Anonymous asked in Entertainment & MusicCelebrities · 8 years ago

Is it true that Jordy Chandler, accurately described markings on Michael Jackson's genitalia.?

9 Answers

  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Yes absolutely here's what Thomas Sneddon had to say in a signed court document.

    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

    Also, long serving LAPD senior detective Bill Dworin confirmed in a television documentary that the photos taken of Jackson's genitalia cooperated with Jordy Chandler's drawings.

    Youtube thumbnail


    But probably the biggest giveaway that Jordy Chandler's drawings matched with the photos of Michael Jackson penis was Michael Jackson's lawyer Thomas Mesereau who fought tooth and nail to keep those photographs and drawings out of the courtroom in 2005. You would never fight tooth and nail to keep out drawings that simply did not match.

    Also people like Diane Diamond, Ray Chandler (Jordan's uncle), and Jacques Peretti have also confirmed in television documentaries that Jordan was able to accurately described Michael Jacksons penis. Now these people may have never actually seen the drawings and photographs but what is interesting is that Michael Jackson has never taken any legal action against anybody who has claimed that Jordan Chandler (just a little boy at the time) was able to accurately describe his penis.

    Now many Jacko fans claim that Jordan said Michael Jackson was circumcised. When in fact, the autopsy stated that he wasn't . This is untrue and the whole story came from the Smoking Gun website, which they lifted from Bob Jones book. The article was removed from the Smoking Gun website a long time ago proving that it was a unreliable and untrue source. To this date there is no reliable or any official source to say that Jordan Chandler said that Michael Jackson was circumcised.

    I forgot to mention Dr.Strick. He was one of the persons who was present during the examination and photographing of Jackson's genitalia. He confirmed that Jackson's genitalia was oddly coloured something Michael Jackson himself denied on the Diane Sawyer show. Michael Jackson was caught lying multiple times on that television shows. Dr.Strick also confirmed that Michael Jackson was very uncooperative and was throwing a tantrum during the whole examination making it difficult for the police to photograph his genitals.. Dr.Strick said he was later told that child's (Jordan) description absolutely matched with the photos taken.

    Youtube thumbnail

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    This Site Might Help You.


    Is it true that Jordy Chandler, accurately described markings on Michael Jackson's genitalia.?

    Source(s): true jordy chandler accurately markings michael jackson 39 genitalia:
  • 4 years ago

    Eh, NO!!

    And don't know how on earth the post on top was voted up as best. Anyone visiting here and reading both sides, the best thing to do is to go to a Website that actually has MORE than just legal documents and remarks from the actual (Of course he was going to say that WITHOUT actually having to show them) prosecuting DA. Read further information, which will give the actual background story, and THAT way, you will understand EXACTLY why and HOW the drawings did NOT actually match the photographs, It WAS also reported (Though only given a small section ) in the LA Times - with the source who reported that it didn't actually match, obviously wanting to keep their identity private because they were more than likely part of those working close to the investigation, The information also give behind the scenes DETAILS that neither media or public don't know. The details are very lengthy and detailed and a COMPLETE eye-opener. I had already thought it odd and wondered, with all the "matching" claims from prosecution, then why wasn't MJ arrested? And why did TWO grand juries in different states, basically throw it out - refusing to indict MJ? I began my research on various Websites that state it matched / didn't match, but still wondered why wasn't MJ arrested, etc. Then, I came across the following Website and for me, it all fell into place. That is just my two cents - My personal experience on my own journey of further research.

    This is by far the best and most detailed (I don't know how they are able to get a hold of / find hidden gems in so much extra legal information) Website that I have read through, and not just on this topic. Whether its before or after reading everything else, this is the Website that clarified, cleared up and sieved through everything with a fine-tooth comb, for me. It is where I finally had my *Aha* moment/s. There is a part one, but I had obviously finished the second part, so just posting where I left off.

    • AM4 years agoReport

      Sorry, that was meant to read: Reuters, USA Today (in January 1994), who reported that it did not match!

  • ament
    Lv 4
    3 years ago

    Jordy Chandler

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • bosque
    Lv 4
    3 years ago

    Michaels Chandler

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Jordan Chandler's description spoke of markings on Michael's genitals and that Michael was circumsised. We know for a fact from Michael's autopsy that MJ was NOT circumsised. So Jordan Chandler got this wrong - perhaps being a Jewish boy himself, he figured everyone is circumsised? Who knows.

    In reference to the poster above, Dr.Strick mentioned Jackson's penis being oddly colored. He never referred to distinct markings which is apparently what Jordan described.

    Also in reply to Martin, regarding DA Tom Sneddon testifying under penalty of perjury - I suggest you research into exactly what evidence was presented during the 2005 trial, in particular the falsified evidence that Sneddon attempted to place into the trial. During the grand jury hearing, Sneddon placed porn magazines into Gavin Arvizo's hands, making sure Gavin's fingerprints were on those magazines. During the trial, Sneddon once again presented these magazines, claiming that MJ showed them to Gavin to lure him and that Gavin's fingerprints being on them proved that it had happened. The problem was that the date on the magazine was long after the alledged incident took place. Hopefully that will show you exactly how unreliable Sneddon's actual words and testimony were. This was a man who would do anything to be the man who was able to put Michael Jackson in jail.

    In reference to Martin's quote:

    "I did read once that Jackson Had not been prosecuted though technically was guilty because he had paid out to settle the case."

    Michael Jackson settled the civil case. Negotiations for this had been ongoing and despite Jackson's lawyers trying to push the criminal trial to happen before the civil trial, the civil trial occurred first. The settlement documents clearly state that there was NOTHING preventing the Chandler's from pursuing criminal charges but clearly all the Chandler's wanted was money. Not justice. I would also suggest for Martin to read the full transcript of Evan Chandler's recorded phone conversations where he discusses his family and MJ - it's pretty clear that the extortion of Michael Jackson was the focal point of his plan.

    "I can't really understand why people are still prepared to buy his music and play it to children personally."

    I've said it before, I'll say it again; if you can explain how a man who had thousands of children stay at his house only has two high profile accusations levelled at him then I will definitely listen. If you can explain how when 200 computers at Neverland were taken and searched and not one shred of evidence found on them, I will gladly listen. If you can explain how the FBI conducted a ten year investigation into Michael Jackson and found not even one piece of evidence to prove he was a child molester, I will happily listen. Until you research the facts properly, do not sit there acting like you are absolutely certain Michael Jackson was a guilty man.

  • 5 years ago

    No it's not true.

    If Chandler had got it right MJ would have been arrested right after the strip search, which is why Sneddon wanted the strip search in the first place!

    The fact that he was not arrested and not charged and the photos and Chandler's drawing either were not even introduced to the grand jury or they did see them and still didn't indict MJ itself is proof that the photos and the description didn't match, regardless of what Sneddon and the media tried to sell later.

    Do you really think that Sneddon and his hentchmen who wasted millions of dollars on investigating MJ would admit that they stripped searched an innocent black man for 25 minutes?


    But it doesn't matter what Sneddon say. It's a fact that Chandler didn't know how MJ really looked.

    And his own words prove that.

    1. Chandler DID claim that MJ was circumcised.

    This was reported not only by the Smoking Gun, but also Randy Taborelli, Victor Gutierez and Diane Dimond (who hilariously claimed that Chandler was "confused" by circumcision). All of them are anti-Jackson sources, they had no reason to lie FOR MJ. Besides, if Chandler have given a description while saying nothing about the foreskin that itself would have proved that he never saw the real thing, as the foreskin or lack thereof is a pretty visible feature of any penis.

    2. Chandler also claimed in his interview with Dr. Richard Garner that he not only saw MJ naked while taking a bath but he also mastrubated him about 10 times.

    3. Chandler is Jewish and admitted to Garner that he mastrubated on his own, so he knew how a circumcised penis looked and felt. He should have known the difference if he had indeed do those things with MJ.

    4. The foreskin MOVES during mastrubation, it's impossible to miss it.

    It moves like this:

    5. The strip search revealed that MJ was NOT circumcised. This was later confirmed by the autopsy report.

    6. Following the strip search on Dec 28 Chandler's lawyer file a declaration. This no longer includes the claim that Jordan mastubate MJ.

    Guess why?

    For reasonable person this alone is proof that Chandler in fact never saw MJ's genitlia let alone mastrubate him which makes his entire molestation story bogus, if he lied about that what else was he lying about?

    But there's more problems.

    1. If Chandler had indeed seen Mj's genitalia "from every possible angle" as Ray Chandler wrote in his book

    he should have known the following details:

    - the size of the penis and the scrotum

    - the shape of the scrotum and whether one testicle was lower than the other

    - the penis/scrotum ratio, whether the penis was longer or the scrotum was longer

    - the length of the foreskin, whether the glans was fully covered, partially covered

    - the shape of the area covered with public hair

    - the skin around the genitalia

    But no report about Chandler's description mentions any of those things and Sneddon's declaration doesn't mention them either.

    The only things that these reports mention are things that could be assumed based on publicy known facts:

    that MJ was a black guy who suffered from vitiligo and who had little body hair.

    2. The Chandler like everyone else after the Oprah interview knew that MJ had vitiligo. Evan Chandler saw Mj's buttocks when he gave him some painkiller and Jordan Chandler told Pelicano that MJ once lifter his shirt to show the splotched on his back.

    They knew that his skin was splotchy and since vitiligo primarly affects the extremeties, hands feet face and genitalia they could safely assume that MJ's penis and scrotum was not one color.

    However, Tom Sneddon and Ray Chandler contradicted each other regarding what Jordan Chandler actually


    Sneddon in his 2005 declaration only mentions one mark on the right side of the penis that was "about the same relative location" where Jordan supposedly put.

    But Ray Chandler wrote that Jordan spent 2 hours describing NUMEROUS markings and he eventually got it right.

    So which is it?

    One mark or numerous marks? They can't have it both ways.

    3. Sneddon also contradicts Gary Spiegel the police photographer who said in his own declaration, according to Diane Dimond, that the mark was on the LEFT side of the penis.

    So it moved from left to the right?

    It's even funnier that Dimond wrote Spiegel didn't take a photo of that mark at all.

    4. Sneddon's "about the same relative location" is also a far cry form an "absolute match" he later claimed.

    It's also very telling that he says absolutely nothing about the circumcision issue in his declaration.

    If Chandler had got that right, namely that MJ was not circumcised, Sneddon would have used that to boost his claim that Chandler accurately described MJ's penis.

    5. Dr. Strick claimed in a FOX interview that the "genitalia was VERY ODDLY COLORED with brown skin and white skin" which is a far cry from having just one dark blemish that isn't even visible unless the penis is erect.

    MJ's penis in reality had more than one dark blemish, which is what one would except from a black vitiligo patient. Something like this:

    6. Following the strip search MJ was not only not arrested and charged with a crime but Sneddon and the police simply shut up! If it had been a match you can be sure they would have been more than happy to share that news with the press. But instead it was Reuters which reported in Jan 1994 that the photos and the description did not match. Of course the rest of the media ignored it, it didn't fit their anti-Jackson agenda:

    "An unidentified source told Reuters news service Thursday that photos

    of Michael Jackson's genitalia do not match descriptions given by the

    boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct. If so, this could

    weaken any possible criminal actions against the singer. "

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Judge for your self how he knew

    On December 20, 1993, Jackson submitted to a 25-minute strip search to determine if the description of his genitals provided by Jordan Chandler was accurate. In a 2005 court brief, Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon swore under penalty of perjury that photos from the body search "substantially corroborated" Jordan's very detailed drawing of a "dark blemish" on Jackson's penis.Dr. Richard Strick, who was present as a doctor for the State looking to verify the skin condition vitiligo allegedly on Jackson's penis that had rendered his penis "oddly colored" during the examination of Jackson's genitals, stated, "I was told later that the photos and description absolutely matched." Strick had not actually been privy to Jordan Chandler's description of Jackson's penis, which would explain why he needed to be informed on the match between the photographs and the description.

    I did read once that Jackson Had not been prosecuted though technically was guilty because he had paid out to settle the case. There are claims there were other settlements made privately too.

    I can't really understand why people are still prepared to buy his music and play it to children personally.

    • Jim5 years agoReport

      Jordan's didn't do any "very detailed drawing of a "dark blemish". He simply put a dark spot somewhere on the penis knowing that MJ had vitiligo and had splothy skin. Everyone could have done that.
      But MJ had more than one spots that's why Strick called it "very oddly colored"

  • 4 years ago

    Nope. This is an easy one to disprove. He drew a circumsized penis, his autopsy report showed he was uncircumsized. The description never matched, which is why it wasn't used as evidence in the later case (where Michael was found not guilty).

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.