon said the following about Rodney Allen during the 2005 trial: “Rodney Allen will not be a part of THIS case.” And this naturally means that Rodney Allen was part of the PREVIOUS case, the one in 1993.

    In what capacity I wonder?

    Like

  39. January 3, 2017 7:27 am

    “this guy who is a self-admitted NAMBLA member and the other one who’s tush was hauled off by Canadian authorities for criminal behavior against minors, and they are Dimond’s “best sources” for her trashy book…why aren’t journalists picking up on this and reporting it?” – Asma

    Asma, in case they do let me play the devil’s advocate for Diane Dimond.

    Gutierrez admitted that he attended a NAMBLA conference in 1986. He didn’t say he was their member and presented various explanations for why he was there – from being a journalist reporting from that conference to being an undercover agent acting for the LA police.

    The first version is baloney because no reporters are allowed to attend their top secret sessions – they meet under a cover of some legitimate conferences after receiving personal invitations from the other members and only after their 2-year probation, during which they are requested to prove their worth by writing letters to convicted pedophiles or going on other similar assignments. I’ve done my research and have a post about it: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/victor-gutierrez-nambla-and-the-same-gang-of-professors-who-recommended-carl-toms-book/

    And the version that he was an undercover agent for the police was disproven by Gutierrez himself. In his interview to the May 2006 issue of the British GQ Magazine he complained that the police didn’t pay attention to his information as for them he was just a “nobody, just a Latino reporter”.

    So if he wasn’t reporting from that conference and was a “nobody” for the police, the only other option is that he attended that conference as its member. But whether Diane Dimond knew about it or not, we cannot be sure. Most probably she thought that he was a trusted police informant. Again, it depends on what Tom Sneddon told her about Gutierrez.

    As to Rodney Allen, at the time Dimond associated with him he was not yet a convicted criminal and his inclinations could probably be only a guess. Dimond mentioned her long correspondence with Allen and knowing him personally in her report from Canada where she went in the hope to get another of those “MS victims”, but the story turned out to be a scam uncovered by the Canadian police. In the long run Dimond’s report about the scam was only in her favour as it was released right at the time Michael Jackson sued her for slander and it helped to portray her as an unbiased reporter. Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1baXLBHFibk

    It is very important to note that Tom Sneddon knew both Gutierrez and Rodney Allen (in one of the documents for the 2005 trial he stated that “this time” Rodney Allen would not be involved – don’t remember the exact wording). So it could easily be Tom Sneddon who encouraged Diane Dimond to associate with both guys and let her down this way.

    But if we realized who these people were, she could easily do the same – however she didn’t. Or she did realize and accepted it. So all these details don’t change that much and the fact is still there that Dimond had two people with pedophilia inclinations as her sources. And this naturally had an effect on her reports.

    Well, she said it herself: “A reporter’s work is only as good as her sources.”

    Like

  40. January 3, 2017 6:53 am

    Thanks for correcting me. I’ll admit I wasn’t fully aware of what I was writing due to lack of sleep. Though I appreciate you taking the time explaining it to me.

    Like

  41. Asma permalink
    January 3, 2017 6:12 am

    Another thing that really boggles the mind…this guy who is a self-admitted NAMBLA member and the other one who’s tush was hauled off by Canadian authorities for criminal behavior against minors, and they are Dimond’s “best sources” for her trashy book…why aren’t journalists picking up on this and reporting it? I shouldn’t bother asking this question as I know the answer, but it still doesn’t make it any less mind boggling. Because Dimond not only got time on CNN for her disgraceful coverage of Michael’s trial, she wasked to be a guest on that horrible T.V. show The View a few years ago and was hired by The Daily Beast, a fairly well reputable news website as a writer. She may not still be with them, but just the fact that she is out there and is considered to be this “reporter” is very disturbing. She should be getting zero air time as she has no joirnalistic integrity whatsoever, but I know I’m mainly preaching to the choir here. Needed to get this off my chest regardless.

    Like

  42. Asma permalink
    January 3, 2017 5:50 am

    I can’t seem to figure out what exactly is in it for the people that continue to keep twisting the facts into pretzels. What is in it for them? I would think the gas lighting and manipulative twisting of facts have to come to a head at *some* point, but it really is a study in and of itself as to how and why these people feel the need to continue to come up with new ways of manipulating the truth. JC’s description did not match. Period. Why do these people, Diamond, Guiterrez, the haters et al. insist on making a bad soap novel or Lifetime movie out of this? What sense of fullfillment and purpose are they deriving from relentlessly trying to sell this obvious extortion attempt into something that it’s not? Don’t these people get tired or at the very least, dizzy from running around in circles? Frankly, it is beyond my scope of understanding. Thank you Helena, for such an intricate post.

    Like

  43. January 3, 2017 5:10 am

    “A good example would be comparing what he said during his trial coverage and what he wrote in his final edition of his book.”- mjjcritic

    In general it is normal for people to change their views as they research the subject further. It would be abnormal if they didn’t in case they found new facts contradicting their previous knowledge. All it requires in such cases is admitting the mistake.

    The problem with Taraborrelli is probably his inaccuracy and novelistic approach, when the lack of facts is compensated for by the “story”. The dozen of fictional details he described in that nightmare scene of Michael’s strip search may devalue the real truth he told in other cases. When you see such a mix you don’t know what to believe and the truth is compromised.

    This is approximately the same effect as with Randall Sullivan’s book. His chapters about the 2005 trial tell the truth because his source of information was Thomas Mesereau, but when his sources lied he didn’t doubt them and indiscriminately repeated what they said. So not to be lost in this mixture of lies and true facts you actually need to know more than the author, and you can extract anything new from his writings only in case you know who of his sources lied and who didn’t. A difficult job.

    “He even claimed back in 1994 that the description that Jordan gave wasn’t a match when he was writing for the tabloid STAR.”

    Taraborrelli didn’t go back on his words. In 2003 he simply tried to elaborate on that circumcision issue and the ‘splotches’ and did more harm than good by his explanations.

    Like

  44. January 3, 2017 4:42 am

    “They just need to listen up and put away their pride for once.” – Talia Gifty

    Talia, the problem is that they don’t want to know the truth. If they did they would have accepted our arguments long ago and wouldn’t have changed their theories from one thing to the opposite instead. I mean their constantly changing premise “he said it” – “he didn’t say it” – “he said it, but..” and so on.

    They are defending a myth and I would love to know what else is there for them besides the wounded pride. For people like Diane Dimond it is clear what is at stake – her whole life, reputation, career – but what is there in this myth for its supporters that they are ready to fight for it even in the face of undeniable facts?

    Like

  45. January 3, 2017 4:22 am

    “for your gliding mechanism theory to make sense you would have to prove that Jordan would know that if the skin was moving, then that movement would translate into knowing Mike was uncircumcised” – Cindarella

    First of all it isn’t a ‘theory’ but a fact. And secondly, Jordan wouldn’t have to translate one thing into another. All he had to do was expressing surprise to the police that Michael was different in this respect. They would have translated it for him.

    “Not many people would know about the difference in the feel of a circumcised vs. and uncircumcised penis, with most people going by looks alone.”

    Just another lie. The feel is exactly the thing that will never allow to make a mistake.

    Like

  46. Des permalink
    January 3, 2017 3:08 am

    A thirteen years old boy knows allot more than you can think of,he chose to give the answer that he gave,or maybe someone told him what to say.He could have easily said (I don’t know) let’s don’t try and look for excuses for his lies.

    Like

  47. Talia Gifty permalink
    January 3, 2017 12:35 am

    I know that post was for Helena. But I just want to ask you, what are you implying? Or better yet do you believe Michael is innocent or what? It sounds like you are defending Jordan right now.

    Like

  48. Cinderella permalink
    January 2, 2017 11:24 pm

    One issue Helena, for your gliding mechanism theory to make sense you would have to prove that Jordan would know that if the skin was moving, then that movement would translate into knowing Mike was uncircumcised.

    I don’t believe a 13 year old boy would have such sophisticated knowledge of the male anatomy. I am an adult and I certainly didn’t, reading the links you gave were a revelation for me (and I consider myself experienced in matters of the penis lol). There is no way Jordan could have known, he was a virgin and heterosexual and he had had zero experience with touching another penis.

    I also don’t think a detective would even think to ask Jordan the very relevant question about whether he noticed a gliding mechanism while masturbating Mike. Not many people would know about the difference in the feel of a circumcised vs. and uncircumcised penis, with most people going by looks alone.

    Like

  49. Talia Gifty permalink
    January 2, 2017 11:05 pm

    Why why why do people keep believing lies? I really don’t believe these haters reasons. They just seem like haters who would believe anything for their reason for hating him. Even if I hated someone I never wished or said distasteful things like that about them. I am not saying I am perfect. Because I am not but no one has the right to treat badly or say HURTFUL things to someone who never did a thing to anyone but good. The proof is here and right in front of us. They just need to listen up and put away their pride for once. T

    Like

  50. January 2, 2017 9:36 pm

    Another good post. When it comes to Taraborrelli he is always willing to rewrite history and even go back on what he said before. A good example would be comparing what he said during his trial coverage and what he wrote in his final edition of his book. He even claimed back in 1994 that the description that Jordan gave wasn’t a match when he was writing for the tabloid STAR.
    ‘Now after his nightmare year of fear and anger over the sex-abuse charges, an associate of the 36-year-old Michael has told me the shocking truth about the strip-search photos: Michael’s genitals did not match the description given by the youngster.
    “That’s another thing I can’t speak of,” Michael now says. “It was too much of a nightmare.” The associate says: “This is something the public doesn’t know. Sure, everyone knows the cops took the pictures. No one knows that it was all in vain, that the kid’s description didn’t match. Now we can’t even get the pictures back. They’re locked in a safe-deposit box, and only the judge has the key.”‘ – Taraborrelli; STAR, September 20, 1994
    As for Gutierrez I don’t know if there is anything different about the strip search in the Spanish version but I will look into that and let you know later.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: