Jordan Chandler’s Description Of Discolouration, Did It Match?
Mar 19, 2019
It seems there is widespread confusion and intentional misinformation circulating regarding Jordan Chandler’s description of discolouration on Michael Jackson’s genitalia. It is likely that you have encountered multiple pro-Jackson articles alleging that Jordan’s description was entirely inaccurate or insinuating that any correlation was a fabrication by individuals such as Thomas Sneddon and other law enforcement officers.
On September 1, 1993, Jordan verbally recounted details of discolouration on Jackson’s lower torso, buttocks, and genitals, including a specific blemish on his penis to Lauren Weis, who served as deputy of the sex crimes division of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office.
Jordan was requested to sketch a picture of Michael Jackson’s erect penis and document the location of the distinctive blemish.
It is crucial to highlight that Jordan produced a two-dimensional drawing of Jackson’s erect penis, providing a depiction that detailed the underside of Jackson’s genitalia. This aspect seems to pose a challenge for many fans who struggle to comprehend the precise definition of "erect".
Subsequently, on December 13, 1993, a warrant was secured authorizing law enforcement to capture photographs of Michael Jackson’s intimate anatomy.
The resulting photographs and description have been closely guarded by the sheriff's department, and contrary to claims on numerous fansites, they were never shared with any external party.
It is worth noting that some fans assert that Jordan’s description appeared in Victor Gutierrez's book, "Michael Jackson Was My Lover". For example, the so-called award-winning "journalist" Charles Thomson has echoed this assertion on his Twitter account, even sharing a cropped picture in support of his claims.
The truth is, I shouldn't need to confirm whether it did or didn't. The statement by Tom Sneddon affirming that it did, along with Thomas Mesereau's objection to the use of the description and photos in the 2005 trial, should be ample to persuade any objective observer, regardless of conspiracy theories.
Nevertheless, let's examine the evidence.
Originally, the prosecution under Thomas Sneddon had no plans to present Jordan’s description and the photographs of Michael Jackson’s genitalia to the jury without Jordan’s cooperation. However, as the case began to slip from their grasp, they opted to introduce it as a last-minute submission to counter assertions from the defence regarding Michael Jackson's purported shy and modest demeanour.
Thomas Sneddon stated:
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 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 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.
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 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 Defendant’s penis is substantially corroborated by the photographs taken by Santa Barbara Sheriff’s detectives at a later time.
Executed May 25, 2005, at Santa Maria, California.
Full document: sbscpublicaccess.org
Jackson’s defence team took a firm stance by vigorously opposing the inclusion of the description and photographs in the courtroom, despite the prime opportunity to highlight any discrepancies or a complete mismatch.
Jackson’s defence:
"The District Attorney is trying to do everything he can to keep the jurors from walking into the deliberation room with the facts of this case and the Arvizo family's credibility on their minds. The motion is devoid of legal merit, and, in fact, if granted, would result in a reversible violation of Mr. Jackson's confrontation rights. Even if there were some factual or legal basis to admit this evidence, it is improper rebuttal and would have to be excluded under Evidence Code Section 352."
"For the reasons stated below, the Court should not only deny the prosecution's motion but take whatever action it deems to be appropriate."
Full document: sbscpublicaccess.org
During the legal discussions and correspondence with Judge Melville, Thomas Mesereau was corrected by both Ron Zonen and the judge when he asserted that Jordan’s description was hearsay.
Read the document here.
The judge rejected Jordan's description and the accompanying photographs because the defence effectively argued that, under Californian law, neither party is permitted to introduce sensational evidence at the conclusion of a trial.
In 2005, Ron Zonen, the trusted associate of Tom Sneddon, expressed unwavering confidence in Jordan's description and the accompanying photographs. This conviction was well-documented in the correspondence exchanged between the judge and Michael Jackson's defence team. Fast forward to the present day, and Ron's faith in the accuracy of Jordan's account remains steadfast. In the compelling documentary "The Real Michael Jackson" by Jacques Peretti, which premiered on the BBC in March 2020, Ron once again emphasizes the precision of Jordan's description. He goes so far as to label it "remarkable cooperative evidence".
Watch the segment below.
Lauren Weis held the position of deputy in the sex crimes division of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office from 1979 to 2002, followed by her appointment as a Superior Court judge in Los Angeles. During her tenure, Jordan provided a description of Michael Jackson's genitalia under her supervision, a description that would later be compared to photographs.
In Telephone Stories podcast, she proceeded to state:
"Correct. Not just the genitalia, but a particular mark on the underside of his penis, which the victim described… and we had information that that Michael had always maintained that he was never seen naked in front of any of these children."
Listen to the audio below.
Bill Dworin, one of the primary investigators from the LAPD, boasts a wealth of experience investigating thousands of sex crime cases throughout his distinguished career.
In the documentary "Michael Jackson and the Boy He Paid Off," he shared the following:
"He [Jordy Chandler] described Jackson's 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."
Watch the segment below.
In a 2003 interview with nbcnews.com, Bill Dworin once more reaffirmed to Josh Mankiewicz that Jordan Chandler's description indeed aligned with the photographs of Michael Jackson's genitalia. Here is an extract from the interview:
"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.”
Source: www.nbcnews.com
Dr. Richard Strick, representing the local authorities during the documentation of Michael Jackson's genitalia, observed, "the genitalia was very oddly coloured with dark skin and light skin." Subsequently, he received confirmation that the boy's description unequivocally aligned with the photographs taken. It's worth noting that this validation did not come from an unreliable source.
Watch the Fox News segment below.
Although Dr. Richard Strick never directly viewed Jordan's description, his perspective is noteworthy as an individual outside of the so-called "crooked" law enforcement circle. Dr. Strick personally witnessed discoloration on Michael Jackson's genitalia and lower torso, a detail that aligned with Jordan's account.
In a 1995 interview with Diana Sawyer, Michael Jackson was questioned about Jordan Chandler's description and the photographs taken by the local authorities. Rather than issuing a straightforward response, he embarked on a disjointed explanation, denying any connection and asserting that there was nothing linking him to the charges. When directly asked about any markings on his genitals, he categorically stated there were none, going as far as to claim that he wouldn't be partaking in the interview if such markings existed.
Here is 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 the segment below.
Dr. Strick's statement, at a minimum, confirms that in 1995, Jackson was audacious enough to not only openly propagate falsehoods on national television but also endeavoured to sway millions of viewers into doubting Jordan's credibility and the accuracy of the police's information regarding the description.
Numerous myths propagated by Jackson truthers seek to discredit the accuracy of Jordan's description. One prevalent myth suggests that Jordan described Jackson as circumcised, contrary to the findings of the autopsy. This claim appears to have originated from Victor Gutierrez's book and an article dating back over a decade from the Smoking Gun website. The truth remains unknown to everyone except the police, as to whether Jackson being circumcised or uncircumcised was part of the description. There is no indication within Tom Sneddon's declaration or in law enforcement interviews that this detail was included.
Furthermore, Jackson apologists have resorted to disseminating misinformation on Wikipedia regarding this specific claim.
Here is a direct quote:
"In March 1994, Jackson's mother Katherine was called to testify in front of the LA County Grand Jury. Investigators asked whether her son had altered the appearance of his genitalia. Jordan claimed that Jackson was circumcised. However, Jackson's autopsy report showed that he had not been circumcised and his foreskin appeared intact, with no signs of surgical restoration."
The autopsy report regarding Jackson's genitalia does not contain any reference to "surgical restoration." In fact, the report was remarkably vague, simply stating that his penis "appears" uncircumcised.
This could be interpreted as an acknowledgment, that Jackson had a tight or unusual foreskin, or that his penis had retracted due to the post-mortem condition, which is not surprising for a lifeless body.
It's also worth noting that Jordan was asked to depict Jackson's "erect" penis, specifically the underside, which would have only been visible if Jackson was sexually aroused. The physiological transformation of an uncircumcised penis when aroused is well known.
In any case, it remains purely speculative to assert whether Jordan's description in this regard was accurate or erroneous.
The belief that Michael Jackson would have faced immediate arrest if Jordan Chandler's description had matched the photographs lacks substantial evidence. There is no explicit mandate in the police manual that dictates a matching description of a person's private parts, accused of sexual assault, as an instant arrestable offense with no room for discretion.
Considering Jackson's formidable legal defence, led by the renowned Johnnie Cochran, it is reasonable to assume that they were well-versed in the intricate nuances of the law. However, they chose not to capitalise on the police’s failure to arrest Jackson after the photographs were taken, developed and analysed, but instead advised him to pursue a quick settlement, reportedly exceeding 15 million dollars.
Strange, right?
It is imperative to recognize that the purpose of the strip search extended beyond the prospect of immediate arrest and charges against Jackson. Rather, it was conducted to bolster the credibility of Jordan's allegations in an ongoing and complex case.
Michael Jackson's physical appearance underwent significant changes throughout the 1980s and onward, notably his skin colour. It is widely acknowledged that Jackson suffered from vitiligo, a condition characterized by the loss of skin colour in patches. However, the precise cause of this condition, whether it was a result of skin bleaching, a natural occurrence, or a combination of both, remains a topic of debate and speculation.
Photographs of Jackson from the 1980s and 1990s reveal a slightly blotchy complexion, a visual manifestation of the vitiligo he grappled with. Moreover, it is a matter of public knowledge that Jackson had a Jacuzzi in his private quarters, and as attested by Wade Robson and his sister, Jackson would engage in semi-naked bathing activities.
Q. Do you recall what Mr. Jackson was wearing in the Jacuzzi?
A. From my recollection, he was wearing shorts. You know, like swimming shorts. And that was it.
It is highly probable that Jordan Chandler, as a close acquaintance of Michael Jackson, was indeed aware of his uneven skin tone. However, speculating that he could accurately infer details about Jackson's genitalia based on this awareness would be a stretch.
In the context of the narrative that Jordan's father, Evan Chandler, was allegedly attempting to extort Jackson, it appears unlikely that an individual seeking financial gain would jeopardize their prospects by taking a stab at describing Jackson's genitalia, even if it were an educated guess.
According to Tom Sneddon's declaration, Jordan purportedly described several areas of discoloration on his lower torso and buttocks, with particular emphasis placed on the singular dark mark on the underside of Jackson's penis. This detail was deemed exceedingly unique, visible only under specific circumstances when Jackson was unclothed and likely aroused.
Deputy District Attorney Lauren Weis asserted that there was information indicating that Michael Jackson had never inadvertently exposed his naked body to children, let alone the underside of his penis.
Adding to the complexity of the situation, Michael Jackson and numerous fans maintained that there were no markings on his genitalia. This contradiction raises challenging questions: Do supporters of Jackson believe that he lied about the absence of marks, while Jordan's description of discoloration was accurate but not entirely aligned? Or do they seek to construct alternative theories to explain these discrepancies?
I’ve only included this truther theory for its entertainment merit, rather than its factual accuracy.
Twitter user @AnnieIsNotFkOk and their friend @RaspberryR3d engaged in a "game" where they drew up to 10 marks on a "mushroom". Upon comparing their respective drawings, they noted a strikingly strong, if not nearly identical match, purportedly demonstrating "how Sneddon got away with it."
@AnnieIsNotFkOk, posits a belief that Jordan drew multiple marks on the shaft of Jackson's penis, and suggests that Tom Sneddon was able to discern a match through a process of elimination, subsequently stating that it was in the same "relative location" in his declaration.
It's worth noting that while Jordan did describe discolouration on his "lower torso, buttocks and genitals, including a particular blemish on his penis," only the dark blemish on his penis was the focus of the drawing request. Contrary to the claim, Jordan did not draw up to 10 marks on the underside of his penis, with only 1 out of 10 purportedly in the same relative location.
The endorsement of this theory by two individuals underscores the contentious nature of discussions within the Michael Jackson fan community and the propensity to interpret events through a conspiratorial lens.
The assessment of whether there was a match or mismatch between the description provided and the actual photos is a subject of considerable contention. Individuals closely involved in the case, who had the opportunity to inspect the photos and description first-hand, assert that there was indeed a clear alignment. Furthermore, the language utilized by Jackson's defence team in 2005 strongly suggests that they, at the very least, considered it a matter that warranted exclusion from the courtroom.
In 1993/94, Jackson's legal team also expressed concern about the description and photos. Carl Douglas, who worked alongside Johnnie Cochran, candidly referred to it as the 300-pound gorilla in the room and specifically stated the necessity to "silence" the accuser at a seminar in Los Angeles on September 15th, 2010, where he was joined by Larry Feldman and Thomas Mesereau.
Watch the Carl Douglas segment below.
The images of Jackson's genitalia seemed to be the tipping point, leading to a multimillion-dollar settlement with Jordan and his parents within a matter of weeks. This speaks volumes in and of itself.
