Vindicating for my loyal fans and followers from all corners of planet Earth and in distant faraway galaxies of the universe.

Was Jordan Chandler's description of blemishes on Michael Jackson's penis correct?

Well, let's take a look at the real facts before I tell you a definite yes or a definite no.

So let's start right at the beginning. I'm sure most of you know how Jordan and Michael Jackson met but for those who don't here's the story.

Michael Jackson was out driving his automobile when it suddenly broke down. It broke down, just across the road from Jordan's stepdad's car-rental business. Michael went over to ask for help and assistance and Jordan's stepfather happily complied. Jordan had previously met Michael Jackson, many years back in a restaurant. Jordan's stepdad told Michael about this and told him how Jordan had became a massive fan of him and his music since then. So JC's stepdad phoned Jordan's mother and told her to bring Jordan down to his car rental business quickly to meet Michael, once again.

After a brief meeting at the car-rental business Michael and Jordan exchanged telephone numbers and kept in contact with each other. Eventually Michael invited Jordan over to his Neverland ranch where in time MJ started spending lots of unsupervised time alone with Jordan.

Jordan had come from a broken home with his parents separated. Jordan had a sister and stepbrothers but was a bit of a nobody within the Chandler family. MJ put a lot of attention into Jordan, even canceling concerts and important meetings to spend time with him. Some say Jordan fell in love with all the attention MJ was giving him.

Jordan and Michael had become inseparable, where ever Michael went Jordan was by his side. They eventually started sleeping in bed with each, locations included Michael Jackson's Neverland ranch, Jordan Chandler's house and even hotels in Europe.

Jackson had become very attached to Jordan and he started spending time at Jordan's own home. Jackson spent approximately 30 days, where he slept with Jordan in his own bed. Jackson would often leave as Jordan left for school and then he would return to Jordan's home as Jordan returned home from school. Jackson was very helpful around the home doing chores like washing clothes and washing the dishes and even helping Jordan with his homework. Jordan's parents didn't suspect anything as Michael was so kind and helpful in and around them in their own home.

Eventually, things turned sour as Jordan's father Evan walked into his son's bedroom to find his son and Michael in bed together allegedly in the spooning position in the same way as a man would spoon his wife. Evan didn't know what to think initially but eventually approached Jackson and asked him if he was f**king his son!. Michael allegedly just giggled.

In time Jordan opened up and told his father that he was being sexually molested by Michael Jackson. Evan wanted to keep his son out of the media spotlight so started negotiating with Jackson for a out-of-court settlement. Negotiations broke down, and that's when the whole thing became public and the police became involved. Both Jackson and the Chandler family were subjected to a media frenzy. The chandlers were hit the hardest with television news crews swamping their street and home and threats from hateful Michael Jackson fans. This included hateful letters and even the head of a small rodent was sent to their home by one MJ fan.

As with anybody who goes to the police with allegations they are put through test to see if they are credible or not. Every single professional that interviewed Jordan found him 100% consistent and credible. This also included Dr. Richard Garner, who was a specialist in false molestation allegations.

So anyway, I think we all have a good idea about how Michael Jackson and Jordan Chandler met and how things went belly up so lets get onto what this post is all about, the blemished penis.

During the interview Jordan told officers he and Jackson had been engaging in sexual activities. This included fondling, masturbation and oral sex. Jordan told them about the discoloration of Michael Jackson's penis and testicles.

In December 1993 Jackson was served with a warrant for a search of his body. The law enforcement officers investigating him wanted to cooperate Jordan's description with actual photos of MJ's genitals.

The strip search took place at Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch on December 20, 1993. Thomas Sneddon, who was the lead investigator from the Santa Barbara Police Department was refused access by Jackson and wasn't allowed in the room while Jackson was being photographed. One person who was there on behalf of the police department was Dr. Richard Strick. He was a totally impartial and unbiased source and confirmed that Michael Jackson was very uncooperative and threw a tantrum the entire time, in an interview with a US news channel shortly after MJ's death in 2009. Dr. Strick also confirmed that Jackson's genitalia was oddly colored something that Jackson himself denied on the primetime show with Diane Sawyer in the mid-90s. Jackson appeared on the show with his new wife, Lisa Maria Presley. When when questioned about the markings on his penis, he said there was none. But we know this to be a big massive lie as I will explain further on in this entry.

So where are we at now? The police have taken the photos they've taken them away to be developed. What happens next?.

Well not a lot happens, the police are still in the process of investigating and compiling evidence against Jackson. But that comes to an abrupt end as Michael Jackson pays out a huge sum of money to Jordan Chandler (reported to be around $22 million) to drop the charges against him.

After Jordan received the settlement, he made himself unavailable for a criminal trial, despite this, the authorities were still keen to prosecute Jackson as they believed the evidence they had gathered, was very significant, but later had to withdraw as without Jordan's cooperation the chances of having a successful conviction were low.

So how do we know, if Jordan's description of distinctive blemishes on Michael Jackson's genitals was correct or was a complete mismatch?

We now have to fast-forward in time from 1993 to Michael Jackson's third child molestation accusation in 2003 and the trial that followed in 2005.

This is where information from the allegations that Jordan Chandler made started emerging in all different forms. The lead investigators from the LAPD was, Bill Dworin, a detective and expert on pedophilia. He spoke on two different documentary that were made on Michael Jackson and the allegations made against him. One of these was called "Michael Jackson's Boys" which Martin Bashir used clips from in his own documentary called "Michael Jackson's Secret World". The other one was called "Michael Jackson & The Boy He Paid Off".

On both documentaries, Bill Dworin confirmed that Jordan's drawings had cooperated with the photos taken of Jackson's genitalia. He went on to say..... "He described Jackson's genitalia, it was unique because of the discoloration. And then we obtained a search warrant to photograph Jackson to cooperate, what the child had said. When photographing Jackson's genitalia, it did corroborate. In other words, the boy saw Jackson naked, does that mean Jackson molested the child? No, but it adds to the credibility of the child."

Bill Dworin also spoke to MSNBC News, where he said..... "One critical piece of corroborating evidence was found not in Michael Jackson’s home, but on Michael Jackson’s body: an intimate description that the young boy gave police. We had served a search warrant to photograph Michael Jackson. Those photographs corroborated the description that the boy gave us regarding Michael Jackson’s genitals."

Bill Dworin also confirmed that not only him but every single person in his department that interviewed Jordan Chandler found him consistent and credible regarding the allegations he made against Jackson.

So we have the lead investigator from the LAPD police department confirming that Jordan's description of the unique blemishes on Jackson's genitalia was absolutely correct. But do we have any more sources that confirm this? Yes, we certainly do. We now have to go on to Michael Jackson's 2005 trial, where the district attorney, Thomas Sneddon declared under penalty of perjury that he believed Jordan Chandler description and drawings of distinctive blemishes on Michael Jackson's genitals was accurate and not something that the boy could have randomly randomly guessed.

In his sworn declaration, he said..........

5. I have reviewed the statement 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 of the Defendant's genitalia. The photographs reveal a mark on the right side of the 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 the 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 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.

Thomas Sneddon wanted to use the drawings and photographs to prove that Michael Jackson wasn't of a shy and modest nature and that he had exposed his naked body to at least one young boy.

Michael Jackson's lawyer (TM) did absolutely everything in his power to prevent Jordan Chandler's description and the photographs of Michael Jackson's genitalia from being used in what was probably one of the biggest court cases not just in the United States of America, but the entire world.

Despite evidence from prior bad acts being allowed in Californian court rooms, the judge agreed with Jackson's lawyer and refused the entry of the drawings and photographs, because he felt it wasn't relevant to the current case, not because it was a poor or incorrect match as some haters may have you believe.

Jackson's lawyer refusal to allow Thomas Sneddon to produce Jordan's drawing and the photographs of Jackson genitalia speaks for itself. Clearly his refusal is a strong indicator that he at least believed Jordan's drawings were accurate enough and would have been absolutely devastating to Jackson during that trial, if they had been seen by the jury members.

So what do we have so far? We have the head officer from the LAPD confirming that Jordan's description did match with the photographs of Jackson's genitalia. And we also have a sworn declaration from the head prosecutor from Jackson 2005 child molestation trial that he also believed it was a match.

Do we have any other evidence that it was a match? Well, you have to ask yourself if Jordan's description absolutely did not match or if it contained big errors like circumcision versus non-circumcision, then why didn't Michael Jackson ever disputed it? Why did Michael Jackson allow law enforcement officers like Bill Dworin and Thomas Sneddon to say it was a match?

We also have journalist like Diane Dimond and Jacques Peretti and even Jordan's uncle Raymond also saying on documentaries that Jordan's description of MJ's penis was absolutely correct. Now I know these 3 may have never seen the photographs and Jordan's drawings, but the fact that Michael Jackson never felt the need to take action against these individuals speaks for itself.

Another clear indication that Jordan's description matched was that Michael Jackson attempted to have the photographs that were taken of his penis in 1993 return to him after his 2005 trial. Now if those photographs absolutely did not match or if they contained discrepancies, you wouldn't be bothered, but clearly Jackson wanted them out of the hands of the police department in his area and in his possession so they could never be used again.

So, did Jordan's description of Michael Jackson's penis match? Well let's just say that according to the law enforcement officers who saw the drawings and photographs with their own eyes, it absolutely did. And we also have the fact that Jackson and his lawyer didn't dispute Jordan's description, even when they had the chance.

Of course, I know there are hater websites out there who will try and distort the truth. I've heard crazy claims that Jordan said MJ's penis was circumcised (and this is even listed on the do-it-yourself website Wikipedia) when in fact, it wasn't. Or that Jordan got the coloration of the blemishes wrong.

The absolute truth is there are no reliable or credible sources out there that confirm that Jordan got any part of MJ's penis wrong. But we do have the word of several high-profile and respected law enforcement officers, that it absolutely did match.


Anonymous said...

Jackson didn't pay Chandler anything. It was the insurance company. You got that wrong.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Jordan said there was a discoloration. That was his testimony. That was what he said. Except there WASN'T a discoloration. There were dark spots. That was what was found when Jackon was examined. Dark spots. Why this is important? Because Jordan gave the wrong description. Jackson's genitalia wasn't dark (discoloration means his penis was dark) but white (dark spots means it was white). It wasn't the right description. Chandler didn't give an accurate description. It was Sneddon's opinion that Jordan gave the right description. And you took as a fact.

Anonymous said...

i love this site. however i have some discrepancies with your analysis. you failed to look at both sides of the story.
if in fact these photos corroborated with jordys description, this family would have had have strong evidence to back his claims. their child was violated in the worst possible manner, why would they settle for money? i wouldnt. i would fight for my child. secondly, where was jordy in the 2005 trial? he had the chance to help put a sexual predator in jail + keep all the money he gained. maybe he didnt want the attention. but how can that be more important than testifying against a man who took allegedly performed disgusting acts on you.i can/will never understand that. jordan chandler has only made a declaration, never a deposition. that declaration was signed by him, but there is a possibility it was written by someone else. insightful information on your blog.

Anonymous said...

I'm embarrased to bring this up, but I'm reading some blog by a fan (hopefully not fantard) who claims that MJ's private was white with dark splotches, the exact opposite of Jordie's description.

So there are two opinions on the body search:

1) IT did match the boy's claim and MJ's team said "pay him to shut up immediately! This ends here!" and MJ paid

But then there is

2) It didn't match and two grand juries did not find sufficient evidence to arrest MJ or proceed with a trial (then MJ paid him off)

Where does the truth lie?

If what this fan contends is true, then why did Sneddon try unsuccessfully to introduce it as evidence at the 2005 trial?

Someone in the know, please let me know.

Anonymous said...

The fan blog you are citing is just an absurdly desperate attempt to split hairs. Jordie was quoted as saying something like (I'm paraphrasing from memory) "MJ has a splotch on his penis which is white like his face" What's white like his face? The splotch or the penis? For years fans have desperately clung to this awkward sentence to claim Jordy falsely asserted the splotch was white, when in actuality, the sentence is ambiguous, and may not even be accurately reported.

But what's not ambiguous is Jordy's DRAWING, which according to Sneddon under oath, and other sources like Diane Dimond, Maureen Orth, and even the Tom Messereau endorsed biography by Randal Sullivan, showed a DARK SPLOTCH, which was confirmed by strip search photos.

To me this proves MJ was guilty (at least in that case), but you'll never convince the floons unless videotape of him molesting a boy surfaces, and even then, they'll argue it was an MJ impersonator.

Anonymous said...

If it embarrasses you that much, why bring it up in the first place? You've hashed this over and over and over until exhaustion, for Pete's sake change the subject. Who cares what his junk looked like? He was aquitted. End of.

Anonymous said...

MJ was only acquitted of the Gavin case. He was not acquitted of all the other accusations. On the contrary, two of his accuser won multimillion dollar settlements. So stop saying he was acquitted, because the gavin case was the exception; not the rule.

Anonymous said...

I'll say what the hell I want to say. Get off my back and stay off, I'm not dragging your arse around. My point is nobody gives a damn anymore.

Anonymous said...

I was embarrassed but I never knew that the distinction was that Jordie said he had a black penis, whereas he actually had a white penis.

Seems like quite a difference and one that hasn't been mentioned, so I brought it up, and goodatmosphere has shown that the fans actually are reading too much into it.

Anonymous said...

So obsessed that it has taken me this long to read this?

It is the 20th Anniversary of the abuse allegations, so it will be put under the microscope. Cold Case or not, we're getting to the bottom of a few things around here.

Who's in?

Anonymous said...

Your theory is preposterous. The judge allowed lots of old evidence so Sneddon had no way of knowing it would be rebuffed and the jury does not get to see arguments over what evidence the jury gets to see, thus the defense's fear of the photograph and drawing did not make them look guilty to the jury. Further, Sneddon is not going perjure himself about a drawing and photograph, when he would be immediately exposed the second the judge asks to see both.

Anonymous said...

Sneddon needed a lot more than 5 months to find another accuser willing to come forward and Jordy quickly refused to cooperate, since, as enigmachild has astutely pointed out, MJ paid Jordy off in installments which encouraged him to move on.

Anonymous said...

Sneddon never said "to the best of my knowledge", he CATEGORICALLY stated that the drawing (not description!) matched the photo.

Anonymous said...

This statement from Sneddon was CATEGORICAL with no qualifications such as "I believe":

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.

That statement is not a matter of opinion or belief, it's either true, or it's not, and the judge could ask at any second to see the drawing and photo and any perjury on Sneddon's part would be immediately exposed, thus, you'd have to be a moron to think Sneddon was misleading here.

Anonymous said...

So what about the sheriff's photographer? He also swore under oath that he saw a dark spot at the bottom of MJ's penis? Is he in on the conspiracy too? Your nutty theories are really delusional. You're grasping at straws because you've invested your whole life defending MJ's innocence so you'll never admit you were wrong. Have fun in your little fantasy fan boy bubble.

Anonymous said...

They remind me of Dory in Finding nemo "Just keep swimming, just keep swimming" with their short-term memory problems. They just seem to go over old ground again and again. I think we should introduce some hobbies into their sad existences, give them some meaning.

Anonymous said...

If it's a lie, why didn't MJ's defense team expose it as such, at least to the judge? Instead they argued it was too shocking for the jury and complained about being unable to cross-examine Jordy. Why would they need to cross-examine Jordy if his drawing was wrong? This is an implicit admission that the photograph confirmed Jordy's drawing. Use your brain.

Anonymous said...

Regardless of why MJ's lawyers prevented the jury seeing this evidence, what's telling is the argument they gave the judge to keep it out of court. They claimed the jury should not see it because it was too shocking, and not because the photo and drawing didn't match. In other words, both the defense and the judge agreed with sneddon that it was a match.

Anonymous said...

There is no doubt that MJ's attraction to boys went beyond just wanting to be "best friends" in the sense of two twelve year old buddies. He sought, and had, intimate relationships with boys that went way beyond a normal friendship.

Lavish gifts, holding hands, bombarding them with attention such as phone calls every night, faxes. Those with parents who were compliant ended up sleeping in his bed for days at a time. Jimmy Safechuck was taken out of US jurisdiction on the Bad Tour, being his bedroom companion for a large chunk of it (he appears in the Bad 25 concert at the end.)

When you accept that he had intimate relationships, the next question is, were they sexual as well? That is the question that the jury had to decide, and there wasn't enough evidence.

Anonymous said...

Nonsense. Jordy Chandler had so much proof he became a multi-gazillionaire from legal victories. What other alleged victim got so rich? Court documents prove that jordy Chandler correctly drew MJ's private parts as conceded by MJ's own lawyer. Police found a fully nude photo in MJ's bedroom believed to be MJ's boy pal and another boy photo with his underwear pulled down. Police found entire art books in MJ's bedroom full of graphically posed naked boys. Police found MJ's laundry and mattress soaked in homosexual activity. The FBI reported disgusting noises MJ made with a boy on a train. There's more proof against MJ than even Sandusky.

Anonymous said...

There are many items on the net, including video of jurors discussions, which cast doubt on Michael Jackson. I recall reading a thread that contained a discussion to it also. I did not take part in it and cannot recall the thread, unfortunately. Maybe someone can jolt my memory.

I also understand that Evan Chandler committed suicide because of his terminal illness and dealing with it alone. But he never left a 'suicide note' so there is nothing but speculation. It's wrong to state he did so for reasons that are more acceptable to you. Also there is no confession from Jordy. There are many fans on this board in a thread dealing with just that issue not long ago. The 'confession' was a started from a fan site (if my recollection is correct), picked up by the family but proved false. In fact Jordy has never spoken of Michael or the claims since the compensation payment. The whole family were forbidden as part of the payment from speaking of it.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I well aware of the excuse the defense used to hide this evidence from the jury. Bottom line: People who have nothing to hide, hide nothing. MJ's defense needed to hide the drawing and photo because it incriminated MJ so they found a convenient legal precedent to do so.

Vindicatemj said...

What is the difference between this blog and ? said...

What about