Skip to content


This post was triggered off by the information sent here by one of our readers.  The reader says that Jordan’s wrongful description of MJ’s genitalia is found in the book by Stacy Brown and Bob Jones: “Michael Jackson: The Man Behind the Mask: An Insider’s Story of the King of Pop” (Chapter – “Afterword: The Current Case”).

A quote from the book:

“The earlier Rent-a-Wreck Family investigation gave the LAPD a roadmap to Jackson’s below-the-waist geography, which, the accusing boy said, includes distinctive “splotches” on his buttocks and one on his penis, “which is a light color similar to the color of his face”.

So even a hatred book can be of value to us if we know what to look for. And we are always on the lookout for Jordan’s words which were stated in the so-called Linden affidavit – and since Jordan’s allegations were all wrong any additional evidence about them is of much value to us.

The traces of Jordan Chandler’s statements are rare to find now, as much effort has been made by the media to get rid of the unwelcome truth. Old and dusty lies like the text of Jordan’s graphic statement about  Jackson will probably stay on the net forever, while everything containing the valuable evidence enabling us to exonerate Michael is being put into archives or erased (as has been done with a Smoking Gun article).

The evidence I am referring to concerns the two blunders Jordan Chandler made in describing Michael’s private parts which he had allegedly seen and touched.

One of his mistakes was the fact that he claimed Michael Jackson was circumcised (while he was not) and the second was his wrong description of some light splotch he had allegedly seen on MJ’s private parts (wrong judging by Sneddon’s description of a dark spot based on the photos of MJ’s genitalia).

I know that many of you are underestimating the value of the second mistake made by Jordan Chandler and urge you to reconsider it. The color of the splotch itself (or splotches) is not that important – there may have been one or several of them which may have been any color you like, but it is the color of the background contrasting with the splotches which matters.

I am afraid that I will have to be direct about it and please excuse me in advance for the need to. To put it bluntly, talking of a light spot the way Jordan Chandler did implies that he thought that MJ’s penis was dark, while Tom Sneddon’s dark spot on the same penis (based on the photos) means that in reality it was light.

A  light spot is seen only on the dark background and vice versa.

The mistake in taking one for the other is the same  in its importance as confusing the twenty year old Michael with the same man only thirty years later, when his skin turned porcelain white. So the whole matter of those “splotches”  is not in individual spots – the matter is in the general color of Michael’s genitalia back in 1993 when Jordan made a completely wrong color description of his penis. Given that in his interviews he claimed horrors like mutual masturbation I think it is top important that he could not guess even the basic color of the genitalia he had allegedly ‘seen’ so close.

And now finding Jordan’s blunder also in Bob Jones’ and Stacy Brown’s book gives our sources for this mistake a bigger variety. It is also funny that what was supposed to be exclusive information of the former MJ’s publicist (Bob Jones) and former “friend” (Stacy Brown) turned out to be the exact replica of the Smoking Gun article without a single word changed in it.

It is funny because it shows how these “authors” write their books about MJ – someone tells a lie, the media gives it their utmost publicity, Michael’s detractors masquerading as “friends” gladly repeat it and when the deceit is uncovered the media effectively erases all mention of it – however in the book it stays still displaying the naked lie to the shame of its authors.

Future writers of books should remember this lesson – it’s only the Internet which allows valuable articles to disappear almost without trace, while a book has a lasting value. Now I start recalling that the same mistake was made by Ray Chandler and Victor Gutierrez as both of them, as far as I remember, also reflected on Jordan’s wrong description, and this means that now we have not just one or two, but several manuscripts to prove the lies Jordan told about Michael back in 1993.

Given that it is difficult to totally erase the past Michael’s haters now have to face the uncomfortable fact that Jordan made two crucial mistakes in describing MJ’s genitals though he claimed he had allegedly ‘seen’ them and even ‘touched’ during mutual ‘masturbation’ scenes.

Let me note that those two statements were the ONLY proof Jordan Chandler provided to back up his graphic stories, and both of them turned out to be completely WRONG.

And this is no small matter, dear readers. Given men’s physiology the chances that Jordan would be so grossly mistaken were very low, as the subject doesn’t generally provide that many alternatives for a wrong guess – but in spite of it being next to impossible to miss Jordan managed to be wrong by full 100 per cent!

And this extremely rare occurrence proves that Jordan Chandler NEVER saw Michael’s genitalia AT ALL.

Anyone can say anything about another person but without proof it remains what it is – pure fiction about the events that never took place.

Realization of this simple fact also makes it absolutely UNIMPORTANT whether Michael did or didn’t pay the boy any MONEY.

After all it could be an act of charity to Jordan Chandler victimized by his father Evan, or a kind of a ransom paid by the captive to his torturers to let him free at last.

*  *  *

However instead of facing the reality Michael’s haters have  now chosen to disprove the fact that Jordan did make those two mistakes.

The first thing they handle is Jordan’s phrase stated in Linden’s affidavit which says that he described “distinctive “splotches” on MJ’s buttocks and one on his penis, “which is a light color similar to the color of his face”.

Since I am the only one who talks about this matter Michael’s haters now claim that I misinterpreted the phrase. This is what they say:

A simple mistake for fans looking for something (anything!) to exonorate Jackson – it is the penis “which is a light color similar to the color of his face”, not the “splotches”. Fans are confused by simple sentence structure. That this even needs to be mentioned highlights the tiresomeness in general of responding to fans’ erroneous assertions and assumptions.”

I am a foreigner and it is very easy to find linguistic mistakes in what I am saying, so I regarded this critical statement as a serious one and decided to look at how others interpreted the same information based on the media reports of Jordan’s words.  Jordan’s description was heavily publicized and I hoped that the “splotch which was the color of his face” would be repeated by someone one way or the other. The task was to find how English speaking people interpreted it and what they understood by it.

Considering that after Michael’s death every mention of Linden’s affidavit miraculously disappeared from the Internet it was no easy task to have an English speaker comment on Jordan’s words from the document which is nowhere to be found. However a long search did bring its result and fortunately confirmed that my interpretation of his words was absolutely correct.

The confirmation was found in the works of an author who claims to be one of the best experts on Michael Jackson. His name is Seth Clerk Silberman and he is a gay activist, a lecturer on “gay and lesbian studies” at Yale University who claims he is so knowledgeable about MJ that he even arranged “the first academic conference” about him on September 23-24, 2004 (on the eve of MJ’s trial? What was the point?).

To prove that his statements carry much weight the author provides several links to well-respected papers which cite Seth Clerk Silberman and evidently consider him as a sort of an authority on Michael Jackson.

However the form in which the confirmation of Jordan’s words came was somewhat unusual and told me that Michael’s vindication would not be plain sailing judging by the direction into which this learned guy is taking his “research”.  His words about Michael showed me more of this man’s intentions than he would care to disclose. Despite Silberman’s outwardly soothing talk about Michael Jackson he is one of his shrewdest haters who is seeking ways to prove the worst.

His goals became visible as soon as he showed high regard for Victor Gutierrez and made references to his book. He quoted Gutierrez as if he were an authority on MJ, but the most terrible thing he is doing to Michael is that he is covertly correcting Gutierrez to make his book look more credible and misquoting him on some issues.

And these issues are absolutely crucial.

For example, Gutierrez said in his book written in 1995 that Jordan described Michael as circumcised. Yes, Gutierrez is one of the sources who fixed this statement in his book!

There can be no doubt about it as I myself have seen it there. Sorry for having to repeat this filth:

“Then he took off his clothes, and I noticed that he had very little pubic hair, and that his penis was circumcised”.

(“Michael Jackson was my lover”. 1st Edition: March 1996. 2nd Edition: January 1997. Copyright© 1995 By Victor M. Gutierrez Prieto. SANTIAGO,CHILE).

But in the year 2006 when Seth Clerk Silberman presented his “research” at an “academic” conference in Yale University he already corrected Gutierrez and misquoted him by saying that Jordan claimed that Michael was not circumcised.

So in 1995 Gutierrez reported Jordan’s words as they were, because even if he wanted to, at the time it was impossible to lie about something which was so well-known to everyone. However ten years later the non-circumcision  lie already became possible and began to be forced on the people at “academic” conferences…  Given that the book itself is rare to find and is not formally allowed in the US due to it slanderous content, it is more or less safe for Silberman to lie about this crucial matter as very few people will be able or care to check up.

By the way I’ve seen this revised lie already repeated by the so-called Michael Jackson “fan” site which is spreading it without batting an eye-lid.

What are these people doing?

They are rewriting history.

By claiming in full earnest that Jordan described Michael as not circumcised Silberman is correcting not only Gutierrez but all the media reports about it which we ourselves remember so clearly! Of course it was a bit reckless on Silberman’s part to start rewriting history so early – direct witnesses of the events who heard media screams about MJ’s alleged “circumcision” day and night still remember the truth. Indeed this intimate but wrong detail of Michael’s private parts was publicized so heavily that it is simply impossible to forget it  – so as we  lived with it, so we will die with it, still remembering Jordan’s lie to our deathbed.

But Seth Clerk Silberman’s revision of history is not aimed at us. His audience is students – a younger generation of people who are not that familiar with what the media hammered into our heads back in the 90s, and with them Silberman is probably getting away with his lies. This is a very dangerous sign showing where Michael’s detractors will take us in the future.

However, getting back to the splotch thing, the reason why I consider Silberman’s article so valuable is because in the year 2006 Silberman didn’t yet know that besides the circumcision there was another inconsistency in Jordan’s statement. By that I mean the color of the splotch and consequently penis which acquired importance only recently when we finally discovered it.

No one paid attention to this side of the matter before and since he didn’t know that it also mattered Silberman simply repeated the well-publicized media version of Jordan’s words and spoke about light  – “blotchy-pink” – patches Jordan allegedly saw on that penis.

You get my point, don’t you?

Silberman lied about one thing but didn’t lie about the other simply because he didn’t know that it mattered.  His idea was to prove that Michael was a p -le and that is why he is revising  the past and is attributing a new,  non-circumcision version to Jordan Chandler –  but as to the rest of it he left it intact as he didn’t know that it was also necessary to be changed.

Michael detractors are constantly changing history to try and make their case against Michael Jackson unbeatable.  Now that they know of Jordan’s second mistake they will surely correct the color of that blotch too to make it consistent with the photos described by Sneddon.  I am afraid that what was a popular “light splotch the color of his face” in 1993 will change into an equally popular “dark spot found in a relatively same location” in the 21st century and will again be attributed to Jordan Chandler in the same manner Silberman is doing it now with the circumcision issue.

This is what Silberman said correcting one of Jordan’s mistakes but unaware of the other:

“Gathered in the room were Los Angeles Assistant District Atttorney Lauren Weiss, Court Secretary Patty Watson, and Detective Rosibel Ferrufino. They listened to Jordan Chandler, accompanied now by notoriously aggressive lawyer Gloria Allred. On this Wednesday, September 1, 1993, Jordanrepeated his testimony. Two weeks earlier, Jordanhad told Detective Ferrufino more than he had anyone. He said Michael used his hands and his mouth. Jordan described Michael’s penis, “not circumcised” with “blotchy-pink” patches like a cow.”

The fact that Silberman misquoted Gutierrez on the circumcision issue shows that this “lecturer on gay and lesbian issues at Yale University” has a grave agenda of his own and it is only a chance luck that in the process of slandering Michael over one thing he provided us with additional proof of Jordan’s lies over the other thing.

And it doesn’t matter whether Silberman read or didn’t read the Linden report. What matters is that he doesn’t know what we are looking for and is therefore simply repeating what the media said 15 years ago. And this is exactly what we need. We wanted to know how Jordan’s words were interpreted back in the 90s and continued to be interpreted until the year 2006, and now we have an answer to it.

After we throw away Silberman’s  “non-circumcision” revision we will see the rest of Jordan’s words in their virgin form – Jordan thought that MJ had a dark circumcised penis with a light splotch (splotches) while in reality the photos showed exactly the opposite – a light and non-circumcised one, as we know it from Sneddon’s declaration (and autopsy report).

The only conclusion we can draw from the above is that Jordan never saw Michael’s private parts and this is all that matters in the 1993 case, independent of how graphic his story looks.

We’ve heard similar stories from lunatics like Daniel Capon and Joseph Bartucci (who never met Michael at all), and what do these crazy stories matter without proof? Some people are downright schizophrenic, some are extremely talented in inventing stories and some spend weeks browsing the internet for similar allegations to make their own lies seem credible –  and it is only when it comes to proving their lies is when really big problems arise for these people.

Without proof anyone’s story is just a story –  similar to that about Harry Porter.

Another conclusion I want to repeat here is that total lack of proof of Jordan’s lies means that the PAYMENT made by Michael (or his insurance company) is a NON-ISSUE for us – what does it matter if  Michael paid anyone money if the story of this person was based on LIES anyway?

Out of the two alternatives I suggested as an explanation for that payment – pure charity on Michael’s part to the boy victimized by his father, or a ransom paid by a captive for releasing him from his torturers – I select the second variant which at the moment simply appeals to me more.

*  *  *

It is both interesting and appalling to see the history of Michael Jackson’s past accusations being rewritten by his haters. Previously I thought that only my country had unpredictable past (as it constantly changes according to current ideology), but now I see that the past allegations against Michael Jackson are also terribly uncertain and depend on the new facts of Michael’s innocence uncovered today.

This tendency is very much there as the haters’ MJinfo site which recently singled us out from other MJ blogs proves it. Same as Silberman this site also claims that Jordan Chandler called Michael non-circumcised, thus putting wrong words into Jordan’s mouth and thus making Jordan’s description look correct!

The haters make innocent eyes and wonder as if they have never heard about it,  “Where did Jordan say that Michael Jackson was circumcised?”  They even claim that “We can be sure the information that Jackson was circumcised certainly didn’t come from Jordan’s actual description“!

So now that they cannot change MJ’s non-circumcised state, they want to change Jordan Chandler’s story instead?

The insolence with which they are doing it leaves  me speechless. They are “sure” that this information “certainly” didn’t come from Jordan! And who else, I wonder?

This make-belief game reveals that the authors of MJinfo site and Silberman are not ordinary Michael’s detractors who “simply hate” because they don’t know the truth.

No, they do know the truth but are changing it on purpose to adjust Michael Jackson to the agenda of their own.

The desire of these people to prove the impossible is so big that they are ready to distort even the past for the sake of their agenda. Why is it so crucial for them to put Michael into a bad class? What makes these people devote so much of their time to specially maintain a slanderous  site about Michael Jackson? And why do they arrange “academic” conferences at universities teaching people false stories about Michael?

Let us just note the importance of these questions and leave answers to them until some other time.

*  *  *

UPDATE by sanemjfan February 25th, 2012

I wanted to add the following two photos to give readers a visual example of how inaccurate Jordan’s description really was.

His initialy description was that MJ’s penis had a splotch “which is a light color, similar to the color of his face”.  So according to Jordan, the overall color of MJ’s penis was “dark”, and the splotches were “light”.

The tie in the photo on the left is a perfect representation of this description, as it is black with white spots.

But, according to Tom Sneddon’s court pleading on May 26th, 2005 (which was an act of desperation on his part because he knew he had already lost the case), his description is as follows:

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.

So Sneddon admits that the blemish is DARK, which means that the general color of MJ’s penis was light! And he was correct! The vitiligo erased the overwhelming majority of the pigments in all areas of MJ’s body, including his penis, so the remaining splotches and blemishes were DARK!

The photo on the right is an accurate representation of how MJ’s penis looked:

I hope this helps you understand why the color of the splotches (as well as the circumcision issue) are so important!

For more information on Jordan’s inaccurate description, please read the following posts:

All you wanted to know ABOUT IT but were afraid to ask. Part 1. CIRCUMCISION or ERECTION?

All you wanted to know ABOUT IT but were afraid to ask. Part 2. JORDAN’S DRAWING

All you wanted to know ABOUT IT but were afraid to ask. Part 3. A TELLING BLEMISH?

The story of “The Telltale Splotch” missing from the Smoking Gun

Was it a MATCH or a total MISMATCH?

2 Comments leave one →
  1. January 16, 2015 6:15 pm

    “the problem lies for me is that how did Jordie get the location of the spot on the penis correct? How did Jordie know MJ had a particular spot on his penis? Sneddon said Jordie got the location of the spot correct.” – patricia

    What did our good guy Tom Sneddon say?
    He said: “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”

    Never mind that Michael had vitiligo and Jordan knew it and spots were spread all over his body.
    Never mind that Jordan supposed that Michael had some light spot there.
    Never mind that the actual photos revealed that he had some dark spot instead, so MJ was actually white there.
    Never mind that the dark spot was found “at about the same relative location” as the light spot described by Jordan.
    Was this accurate? No, none of it.

    But if you still have a problem with it, let us imagine that I describe you as a girl with dark hair with a white pin in your hair.
    And you turn out to be a blond girl with a dark pin in your hair.
    But the prosecutor nevertheless claims that I spoke of a dark pin (obvious lie) and that you had it at about the same relative location as I described it.

    Let us also recall that in addition I said that you wear your black hair short (‘circumcised’) while you actually wear your blond hair long (‘not circumcised’).

    Now what does a blond girl with long hair and a dark hairpin have to do with a dark girl with short hair and a white pin, even if both have pins in their hair and they were found “at about the same relative location” (which is extremely vague)?

    Nothing. These girls have nothing to do with each other. So Jordan never saw what he was describing – he simply made up a ‘universal’ description that would suit Michael’s vitiligo condition at least in some way.


  2. patricia permalink
    January 15, 2015 9:00 pm

    Thanks for this great article. But I have some questions. Though Jordie was wrong about MJ being circumcised, in which MJ was uncircumcised, and Jordie claimed MJ had a light spot on a dark penis, in which MJ did not, but had a light penis with a dark spot, due to vitiligo, the problem lies for me is that how did Jordie get the location of the spot on the penis correct? How did Jordie know MJ had a particular spot on his penis? Sneddon said Jordie got the location of the spot correct. Why is that? Please explain? Thank you.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: