The description was NOT a match.
Did Jordan Chandler’s description of Michael Jackson’s penis match the photographs taken of the star’s genitalia by the police?
Posted on
December 26, 2016by
jacksonallegations
On December 20, 1993 Michael Jackson was subjected to a humiliating strip search in which his genitalia and buttocks were photographed and videofilmed. Authorities wanted to compare the photos with the descriptions his accuser, Jordan Chandler gave to the police in order to prove his allegations regarding alleged acts of molestation by Michael Jackson.
Later District Attorney Thomas Sneddon claimed that Jordan’s description was a match. On May 25 2005, about a week before the end of Michael Jackson’s four month long trial, Sneddon attempted to introduce Jordan Chandler’s description and drawing as well as the photographs of Jackson’s genitalia. In the Motion Sneddon claimed:
“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 have 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.”
[…]
“Jordan Chandler’s knowledge on December 1, 1993 is relevant because it could only have been acquired in the course of a close and intimate relationship with Defendant.” [1]
This one mark is all Sneddon’s motion mentions – nothing about any other features in either Jordan’s description or on the photos. It is because out of the whole description he could find only one mark as “matching” (according to his own assessment at least) and even that only as being “about” and “relatively” at the same location?
In the same declaration Sneddon stated that his assessments and conclusions are based on his belief:
“I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct except for those statements made on information and belief, and to those statements, I believe them to be true.” [1]
The timing of Sneddon’s move – it seemed to have been a last minute, desperate attempt to try to prejudice the jury after both the Arvizo case and the “prior bad acts” case against Jackson fell apart – and the fact that Jordan Chandler refused to testify in 2005, so he could not be cross-examined, made it very unlikely that Judge Rodney Melville would allow the introduction of this material, and indeed he did not.
Initial media reports after the 1993 strip search (for example, Reuters, USA Today in January 1994), citing law enforcement sources, stated that the boy’s description
did not match the photographs taken of Jackson’s genitalia. The claim that the photos matched the description spread through the media only later – particularly after an interview Sneddon gave to
Vanity Fair’s Maureen Orth in September 1995 where he claimed the photographs matched Jordan’s description [2].
Interestingly, Dr. Richard Strick, the doctor who was present at the strip search from the authorities’ side, indicated in an interview with Fox News in October 2009 that he did not come to a conclusion on his own, but rather someone else told him later that it was a match.
“The genitalia were very oddly colored with dark skin and light skin and
I was told later that the deposition and the photos that were taken absolutely matched what the child had described” [3].
(Emphasis added.)
Based on his statement it seems Dr. Strick did not actually see Jordan’s description and drawing; he was only told that there was a match. This is odd; as a medical professional, hired by the authorities to be present at the strip search, one would expect that he would have been asked to make the determination. It is unknown who told Dr. Strick that there was a match but all claims of this nature seem to point to Sneddon as a source. Sneddon, however, cannot be considered an unbiased source given his decade long malice against Jackson. At Jackson’s 2005 trial, for example, he made many claims in his motions which then were proven to be false on the stand – often by his own witnesses. Sneddon’s motions were often clearly deceptive.
Putting aside why Dr. Strick was not involved in making a determination and who exactly later told him that the description was a match, the fact that Jackson was not arrested after the strip search and indicted by any of the two Grand Juries which were convened against him, indicates that, despite Sneddon’s claims, there was no match.
There are further indications that there was no match. In early January 1994, Larry Feldman, the civil attorney representing Jordan Chandler, filed a motion with the Civil Court that contained a “multiple choice request”. On January 5, 1994 the Los Angeles Times reported:
“Feldman said he filed a motion in court that is a “multiple choice” request: Jackson may provide copies of the police photographs, submit to a second search,
or the court may bar the photographs from the civil trial as evidence.” [4]
(Emphasis added.)
So Jordan Chandler’s attorney sought to get the photographs barred from the civil trial as evidence. Feldman said he filed the motion because both Jackson’s attorneys and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office refused to give him copies of the photographs. However, it is a logical expectation that if Feldman was certain that his client was telling the truth then he would have been certain that the photographs would support and not harm his case. Instead of giving the option of barring the photographs from the court, if Feldman was confident in his client’s story, he should have fought to have them introduced.
This action refutes the notion that Jackson settled the civil case out of court with the Chandlers because the photographs matched Jordan’s description. In actuality, Jordan Chandler’s attorney requested that the photographs be barred from the civil court.
Another indication that the Jordan Chandler description and photographs were a mismatch rather than a match is the fact that when Michael Jackson’s mother, Katherine Jackson was called to testify in front of the Los Angeles County Grand Jury in the spring of 1994, investigators sought information from her as to whether her son had altered the appearance of his genitalia. On March 16, 1994 the Los Angeles Times wrote:
“Jackson’s mother has frequently given interviews and made public appearances to defend her son, but a source close to the investigation said she may be questioned about Jackson’s physical appearance. Investigators have been attempting to determine whether Jackson has done anything to alter his appearance so that
it does not match a description provided to them by the alleged victim, who turned 14 in January.” [5]
(Emphasis added.)
Shortly before Jackson’s trial in 2005, on January 6, 2005 The Smoking Gun website, which seemed to be close to the prosecution (they reference claims in supposedly sealed prosecution documents – and that always with a pro-prosecution bias), published an article in which they claimed to have reviewed an affidavit by former Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department Deputy Deborah Linden, which
“was filed in 1993 to secure court permission to photograph Jackson’s private parts” [6].
According to the article, based on Linden’s affidavit:
“With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson’s below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive “splotches” on his buttocks and one on his penis, “which is a light color similar to the color of his face.” The boy’s information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson’s penis was erect, the length of the performer’s pubic hair, and that he was circumcised.” [6]
If this is indeed what Jordan said, then his description may have been
“precise” (as in detailed), but it certainly was not accurate.
We know by now for a fact that Jackson was not circumcised as per his autopsy, released in early 2010 [7]. However, it makes sense that if someone were trying to guess whether a particular American male was circumcised or uncircumcised, the more likely option would be “circumcised”, since the majority of American men are, regardless of religion, especially in older generations, like Jackson who was born in the 1950s [8]. It is also worth noting that Jordan’s father Evan Chandler was Jewish and Jordan himself is most likely circumcised. Michael Jackson, however, was not. (After Jackson’s autopsy was published this article was deleted from The Smoking Gun website’s archives, but it still can be found on the Wayback Machine website which is specialized in archiving old websites and Internet articles.)
Some pro-prosecution journalists tried to excuse Jordan’s failure to accurately describe Jackson’s penis by suggesting that perhaps Jordan did not notice the difference between a fully erect uncircumcised penis and a circumcised one. However, the allegations of Jordan Chandler describe not only one occasion of alleged molestation where he fleetingly saw Jackson’s penis, but a very intense series of sexual contacts, seeing each other naked many times (including in the bath), many masturbation sessions in front of each other, and he also alleged that he had to masturbate Jackson approximately ten times [13]. Jordan’s uncle, Ray Chandler claims in his book,
All That Glitters, that his nephew saw Jackson’s genitalia many times,
“from every possible angle”:
“The problem was not Jordie’s memory: he had seen Michael’s genitalia so many times and from every possible angle that he had a precise mental picture. The problem was trying to explain the details.” [9; page 210]
If this was true, then Jordan certainly would have been able to tell that Jackson was uncircumcised, but he got the description wrong.
It has to be noted that Jordan apparently gave two descriptions. Sneddon’s Motion is confusing on this issue because although it refers to two dates for the description (September 1 and December 1), it does not explicitly state that there were two descriptions. However, Ray Chandler’s book,
All That Glitters, states that there was one description given in September to the DA (more precisely, based on Sneddon’s Motion, to Los Angeles District Attorney Deputy, Lauren Weis) and one in December in the office of Larry Feldman, Jordan Chandler’s civil attorney. In this regard, Ray Chandler claims in his book in the chapter entitled “December 14″:
“It took several hours for Jordie to provide a description that Feldman could understand. There were numerous distinctive markings and discolorations on Michael’s privates, and it was difficult for the boy to explain exactly where they were located, what size they were, and what shape they took.
The problem was not Jordie’s memory: he had seen Michael’s genitalia so many times and from every possible angle that he had a precise mental picture. The problem was trying to explain the details. But they pressed on and
eventually arrived at a description that turned out to be an accurate match to the photographs taken by the Santa Barbara authorities a few days later.” [9; page 210]
( Emphasis added.)
Notice how Ray Chandler talks about
“numerous distinctive markings and discolorations” that Jordan described, but in Sneddon’s 2005 motion Sneddon pointed out only one as, according to his own assessment, being
“at about the same relative location” as where Jordan put a marking on his drawing. Whatever happened to the rest of the description?
Like many others, Ray Chandler too references Maureen Orth’s above mentioned 1995 interview with Sneddon, and as such Sneddon himself as the source of the claim that the description they
“eventually arrived at” was accurate. Neither Sneddon’s Motion or Ray Chandler’s book explains why a second description was needed and if there are differences between the two. It has to be noted that between September and December, on November 26, the offices of Jackson’s dermatologist, Dr. Arnold Klein and plastic surgeon, Dr. Steve Hoefflin were raided by the police and they confiscated medical records of the star.
Jordan Chandler’s description and drawing was no more than an educated guess. Educated because he and his family knew that Jackson suffered from the skin disease, vitiligo. The entertainer announced that to the world in February, 1993 in an interview conducted by Oprah Winfrey. One of the areas vitiligo affects the most is the genital area [10]. All of the Chandlers could also see discoloration on Jackson’s arms, hands and face.
Michael Jackson’s vitiligo and how it looked was no secret to those who were around him
