Yes, Jordan Chandler Did Accurately Describe Michael Jackson's Splotchy Penis

This is something that sends Jackson truthers into complete meltdown. You've probably read many articles claiming that Jordan Chandler didn't accurately describe distinctive markings on Michael Jackson's penis, or that any match only existed in the head of Thomas Sneddon.

What's the truth?


Well we can say for certain that Jordan did under police supervision, make a drawing of Jackson's penis, and where one or more markings were located.

This was then compared to photographs that were taken of Jackson's genitalia after the police obtained a search warrant for a strip search.

For the record, Jordan's description and pictures of Jackson's genitalia have only ever been viewed and handled by the police. The description from Victor Gutierrez book titled: "Michael Jackson Was My Lover" is not the picture, Jordan sketched for the police.


Did it match?


The short answer is yes. Bill Dworin, one of the lead LAPD investigators, somebody who actually saw the photographs and drawing with his own eyes, confirmed that it did.

In a documentary titled "Michael Jackson and the Boy He Paid Off" he went on to say the following: "He (Jordy Chandler) described Jackson genitalia, it was unique because of the discolouration. And then we obtained a search warrant to photograph Jackson to cooperate, what the child had said. When photographing Jackson's genitalia, it did cooperate. 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".

 

The evidence doesn't stop there


In a 1995 Diana Sawyer interview, Michael Jackson is asked about the description, that was made by Jordan Chandler and the photographs that were taken by the local authorities. Rather than give an direct answer, he starts blathering on about how there was no connection and there was nothing that could match him up with these charges. He is asked directly if there were any markings on his genitals and his reply was there was no markings. He then tries to claim that he wouldn't be sat here and giving this interview if there was.


 

Dr. Richard Strick was a doctor who was present on behalf of the local authorities during the photographing of Michael Jackson's genitalia. He said that Michael Jackson's genitalia was very oddly coloured with dark skin and light skin. He says he was later told that the boy (Jordy) description absolutely matched with the photographs that were taken. I don't think he was told by guy down the street, by the way. 


Then there's the undeniable fact that Thomas Sneddon and his team did want to present the drawing and photographs in the 2005 trial.


Unless Tom Sneddon and his team were planning to embarrass themselves, and throw their law-enforcement careers in the trash can, I think it's safe to say there was at the very least, a strong, if not perfect match.

There is, of course, many myths from Jackson truthers that Jordan's description did not match. The most popular is that Jordan described Jackson as being circumcised, when he wasn't. This is something that appears to originate from Victor Gutierrez's book, and a decade plus old and now deleted article from the Smoking Gun website. The truth is, this seems unlikely, and as far as I know Jackson being circumcised or uncircumcised was never part of the description. If it was, it's highly likely that Jackson and his multi-million dollar lawyers would have pointed out such a big discrepancy. But they didn't.

Another myth from truthers is that Jackson would have been arrested and imprisoned immediately if the drawing had matched. This argument doesn't hold much water, as the strip search was conducted to cooperate Jordan's entire allegations that Jackson had been performing multiple sexual acts on him over a lengthy period of time.

To my knowledge, nobody in the Western world, has been imprisoned base solely on a accurate description of their genitalia. After all, changing rooms would be a no-go area. Jordan's description would have been used if the case had gone to trial, where a jury would evaluate all the evidence in its entirety.