Skip to content

Jordan Chandler lied

April 19, 2010

CIRCUMCISION OR ERECTION?

Americans seem to be grossly underestimating the importance of Jordan Chandler’s big mistake – he described Michael as circumcised while in reality he was NOT. I racked my brains about “Why they don’t understand the crucial importance of it?” until I came across a medical site which explained that the overwhelming majority of American men were circumcised.

So this is the answer…  Males (and females) in the US have practically never seen what non-circumcision is like and don’t know the difference. And probably think that the matter is as minor as the eyelashes just being longer  than usual.  No, dear me,  it is much more than that… Let me explain.

  • Is it possible to mistake someone with a scarf on the head for a person whose head is bare?
  • Will you be able to still see the difference if the scarf  is the same color as the hair?
  • Well, if you can’t see it – will you still feel it if your hand touches it?

See what I mean?

The medical site I visited explains the difference in the following way (I know it is no pleasure to read it, but just imagine that Michael had to go through this for some 15 years of his life and it will make things easier for you):

“The fold of skin (the ‘foreskin’) covers the head (glans) of the penis. The amount of it may be so considerable that it may droop down from the end of an un-erect penis. Thus in some men, during erection, the head of the penis peeks out from the loose foreskin that surrounds it. But in men with a lot of foreskin the head of the penis remains covered, either partially or completely.

Circumcision compared with non-circumcisionA questionnaire-based survey conducted in Sydney, Australia found that among men with a foreskin, in 67% the extra foreskin was hanging off the end, in 15% it just covered the glans, in another 15% it half covered the gland and in 4% of the glans was bare.

In the erect sate these numbers were 15% extra skin, 22% still covered, 32% half covered and 41% glans bare.

Racial differences exist. For example, in Malaysia, New Guinea, Sri Lanka and southern India the foreskin is very long and ends in a narrow extension that acts like a muzzle. A shorter foreskin is seen in Whites of the northern Mediterranean and many Asians (Chinese and Japanese).

In uncircumcised males the head of the penis is pink. This becomes more apparent when the head of the penis emerges during an erection, giving the overall penis a “two-toned” look”. http://www.circinfo.net/what_is_circumcision.html

Further detail is provided by a professional in medicine:

  • “In Black males the color of the glans penis is lighter but more of a brown, not pink color. [With both White and Black males] the glans becomes darker following circumcision due to the keratization of the skin. The glans penis loses its natural lubrication and the skin becomes “toughened” because of this. When erect the foreskin does slide back to make the glans penis more visible. The foreskin slides back unwrinkled to approximately midshaft so it moves during intercourse to help stimulate the male and the female”.

Yes, the foreskin remains loose during erection and moves back and forth even in the erect state.

So non-circumcision is something totally different in color and texture, and in movement of the skin too? Impressive picture, isn’t it? Something which is impossible NOT to notice once you see it? Something to be NEVER forgotten after you see it? Especially by a boy who is probably circumcised himself and who is not used to seeing things like that, as his father is Jewish and is circumcised too?

Well, a woman who saw the non-circumcised man for the first time described her impressions this way:

  • “The first time I ever touched an uncircumcised man I nearly jumped out of my skin. The only possible way you can mistake an uncircumcised erect penis for a circumcised one would be if you never saw it and never touched it… In other words if you’re lying!”

Yes, Jordan Chandler was LYING.  He never saw the ‘real thing’  and made a GUESS about Michael Jackson’s private parts and his guess turned out to be WRONG.

This settles the matter once and for all, making all those Jordan’s horror stories about Michael an invention of someone’s perverse mind or the result of the schooling the boy got from his father,  ‘adult’ books, magazines or films.

Case closed.

‘Wait, but can erection be taken for circumcision?’, some haters still doubt.

The answer is NO, unless the man has an erection 24 hours a day, has virtually no foreskin, it does not move for some reason (though it should) and the color of his glans is no lighter and surface no more tender than the rest of the skin. Oh, you don’t know what the surface of the glans is like? Same as the inside of your mouth, this is what it’s like. Is the feel the same as on the outside of your cheek? NOW you see?

‘But could Michael have an operation to restore his foreskin when he was treated in Europe sometime between November 11 and December 20, 1993?’ the haters insist.

Tom Sneddon, the Santa Barbara District Attorney, also thought along these lines and confiscated Michael’s medical records soon after Jordan spoke to the police. This is how Lisa D.Campbell describes it in her book “Michael Jackson: The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour1994:

“On November 26, the Los Angeles Police Department raided the offices of Michael Jackson’s dermatologist, Dr. Klein, and his plastic surgeon, Dr. Steve Hoefflin. They hoped to compare information, or photos, contained in the files with the description of Michael’s body Jordan had given to police. They confiscated Michael’s medical records but did not reveal what they contained. But apparently they did not contain the information they were looking for as a warrant for a body search was obtained for Michael Jackson” (which took place on Dec.20, 1993).

In March 1994 (2 months after the financial settlement was reached) the criminal investigation was still going on.

“Katherine Jackson having been subpoenaed two days earlier, testified before the grand jury in Los Angeles on March 17.  She was reportedly questioned about Michael’s appearance in an attempt to determine if Michael had altered his appearance so it wouldn’t match the description his accuser had given to police”.

Please read the above sentence once again. Despite all that “altering one’s appearance” distraction the main fact the article contains is that the description and the photos did not match, and it is only due to the media focusing our attention on the possibility of Michael “altering” something that we do not grasp the crucial meaning of the above phrase at once. However they themselves are saying to us that there was no match between the boy’s description and the photos!

Tom Sneddon evidently suspected that Michael had undergone cosmetic surgery while he was out of the country for four weeks in late November-December 1993 and that is why he later raised the question again by filing a motion in court to obtain Michael’s medical records – evidently the very latest ones. This was denied following the request of Michael’s lawyers who wanted to save him from further humiliation.

Well, today we can pass the final judgment on this issue – the Coroner’s report not only confirmed that Michael Jackson was not circumcised, but it said that the 13 various scars found on his body did not include any scar on his foreskin or whatever…  He was just the way mother nature made him and that’s it.

Oh, and one more point.

District Attorney Tom Sneddon knew that the there was NO match – otherwise he wouldn’t have looked into the medical records to check whether Michael had undergone any surgical or bleaching changes, wouldn’t he? So the things he and some of his colleagues said about the photos matching the description were a clear LIE.

*  *  *

UPDATED August 18, 2011

Almost a year and a half has passed since this post was written but some people are still thinking of various ways to explain why Jordan got the description so terribly wrong.

Now they say that a non-circumcised man may retract his foreskin and will look like a circumcised one – and this is why Jordan made a mistake and took one for the other.

No way, guys.

First, it is next to impossible to keep the foreskin retracted all the time – it keeps sliding back due to the frenulum (frenulum is “elastic tissue under the glans that connects to the foreskin and helps to contract the foreskin over the glans”). In circumcised men the frenulum is always cut.

Second, the frenulum per se is such a sight that those who have seen it once will never forget it. The fainthearted are requested not to look at the photo provided by Wiki, however if you see it just once you’ll remember it forever:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenulum_of_prepuce_of_penis

Third, Jordan alleged that “he masturbated” MJ – but then he should have noticed the frenulum, the much tender texture of the penis head, the foreskin and the fact that on a non-circumcised penis the foreskin moves, even during erection.

The most decent illustration of the described process I have found is a medical animation provided below (over here you see screen shots from that medical site).

It explains that the only difference in the movement of foreskin between the usual and erect states is that the foreskin will not collect in wrinkles when penis is erect – but this is all.

Otherwise it looks and moves the same in either state.

For those who didn’t get it let me repeat – even in the erect state the foreskin will move anyway as nature has made males that way! If you do not believe you can check up the animation here: http://www.circumstitions.com/Works.html

Could Jordan have overlooked all those details if he really did what he alleged he did?

And he alleged that he masturbated MJ (see the transcript of his interview with Dr. Gardner on October 6, 1993:

– But he had me masturbate him.”
– On how many occasions?”
– About ten.

And during those “ten times” he didn’t notice the foreskin and didn’t see it moving back and forth (even in erection)? As well as the extremely tender texture of the glans typical for all non-circumcised men? And even the frenulum didn’t make him wonder what it was and why he, a circumcised boy, was missing it?

Let us not be ridiculous, guys. ALL THIS NONSENSE NEVER HAPPENED and this is why Jordan made such a terrible fool of himself.

JORDAN’S DRAWING

To finish with the circumcision subject let me ask you pointblank –  is your sexual partner circumcised or not? Who says they don’t know? NONE???  Well, now that you’ve admitted that it is impossible not to know, let’s move on.

How could Jordan Chandler learn of any splotches on Michael’s body?

Easily. On February 10, 1993 Michael Jackson spoke to Oprah Winfrey and disclosed to 100 mln. people watching the show that he had an extensive case of vitiligo which had started about the Thriller time. After such a revelation it was no problem to assume that Michael had blotches all over his body including genitalia.

Jordan Chandler also said to Anthony Pellicano, who asked him how much he had seen of Michael’s body, that Michael had once lifted his shirt to show his vitiligo (evidently on his chest or back). [Update Feb. 28, 2012] This notable conversation is described by Maureen Orth in one of her filthy articles:

  • According to Pellicano, Jamie told him a lot in 45 minutes. “He’s a very bright, articulate, intelligent, manipulative boy.” Pellicano, who has fathered nine children by two wives, says he asked Jamie many sexually specific questions. “And I’m looking dead into his eyes. And I’m watching in his eyes for any sign of fear or anticipation—anything. And I see none,” Pellicano says. “And I keep asking him, ‘Did Michael ever touch you?’ ‘No.’ ‘Did you ever see Michael nude?’ ‘No.’ He laughed about it. He giggled a lot, like it was a funny thing. Michael would never be nude… . ‘Did you and Michael ever masturbate?’ ‘No.’ ‘Did Michael ever masturbate in front of you?’ ‘No.’ ‘Did you guys ever talk about masturbation?’ ‘No.’
  • “‘So you never saw Michael’s body?’ ‘One time, he lifted up his shirt and he showed me those blotches.'”

From the book by Evan’s brother, Ray Chandler we also learn that the night Michael Jackson stayed in Evan’s home – when he allegedly saw MJ in one bed with Jordan – Michael had such a terrible headache that Evan made an injection in his buttocks of a drug which immediately made Michael dazed, sleepy and almost unconscious. He said it was Toradol but the reaction to it was totally untypical ( which makes you wonder what drug Evan actually gave him. It also makes you wonder whether Michael could get into bed by himself after that). Whatever the case Evan surely saw the splotches on Michael’s buttocks.

What description did Jordan Chandler make of Michael’s genitalia? Did he draw a picture of them? The Smoking Gun gives the following answer:

“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 and the length of the performer’s public hair”.

The same thing is repeated by Yan Halperin in his book “The Unmasked” where he adds:

“Jordan even drew a picture of Jackson’s genital area. Beside it he wrote: “Michael is circumcised. He has short pubic hair. His testicles are marked with pink and brown marks. He has brown patches on his ass, on his left gut”.

Then Halperin explains how the boy could see the splotches on the singer’s buttocks and why the police needed something more substantial than that:

“There was a swimming pool at Neverland where Jordan often swam. It was quite possible that the boy had seen Jackson undress when he was changing into his trunks. So the prosecutors were searching for details that the boy couldn’t have simply spotted during these routine periods of nudity.” As Jordan described where “the splotch lay on the singer’s penis when he was erect” a humiliating strip search of Michael’s genitalia was made during which Michael was asked to raise his penis”.

“By then a number of tabloids reported that the exam confirmed Jordan’s description. Diane Dimond even disclosed that ‘sources’ told her the dark patch on Jackson’s genitals “was found exactly where young Jordan Chandler said they could find such a mark”.

Let me remind you that in January 1994, USA Today and Reuters cited law enforcement sources confirming that “photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match description given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct”.  However the news was reported the NEXT day after the financial settlement with the Chandlers had been announced, so no one really paid attention…

Up till now the haters fuss about a picture allegedly drawn by Jordan for his father Evan on October 23, 1993 as a piece of damning evidence against Michael (source: http://www.collegehumor.com/picture:158780).

Let’s have a look at it.

Well, the scraps of the text you can read there are more or less repeating Jordan’s words. However the handwriting looks to me more typical of an adult than of a child.

On the other hand the drawing is so bad that it was apparently meant to create the impression it was drawn by a 13-year old. And the small spot shown in the picture is something which can be easily found on the skin of any vitiligo patient …

Can the picture be true? Judging by the “College humor” name of the website one would expect it to be just a bad joke. However an attentive Michael’s fan remembered seeing this drawing in a book written by Victor Gutierrez who claimed his dirty story was based on Jordan’s diary (which incidentally, Jordan never kept).

Michael Jackson sued this author for slander in 1998 and won the case on April 9, 1998. The book was not allowed for sale in the USA and its author fled to Chili not to pay Michael 2mln. in damages. This man’s hatred towards Michael is so overwhelming that he recently bragged on Chilean TV that he is relieved that Michael is dead as he doesn’t have to pay the money he owes him….

The guy who recognized the drawing (Oldschoolfan) says about it:

“That picture is from a book called ‘Michael Jackson Was My Lover’ which was written by an ‘investigative reporter’. How do I know all this? Because I had that book, that’s why. The biggest load of bullshit I’ve read in my life.

If this book had so much information about everything, right down to conversations, and every detail of the sex they apparently had, why didn’t they make a case of it? If there is THAT much evidence that someone could make a book like that then surely he would have been locked up years ago.

As soon as I saw that picture I recognized it straight away. When you read something like that at first it can be greatly convincing, but once you start to analyze it you can see the whole thing just makes Michael look even MORE innocent”.

So the source of information is not credible at all – however this is the only picture which is attributed to the 1993 case and is circulating in the internet as the evidence over which Michael Jackson was prosecuted for so long by the police.

Whether it is a fake or not, it actually doesn’t matter.  If the drawing is fake, now you know the true worth of the book the drawing comes from. If the drawing is genuine, now you know over which scrap of paper Michael Jackson was humiliated beyond belief, his life ruined and turned into a complete massacre…

Now let’s see what Dr. Richard Strick has to say on the subject.

Who is Dr. Strick?

Dr. Richard Strick was representing the authorities during the strip search (Michael was represented by another doctor, Dr. David Forecast) and was to make the final determination as regards the possible match. In October 2009 he was interviewed by Craig Rivera where he said:

  • “The genitalia were very oddly colored with dark skin and light skin and I was told later that the deposition and the photos that were taken absolutely matched what the child had described”.

Wait a minute – it was his job to make the determination, and the media reported that he did do it, however now he says he was TOLD that the description and photos matched? Even “absolutely” matched? Though he doesn’t actually know it because he didn’t compare the photos and the description himself?

WHO made this determination then? WHO WAS IT???

While we are looking for an answer to this crucial question please watch the above episode from Dr. Richard Strick’s interview with Geraldo Rivera:

A “TELLING” BLEMISH?

Updated February 29, 2012

We left Dr. Strick saying he was TOLD that the photos and Jordan’s description matched. This definitely contradicts media reports that it was him who made such a determination, but the question is – if it weren’t him, who determined that there was a “similarity”?

Initially I asked myself – what does it matter? If the description and photos did match, any reasonable person would be able to see and confirm the fact and if they didn’t,  no one would. But this carefree thought was soon replaced by a serious concern that if the determination was made by someone heavily biased or dishonest, it could make all the difference in the world for the defendant.

Imagine how biased a determination could be if it were made by a defense attorney only? Absolutely the same goes for the prosecution if it was only the prosecutor who did the job. This is the reason why such determination is supposed to be done by an impartial party ONLY. And the more or less impartial party in this case was Dr. Strick, however now it turns out that his opinion was never sought or asked.

Knowing what Tom Sneddon is like I knew that there is no such low to which this person would not stoop to, so it didn’t really surprise me to learn that he didn’t ask anyone’s opinion, made the determination himself and sent his own lie that it was a “match” all around the world.

Tom Sneddon admitted that it was him who did the job in his declaration of May 26, 2005. He said he had reviewed Jordan’s statements and the drawing, and in his opinion the description “substantially corroborated the photos”, however he made a reservation that he believed it was correct “except for those statements made on information and belief”, which “he believed to be true”, thus casting a grave doubt on his words.

Sneddon’s declaration is provided below in full. BEWARE, dear innocent Michael’s fans –  you are entering the twilight zone of Michael’s haters who will pour mud on Michael Jackson, confuse you with shocking details and try to block you from thinking on your own. The paper is dirty in its content and amount of lies but  is a must read for the purposes of our investigation.

DECLARATION OF THOMAS W. SNEDDON, JR.

I, Thomas W.Sneddon, Jr., say:

1. I am a lawyer admitted to practice in all the courts of this state. I am, and since 1983 have been, the elected District Attorney of the County of Santa Barbara. I am the lead counsel for the prosecution in the trial of The People of the State of California v. Michael Joe Jackson, Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 1133603.

2. In 1993, the Los Angeles Police Department commenced an investigation of allegation by Jordan Chandler, a minor child, and his family that young Jordan had been sexually molested by Defendant in Los Angeles and in Santa Barbara Counties. Los Angeles Police Detective Rosibel Ferrufino was one of the investigators in that investigation. The Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department commenced its own investigation of the allegation, in cooperation with the Los Angeles Police Department. Sheriff’s Detective Deborah Linden was one of the investigators.

3. In the course of LAPD’s investigation of the allegations, Jordan Chandler was interviewed by Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Lauren Weis on September 1, 1993, during which interview Detective Ferrufino and a court reporter were present. Jordan was asked to relate information concerning his reported relationship with Michael Jackson. In the course of the interview Jordan Chandler made detailed statements concerning the physical appearance of Michael Jackson, in particular the coloration of and marks on the skin of his lower torso, buttocks and genitals, including a particular blemish on his penis. Jordan was asked to draw a picture of Mr. Jackson’s erect penis and to locate on that drawing any distinctive marks he recalled. Jordan did so. The drawing was signed and dated by Jordan Chandler and was attached as Exhibit 1 to Detective Ferrufino’s report in LAPD Case No. 930822245.

4. On December 13,1993, as part of the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s investigation into young Chandler’s allegations a search warrant was obtained authorizing the search of Michael Jackson’s person and for the taking of photographs of his genitals. That warrant was executed at Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara on December 20, 1993. The resulting photographs have been retained by the Sheriff’s Department, under tight security. (Note: the Veritas Project says the security was so ‘tight’ that even Geraldo Rivera saw the photos)

5. have reviewed the statements made by Jordan Chandler in his interview on December 1, 1993. I have examined the drawing made by Jordan Chandler at Detective Ferrufino’s request and the photographs taken of Defendant’s genitalia. The photographs reveal a mark on the right side of Defendant’s penis at about the same relative location as the dark blemish located by Jordan Chandler on his drawing of Defendant’s erect penis. I believe the discoloration Chandler identified in his drawing was not something he could or would have guessed about, or could have seen accidentally. I believe Chandler’s graphic representation of the discolored area on the Defendant’s penis is substantially corroborated by the photographs taken by Santa Barbara Sheriff’s detectives at a later time.

6. I believe evidence of Jordan Chandler’s knowledge, as evidenced by his verbal description and drawing, when considered together with the photograph of Defendant’s penis, substantially rebuts the opinion evidence offered by witnesses for Defendant to the effect that he is of a “shy” and “modest” nature and so would not have exposed his naked body in the presence of young boys.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct except for those statements made on information and belief, and as to those statements, I believe them to be true.

Executed May 26, 2005, at Santa Maria, California.

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

Did you NOTICE IT?

I am not talking of  the fact that Tom Sneddon said it was him who compared Jordan’s description with the photos  – this we have noticed.  And not even the fact that he fully omitted Jordan’s blunder with the circumcision issue, slyly replacing it with “erection”. And even not his extremely vague phrase about something indefinite found “at about the same relative location” as the one marked by Jordan Chandler.

No, I don’t mean all that, though these minor details are important too.

I am talking about one thing where Tom Sneddon is blatantly lying.

He is speaking of a dark spot located by Jordan back in 1993 while the boy was universally quoted as saying “it was a light color similar to the color of his face”!  So what the prosecutor called a dark spot, the boy called a light one!

Can it be a small matter of no importance? No, it cannot, because it is absolutely not the problem of just one spot. It is the problem of the general color of MJ’s genitalia, and if Jordan Chandler says he saw a light splotch it means that he thought Michael’s genitalia to be dark while in reality his genitalia were light as a dark spot can be seen only on a light background!

And this means that Jordan didn’t even know the general color of the whole thing let alone its details!

So first he made a guess about the circumcision and got it wrong, and then he tried to guess the general color of the penis and was wrong AGAIN.

Mind it that when someone is as speckled as Michael was, whichever way you describe it was very difficult to miss.  But even despite all the easiness of such a guess Jordan was still wrong and made a terrible mess of his evidence failing on the two basic points – the circumcision issue and the general color of Michael Jackson’s man parts!

Well, if this was ‘accurate’ in Tom Sneddon’s opinion, what is inaccuracy then? 

Or aren’t these people able to tell white from black? Of course they are, and this explains why Tom Sneddon pushed away Dr. Strick from making a determination and deliberately lied about the subject. He talked of the “telltale splotch” only in 2005, or twelve years after the desciption was made, when everyone already happily forgot Jordan’s initial words and this lapse in memory was exactly what Tom Sneddon hoped for.

Tom Sneddon’s declaration was sheer bluff from the very start of it as he hoped no one would care to check up what the boy indeed claimed. And without a comparison to the exact boy’s words any statements made about the photos are simply useless and are done for thundering the air only.

But could there be a mistake made in the earlier reports about Jordan’s words? Well, the media is quoting them as an established fact (see the Smoking Gun haters’s report here ). Moreover back in 1993 Jordan’s revelations about the light color of some blemish were all over the internet and none of the boy’s words were ever disputed or corrected.

No, dear haters, it is TOO LATE now to say it was a mistake. What is much more probable is that the media was in so much hurry to make a dirty story out of Jordan’s allegations that they did a terrible disservice to themselves – first they hurriedly reported his lies and spit them out for several months running, so by the time the photos were made  Jordan’s words had been so heavily publicized that they were unable to revoke them.

The media faced the alternative of either having to disprove its own stories or just let it go in the hope that no one would really notice…. And the second variant was indeed what happened – in the hysteria raging against Jackson no one really noticed that the color of that blemish miraculously changed to its exact opposite.

After a pause caused by the embarrassment of the mismatch Diane Dimond made a complete U-turn in respect of that spot and shamelessly carried out a new onslaught against Jackson saying now that a ‘dark splotch’ found on Michael’s man parts ‘matched’ the boy’s description.

A dark spot was probably found, only the boy had never said that there was one. And seeing Diane Dimond’s readiness to change her course in line with Tom Sneddon’s new strategy, there can be no more doubt as to who she was in cahoots with and who arranged for her all those leaks of highly confidential information. Tom Sneddon of course.

Why are leaks of information by the prosecution considered illegal and even criminal the world over?

Because they give a decisive advantage to the accuser’s side (whose claims are not necessarily correct) in the court of public opinion. These leaks break the “innocent until proven guilty” principle and destroy the defendant even before any trial takes place. Who needs hearing a case in the court of law if the court of public opinion passes its verdict before the trial has even started – and in a much more destructive and ruinous manner and independent of the verdict of the jury too?

What does it matter that the two grand juries (more than 100 miles apart from each other) looked into all this trash collected by Tom Sneddon in 1993 and found no grounds for indicting Michael?

What of it that the whole thing was a complete nonsense from beginning to end where nothing added up and there were no facts to corroborate the accuser’s crazy story?

The public opinion was already formed, the life of an innocent man destroyed, his good name done away with and his health forever ruined – and all this just over nothing.

Over nothing!

JUST AS MICHAEL ALWAYS SAID TO US, BUT WE NEVER BELIEVED HIM.

.

13 Comments leave one →
  1. susannerb permalink*
    March 5, 2016 9:52 am

    Esmeralda Rokaj:
    Esmeralda, I can answer the question for you as Helena is busy with other things at the moment. The post you talk about is of lynande51 who earlier was one of our authors. She recently decided to make her posts password-restricted due to harrassment from haters (not because of the photos in the post). We are sorry about that, but she has the right to do so when she feels stalked and her posts being a risk to her.
    So her posts are blocked for us now and we have no way to make them public at the moment. But I think we have to respect her decision.

    Like

  2. March 4, 2016 2:09 pm

    Hi Helena! First of all, you’ve writtten an amazing article with a lot of useful information. Thanks again for your great job. I went at the post about photos from the book ‘Michael Jackson was my lover’ and it’s protected with a password. Is it because there are explicit photos? Do you allow readers to have the password?

    Like

  3. nannorris permalink
    May 15, 2015 5:55 am

    Helena
    I noticed that also in the AEG trial testimony, I believe people, mostly kept this, under their hat while Robson and Safechuck were dreaming up their case , because they didnt want them reading their research.

    Btw, every person in that trial, testifying for either side, be it ex police officers , or other security , who were around MJ said accusations of criminal behavior were ridiculous
    .
    Once again , the only people backing any of the allegations made , had financial motivation..
    Even as we see today , with the latest round , this is always motivated by money.
    Michael was not even arrested in 93
    He wasnt convicted of anything in 2005 .
    And there is still no chance of a conviction with todays accusations .
    Nobody is worried about MJ going to jail.
    The settlements in the 90s were due to negative publicity ,
    IF they end up giving any settlement money to Robson or Safechuck, it will be for the same reason
    If anything it proves a pattern of his advisers caving when it comes to threatening endorsement deals , not jail time
    Anyway , we can also notice that MJ was always wearing a hat at that time , due to the balloon on top of his head.
    I would have to look back , but even the picture of him sitting in Jordan Chandlers house in his pajamas, he is wearing a hat, no doubt to conceal his scalp ….In Vegas and Monaco also
    So my opinion has always been , that not only would JC have seen the patch but he would have been being accosted by someone , either wearing a hat at all times , or someone , with a balloon on top of his head. something he never mentions , and for that matter neither does Wade, who was also around MJ

    His autopsy shows that both Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo both lied regarding MJ physical appearance and that is etched in stone.
    I would have to look back for JC interview with Gardner , but it seems to me , that JC made all these accusations regarding how close he was to MJ in a physical way , and yet , for some reason , I think he said he used to change, in the closet , which makes no sense.
    Of course we all know he was afraid of cross examination, because his story doesnt add up

    The problem, and the main thing that I would like exposed is the complacency of the media and the astonishing abuse of power by Tom Sneddon, due to either ambition or bigotry that enabled these families to commit a crime , and somehow have the victim always the one paying for it
    I have always felt that VG stories were absolutely preposterous , but Sneddon bought into them because they were vouched for , by Dimond , his female counterpart , a white aging soccer mom type who mirrored his own supposed morals..I think this is why he was so comfortable calling MJ Jacko Wacko during an interview ., with her..
    No sitting DA in their right mind would call someone they are prosecuting that , because it is obvious , he has a personal dislike of the person, but then , he was speaking with someone who said on camera , MJ stopped being a black man, and had obvious problems with the changes in his skin color…One can only imagine ,what they were comfortable saying in private conversation
    Other than the red herring Arvizo family, every other accusation , has something to do with VG, DD best source

    Like

  4. May 14, 2015 3:55 pm

    “There are so many problems with that declaration and every single report about Chandler’s alleged description and what the photos showed, I’m shocked noone in the American media raised these questions.” – vulcan

    Vulcan, thank you for the great comments and in addition to your 10 questions let me recall one more factor.

    From the AEG trial we learned that right at the time when the Chandlers’ lawsuit alleged that Michael’s whole life was circulating around Jordan, Michael was busy with medical problems – he was undergoing surgery on his scalp. The operation was made by Dr. Sasaki on March 16, 1993 – or exactly the period that was later described by Jordan as the beginning of his alleged “molestation”.

    The operation itself was horrible. Dr. Sasaki cut a keloid scar on Michael’s head, put some metal fixtures there and “cranked them together”. Then he inserted a balloon under his skin to stretch it even further. This way he covered the bald spot on Michael’s head resulting from a burn.

    The balloon under Michael’s skin was gradually filled with more fluid and stretched his scalp more and more, and this torture lasted for several weeks if not months.

    Actually it was the third such medical procedure in Michael’s life as the first two operations on his scalp were made in 1984 and 1989. Though they were painful they didn’t develop a dependency on painkillers. This time was different – Michael had a complication from surgery, a neuroma which is an inflammation of nerves on the newly built scar. The pain was unbearable and Michael had to be treated with more and more painkillers – both in pill form and patches placed on his skin.

    The patch with a painkiller was placed on Michael’s lower abdomen, somewhere below his waistline. The patch had to be worn constantly as the pain never went away and without a painkiller he was unable to function.

    Some information about it is in this post, in Dr. Sasaki and Debbie Rowe’s part of it: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/jacksons-aeg-trial-days-68-69-five-doctors-and-nurse-debbie-rowe/

    Now attention please. All these medical procedures were happening right at the time when Jordan allegedly “took baths” with Michael, often “saw him naked” and was even allegedly engaged in “masturbating” him.

    And despite all that he didn’t notice the patch in his abdomen? Didn’t know that Michael had it? And never mentioned it in his “description”?

    The truth is that it was a purely platonic friendship. Michael associated with Jordan not because of some sexual interest, but because Jordan had a keen sense of humor (Evan Chandler spoke about it) and made Michael laugh a lot. He distracted Michael from his pain and medical problems and therefore made an ideal companion for him at the time when Michael was going through so much suffering.

    In addition to that opiate painkillers are known to lower the libido to a zero level, so at the time doctors fed them to him it was highly unlikely that Michael thought about any sex at all. This is a temporary effect of these drugs, but so common and so often reported by patients that it shouldn’t be disregarded either.

    Like

  5. vulcan permalink
    May 7, 2015 8:51 am

    maria

    1. We know for a fact that MJ was uncircumcised because it’s in the autopsy report and his doctor Arnold Klein, who was there during the strip search by the way also said that MJ was uncircumcised.
    If you know that he was born a poor black boy in 1958 you understand why. Circumcision cost money so even if they had wanted to do it they sure as hell couldn’t afford it.

    2. We know for a fact that Chandler claimed MJ was circumcised because not one but 5 anti-Jackson source reported it:
    Victor Gutierez. Diane Dimond, the Smoking Gun, Ian Halperin and Randy Taborelli.
    None of these bozos were his fans or friends they sure wouldn’t have lied for him.
    Of course until MJ died the public couldn’t be sure that he was uncircumcised so these

    3. Precise is not the same as accurate! Chandler may have told police that he knows a dark blemish is there at that precise location but like many other things he said it was a lie.
    If it had been that accurate Sneddon wouldn’t have wrote this in his declaration:
    ” at about the same relative location”.

    That is NOT precise at all. He was chickening out because he knew that Chandler just put a dark spot somewhere on that penis not knowing what he was doing and then Sneddon called whatever discoloration he found on the picture a “match”.

    Why? Because he wanted to ruin MJ no matter what! He lied more about him than the Sun, the National Enquirer and the News of the World all put together.

    Like

  6. vulcan permalink
    May 7, 2015 8:33 am

    There are so many problems with that declaration and every single report about Chandler’s alleged description and what the photos showed, I’m shocked noone in the American media raised these questions.

    1. “The photographs reveal a mark on the right side of Defendant’s penis at about the same relative location as the dark blemish located by Jordan Chandler on his drawing of Defendant’s erect penis.”

    It’s very telling that Sneddon didn’t say dark mark or light colored mark, just mark.
    Why didn’t he say anything about the overall color of the penis?
    Was it totally dark and had a white mark or was totally dark and had a dark mark?
    Instead of specifying it he calls it discoloration, which can be both!
    If it was so accurate why was he that vague?

    2. How is one mark the same as a “very oddly colored genitalia with dark skin and white skin”?

    3. What happened to the numerous markings Ray Chandler talked about in his book?
    And why did it take 2 hours for Jordan to draw one dark blemish? Ray Chandler’s book and Sneddon’s declarations contradict each other. Why?

    4. ” at about the same relative location”?? And that’s supposed to be an “absolute match”?
    What is that suppose to mean anyway?
    If the mark was on the right side why was it only visible if MJ lifted his penis up?
    And was it on the upper right side or the lower right side? Why no word about that detail if the description was so damn accurate?

    5. Why no word about the foreskin?
    Including about its size. Whether the glans was fully covered, partially covered or uncovered. Even during erection the foreskin may cover the glans fully, partially or not at all. No such details were given by Chandler. Why not?

    6. What about the size and shape of this mark? No word about that. Why not if it was so accurate?

    7. Why no word about the skin AROUND the genitalia, skin on MJ’s thigs? Did Chandler get that right? Did he say anything about it? If so what? If not why not? If he got it wrong and blamed vitiigo why should we believe that between June and Dec 1993 MJ’s skin changed but it did not change at all on his penis?

    8. Why no word about the scrotum?
    Other reports said that Chandler talked about pink marks on his scrotum — which is what you would expect from a vitiligo patient since the color of the sack is pink due to the skin being rather thin. Look at this picture: http://www.askdrshah.com/app/vitiligo/images/vitiligo-on-genitals.jpg
    However, if Chandler indeed talked about pink splotches on the scrotum and considering that by 1993 Mj’s vitiligo was very extensive, as it is obvious from this picture:

    it’s very unlikely that his penis was still fully black except for one white spot which was only visible if the penis was lifted up. i.e not big enough to be seen from either side while the penis was placid.
    It’s also very unlikely that his penis was fully white for the same reason why his scrotum was not fully pink. But then what about the other dark marks? Why didn’t Chandler say anything about those?

    9. Why no word about any feature regarding size and shape?
    If Chandler indeed saw his genitalia “from every possible angle” and indeed “had a clear memory” of how MJ looked – as it is stated in the Chandler book – if he indeed saw him naked while taking a bath – as he told Dr. Garner – he should have known the size and shape of both the penis and the scrotum, the ratio of the scrotum’s length and the penis’s length and whether one testicle was lower than the other and the shape of the area covered with pubic hair. At least he should have known whether the penis outsized the scrotum or the other way around or whether they are the same size.
    If you look at these two pictures both showing uncircumcised guys you will understand what I mean. The first has huge scrotum with one testicle lower than the other, the second has small scrotum which looks round and the placid penis is much longer:


    No report about Chandler’s description says anything about these features.

    10. If MJ had been indeed guilty he sure as hell would have tried to changed the pigmentation on his dick and scrotum after it was reported that Chandler gave a description to the police. Since he used Benoquin anyway the idea that his skin would have looked exactly the same in June 1993 and Dec 1993 is ridiculous.

    Like

  7. maria permalink
    September 5, 2014 2:17 pm

    Ok, this site you showed me says that jordan said michael was circumcised and described his penis PRECISELY. If you believe the part that the boy said he was circumcised, why don’t you believe the part that it was said the penis was precisely described? I think we should either believe everything or nothing from the smoking gun. Plus, there is a lot of bs about michael jackson in this text. I don’t believe he ever said he liked his skin color that way because it made him look like peter pan. It’s the same as saying he liked having vitiligo, which I don’t think he did. It’s not a very reliable source, you know. I’m a fan who wants desperately to believe he was innocent, and personally I believe more in his innocence than in his guilt. But there are some weird stuff on both sides that makes me not to know what to believe and that makes me sad. I know that it was widely reported that the boy described Michael’s penis as a circumcised one, but it was also reported that it did match. How to know if michael was circumcised or not? How to know if the description matched or if the boy really said that about michael? Because you know, the same source that says the boy said he was circumcised, says it matched precisely. That’s why I have doubts, although I believe more in Michael’s innocence

    Like

  8. September 5, 2014 2:49 am

    maria:

    First, Jordan Chandler gave a description of MJ’s genitalia to the police in 1993 which included that MJ was circumcised. There is no doubt about it because it was widely reported. Among others, the Smoking Gun reported it:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20090630025648/http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jacksonsplotch.html
    Please also read this post: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/was-it-match-or-mismatch/
    Jordan’s description was the reason why Sneddon wanted to take photos of Michael’s private parts. Why else would he force him to undergo this strip search? And why else would they subpoena Michael’s mother and ask her about circumcision and about the crazy idea of a possible surgery to restore foreskin?

    Second, the autopsy report clearly states that MJ was uncircumcised (page 5). You can find it on this site (see above).

    Like

  9. maria permalink
    September 4, 2014 10:01 pm

    How can I know that Jordan truly alleged that michael was circumcised? Where is the reliable source? And how can we know that michael was not circumcised? Because if we could know FOR SURE that these two allegations are true (that he said mj was circumcised when he wasn’t), it leaves no doubt about whether michael jackson was guilty or not.

    Like

  10. April 17, 2013 1:55 am

    Circumcision is not always dependent on wealth but also on culture and preference. Circumcision is regarded by many as a violation. The majority of white, Western European males for example, are not circumcised regardless of class unless they are Muslim, Jewish or have a medical reason for the procedure. Princess Diana was very open about refusing to have her sons circumcised. Of course, Michael was African American but I very much doubt that his not being circumcised was related to financial status. Particularly in somewhere like Gary, Indiana in the 1950’s it would not have been an expensive procedure.

    Like

  11. July 29, 2012 1:59 am

    During today’s CadeFlaw BlogTalkRadio program with Ms. Geraldine Hughes she said she had an interview on 20/20. That it was one of the best interviews on the 93 allegations she had done. Ms. Hughes also stated that this program never aired.

    Inquiring minds want to know what‘s the chance the show was made into a finish piece ready for broadcast and what are the chances it still exist? Why did 20/20 who advertised themselves as being an investigative journalist show that would go there, did not on this occasion?

    Like

  12. lynande51 permalink
    March 25, 2012 7:34 am

    Actually that has alot to do with a couple of diferent things. As I was reading the Chandler book they do say that Jordan gave two descriptions. One on September 1st, 1993 to Lauren Weiss the ADA that was working the case at the time he was represented by Gloria Alred. Then they go into a second day that he gave a description for Larry Feldman which was December 14th,1993. Why two descriptions? One for the civil suit and one for prosecutors would be my guess.I think Feldman intended to attach it to that declaration but when they found out it was wrong he didn’t. That is why they asked to bar the photos from the civil case.Anyone that has seen uncircumcision knows without a doubt that it is not the same and the manual manipulation would make that person aware of it.
    As for why Michael wasn’t I think it had more to do with two things that people in other parts of the world either don’t remember or they are unaware of . One is Michael was born very poor and believe it or not circumcision is not free at the time it was probably around $100 US dollars. The second would be segregation. A separate system for blacks in the US that gave them limited and poorer health care just because they were black,meaning it might not have even been offered. It was a racial difference.This is what the Chandler family forgot about. They saw only Michael’s money and didn’t remember that he started his life as a poor black boy in a very segregated system.

    Like

  13. marinaaparecida permalink
    March 25, 2012 3:00 am

    I was told that since the Second Great War male babies born in the United States hospitals are automatically circumcised, unless parents manifest disagreement with the practice. We come then to the conclusion that Jordie was circumcised. Moreover, his father was Jewish and worked in the health field as a dentist. Michael was an exception that the Chandlers could not foresee.

    Before mentioning here a passage from the book “Michael Jackson was my lover”, written by Victor Gutierrez, I would like to make it clear that it is a fictionalized account of the 1993 allegations of child molestation against Michael Jackson, the same way the film Titanic by James Cameron is a fictionalized account of the sinking of the RMS Titanic. My point here it just to pick up a detail there, in the enemy field, to support the facts that the Vindicating Michael team points out here.

    In page 53, we can read:

    “To make me (Jordie) feel that others had done the same thing, he (Michael Jackson) told me that he had masturbated Brett Barnes, although he had to do it differently because he (Brett Barnes) was uncircumcised.”

    Here the fact that served the fiction is that masturbating a circumcised male is not the same as masturbating an uncircumcised one.

    Conclusion: Had Jordie masturbated MJ or had Jordie been masturbated by MJ, he would not have made the mistake of declaring that MJ was circumcised. It is curious because he made this declaration spontaneously. He was not asked if Michael Jackson was circumcised. I suppose he was instructed to make this affirmation.

    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: