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 genitalia, 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 genitalia, and where one or more markings were located. This was then compared to photographs that were taken of Jackson's private parts 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?

Unless you believe the authorities were drip feeding the public false information, the answer is yes, it did match. 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".

 

In a 2003 interview given to nbcnews.com, Bill Dworin again confirms to Josh Mankiewicz that Jordan Chandler's description did match with the photographs of Jackson genitalia.

Here's a direct quote:

"Dworin says 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."

Dworin: “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.”

Mankiewicz: “The boy was able to describe discolorations of Jackson’s skin?”

Dworin: “Yes.”

Mankiewicz: “On his genitals, accurately.”

Dworin: “Very much so.”


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 a 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.

Here's the transcript:

DS: How about the police photographs though? How was there enough information from this boy about those kinds of things?

MJ: The police photographs?

DS: The police photographs.

MJ: That they took of me?


DS: Yeah.


MJ: There was nothing that matched me to those charges. There was nothing.

LISA MARIE PRESLEY : There was nothing they could connect to him.

MJ: That's why I'm sitting here talking to you today. There was not one iota of information that they found, that could connect me...

DS: So when we heard the charges...

MJ: There was nothing...

DS: ...markings of some kind?


MJ: No markings.


DS: No markings?


MJ: No.


Watch from 16:10


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. 


Dr. Richard Strick never saw Jordan's description, but he did see Jackson's genitalia in the flesh and confirms that Jackson was so brazen in 1995 that he didn't just openly lie on national television, but attempted to manipulate millions of viewers into believing the police were leaking false information concerning the description.

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

Court statement:

TO: THE CLERK OF THE COURT, TO DEFENDANT, AND TO DEFENDANT'S

COUNSEL: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that as soon as the matter may be heard, Plaintiff will move the court for its order allowing Plaintiff to put before the jury, as rebuttal evidence, (1) the testimony of LAPD Detective Rosibel Ferrufino or Los Angeles CountyDeputy District Attorney Lauren Weis that on September 1, 1993, in Ms. Weis's office and at the direction of Detective Ferrufino, Jordan Chandler described the coloration of and markings on defendant's body below his waistline and above his knees, including his penis, and drew a picture of defendant's erect penis, and (2) that drawing, and (3) photographs taken at a later date of defendant's body and his distinctively-marked penis. This motion is made on the ground that the proposed evidence is relevant to rebut evidence introduced by Defendant the purport of which is that Michael Jackson, by reason of his "shy" and "modest" nature, would not have exposed his unclothed self to young boys. The motion will be based on this notice, the accompanying Declaration of Thomas W.Sneddon, Jr., and the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities.

DATED: May 25, 2005

Respectfully submitted THOMAS W. SNEDDON, JR.

Declaration of Thomas W. Sneddon. Jr.

1. I am a lawyer admitted to practice in ail the courts of this state. ram, 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 son, Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 1133603. 

2, In 1993, the Los Angeles Police Department commenced an investigation of allegations 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 Rosihe] Ferrufino was one of the investigators in that investigation. The Santa Barbara Sheriffs 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 Ferrufmo 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 be 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 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 Sheri's Department, under tight security.

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 Fernffino'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 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 25, 2005, at Santa Maria, California.


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.

The Truthers Myths...

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 the autopsy revealed 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, nobody other than the police know whether Jackson being circumcised or uncircumcised was part of the description. If it was, you have to question why both Jackson and his legal team never attempted to expose any discrepancies in the description in 93/94, and in 2005.

Jackson truthers treat the autopsy as some kind of solid proof that Jordan's description was incorrect. I even remember briefly reading on Wikipedia several months after Jackson's death, that the autopsy confirmed that Jackson had no surgery, or performed exercise techniques to restore his foreskin, which is blatantly false.

The autopsy was performed to determine the cause of death, not whether his penis had undergone any changes since 1993. In fact, the autopsy states that Jackson's penis "appears" uncircumcised. That in itself could confirm that Jackson had a tight or unusual foreskin, or that his penis had literally shrivelled up into nothing, which is no real shock on a lifeless corpse.

The word "appears" is used very sparsely during the autopsy, mostly relating to his age, and a couple of other things, including his penis. Perhaps that is a dead giveaway, that even medical professionals couldn't definitively say whether Jackson's penis had been surgically altered, or not.

Autopsy source: https://archive.org/stream/251735-autopsy-0001-optimized/251735-autopsy-0001-optimized_djvu.txt

Jackson truthers conveniently ignore the fact that Jordan's description was of Jackson's erect penis, not flaccid. Not to mention that penises come in all shapes and sizes, including those with a tight foreskin which rarely cover the head of the penis, while others have a foreskin which never retract back.

Either way, Jordan Chandler as a 13-year-old boy wasn't an expert on the male anatomy.

But He Would Have Been Arrested on the Spot, Right?

Another myth from truthers is that Jackson would have been arrested on the spot if JC's description had matched with the photographs. But where is the evidence to support this? Where in the police manual does it say a matching description of a person's private parts accused of sexual assault is an instant arrestable offence, no ifs or buts? Why didn't Jackson's highly skilled multi-million dollar legal team capitalize on a supposed mismatch in late December, but then advise Jackson to settle in January?

Was Johnnie Cochran a complete idiot who didn't understand the law, or are Jackson truthers just making it up?

Of course, the reality is that the strip search was conducted to cooperate Jordan's allegation that Jackson had been performing multiple sexual acts on him over a lengthy period of time. You also have to factor in that the authorities knew that Jackson and Jordan's father were negotiating a settlement. The police needed Jordan's full cooperation, if they didn't, there was little point in arresting Jackson, only to be told shortly afterwards that the allegations had been dropped.

To my knowledge, nobody in the Western world, has been arrested 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.

If I go back to the 2003 interview given by Bill Dworin to nbcnews.com he confirmed that they would have never arrested Jackson on the spot after photographing his genitalia. The police were wary of Jackson's huge celebrity status, and wanted a solid smoking gun.

Direct quote:

Dworin: “They wanted the smoking gun. We could not produce the smoking gun.”

Mankiewicz: “And a smoking gun in this case would have been what, a photograph of the two of them having sex?”

Dworin: “Of course, that would be great, but we didn’t have that.”

Mankiewicz: “Did that make it impossible to go forward?”

Dworin: “It made it difficult.”

Mankiewicz: “Difficult because you never go forward without physical evidence or because the accused in this case was a huge celebrity?

Dworin: “I believe it’s because he was a huge celebrity.”

Mankiewicz: “Was Michael Jackson guilty?”

Dworin: “I believe he has a sexual interest in boys.”

Another example of how lengthy criminal investigations can be, especially against wealthy high profile individuals is Harvey Weinstein. This guy was first publicly accused on 5 October 2017, which then led to dozens of other women alleging sexual harassment, rape and hush money payouts. It wasn't until 25 May, 2018 that Harvey Weinstein was charged with rape and other counts of sexual abuse against just two women.

Harvey Weinstein timeline:  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41594672

So, again, the myth that Jackson would have been arrested on the spot after that photo shoot if the description matched is highly implausible.