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.
A 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.
‘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 Hour, 1994:
“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.
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. I 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.
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.
JUST AS MICHAEL ALWAYS SAID TO US, BUT WE NEVER BELIEVED HIM.