September 01, 2010
JIM THOMAS, FORMER SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFF said about
the photographs of Michael Jacksons genitals and Jordan
Chandlers description of them: Well,
what I hear from my investigators from back then is that it
was almost identical. I dont know that to be a fact, because
I didnt view them. But I understand they were very consistent.
I really feel sorry for this guy Jim Thomas the Verital
Project says that the photographs of Michaels genitals
were so popular with the policemen at the time of the 1993 investigation
that almost everyone in the sheriff department saw them (including
journalist Geraldo Rivera) except the poor Santa Barbara
county sheriff who was the one who was investigating the
Ridiculous though it is, this quote made me think that many
of us still listen to Who says What about that alleged match
- while we are quite capable to do without the valuable
opinion of these people and reach for the truth all by ourselves.
The police guys can say whatever they like, but our brains are
given for us to use them and draw our own conclusions no matter
what they say. If someone TELLS us something it doesnt
necessarily mean that we should BELIEVE it. There are so many
lies around Michael Jackson that every word about him should
be checked, rechecked and double checked again - this is why
we are verifying here every little thing which is (still) available
to us on the internet. And the facts already found here show
that the so-called match Thomas was speaking
about is a LIE which doesnt have a leg to stand 0n.
Let us review all those scraps of information
we have about the so-called Jordan Chandlers description
of Michaels private parts and its two major points
Circumcision and the Color of the splotch and
ask all possible and impossible questions which may still be
open for some of us about this issue.
The information is actually very scarce as the main documents
are already missing and the scope of the disappearing
process is becoming really frightening.
1. As regards circumcision let me ask you one question first.
We know for sure that Jordan said that Michael was circumcised
and made a mistake over that crucial issue. Everyone heard Michael
being wrongly described as circumcised because back
in the 90s the media turned this absolutely intimate thing into
a major public attraction and a subject discussed in every household.
The information about it was naturally leaked by the police
themselves but the question is not about it, the question
is: Are there any documents still
left in the internet to back up Jordans words?
The documents available to us at the moment include:
- The alleged Jordans statement of December 28, 1993,
made a week after the strip search
- The so-called interview with psychiatrist Dr.Gardner,
the origin of which no one really knows except our old uncle
Ray Chandler who said that it did take place and was held in
- Tom Sneddons declaration of May 26, 2005.
However as far as I remember NONE of these documents mention
the circumcision issue as if it was never there
But ALL of us cant be crazy all at once - we DO remember
that the media screamed to everyone around about this graphic
detail as a vivid proof of alleged molestation!
Fortunately for us it was no other than Ray Chandler
who recorded Jordans words in his book All that
Glitters (and this shows that you can get help even from
the worst of haters). It is good to have it as a back up, but
the question about the documents still remains
and when could Jordan speak about that circumcision issue
if those three documents dont say a word about it?
His initial description could be recorded both in Ferrufinos
report in Los Angeles and Lindens report in
Santa Barbara, both of which are missing now.
Can we be sure that they ever existed? Of
course we can, because of the numerous traces those documents
left here and there. By the way reconstructing the original
documents via various references made to them by other sources
is an absolutely scientific method of research
historians do the same when they need to restore the content
of the missing original.
But why have those interviews disappeared? Because
they state some inconvenient information - like a mistake
in that circumcision issue and the mess-up with the color of
And what will happen if the last traces of the information vanish
too - same as that Telltale
Splotch article which is now missing from the Smoking Gun
and which incidentally also mentioned the matter of circumcision?
Well, if that happens people will forget about the circumcision
issue altogether and will start doubting whether Jordan has
ever made that crucial blunder at all
2. Some of my correspondents think
that though Jordan did say that Michael was not circumcised
the boy could mistake erection for circumcision.
Weve already discussed this porn issue in
a post dedicated to this problem and I wouldnt like
to go into too much detail now, but will add just one more thing
to what was said earlier.
Those who have seen uncircumcised men will agree with me that
there is absolutely no chance to mistake their erection for
circumcision because of the specific details discussed here.
However if someone is still doubtful let me ask them a completely
indecent question is it theoretically possible for a
woman to never see or touch her male partners genitals?
(I think yes, especially if it is night time and he uses condoms).
But is it possible to never see or touch the partners
genitals if it is males who are involved in mutual masturbation
as it was alleged by Jordan? (Ive fortunately never seen
the process it but technically speaking this seems completely
impossible to me).
So, from a theoretical and anatomical point of view, there is
some slight chance that a woman may be mistaken
in her partner being circumcised or non-circumcised, while a
male involved in a sexual play with another male will never
be mistaken about a thing like that, wont he? So for someone
who allegedly spent a long time masturbating the other it would
be completely impossible not to know whether he was circumcised
or not? Especially since the uncircumcised foreskin moves
in the process (I am saying it just in case someone doesnt
know it) - so that you not only see the difference but
can feel it too? And especially if you, as a Jewish teenager,
are surely circumcised and really know what circumcision
looks like from your own personal experience?
3. I hope that now we are more or less
finished with this porn issue and can handle the next question
at last which is Michaels vitiligo.
Somebody asked me how Jordan could describe Michael as having
splotches all over his body if he never saw him naked?
Easily, as in February the same 1993 year Michael disclosed
to the whole world that he had vitiligo and one look at him
during the interview and another look into an encyclopedia would
provide to anyone interested in the subject a wealth of information
about vitiligo and Michaels variant of the disease
which was a universal type affecting more than 50%
of his body.
Jordan surely knew about Michaels disease as he told Pellicano
that Michael had once lifted his shirt to show him the blotches
on his skin (see Jordans conversation with Pellicano described
Campbells book, p.53 ). And he surely saw him naked,
same as the staff of the Mirage hotel in Las Vegas, where the
Chandlers stayed together with Michael and Jordan spent his
time with Michael swimming in a pool with dolphins so
it was absolutely no problem for both Jordan and other onlookers
to obtain first-hand information about Michaels vitiligo
(as well as imagine what his private parts could look like).
QUOTE: Jackson and Jordan swam with dolphins in the hotels
marine centre and dined at the Mirages fancy Chinese restaurant.
They talked in whispers and laughed like a father and
son, said waiter Chad Jahn, who served them(the
South China Morning Post).
4. Okay, so Michael had vitiligo which
was confirmed by the autopsy report too. But did he use depigmenation
therapy for his skin? Of course he did depigmentation
is the last resort method for masking the extensive type of
vitiligo Michael had: Medline
Depigmentation is recommended exactly for the universal
type of vitiligo patients in order to even out the color and
make it more uniform which in case of a black man is
easier said than done, I would imagine. Look at the exposed
parts of Michaels body which are evidently not only ligtened
but are covered with some make up too and make sure that all
the spots are still there for everyone to see and notice
them in spite of all the effort.
Depigmentation is described in medical manuals for vitiligo
patients as a rather painful procedure requiring application
of special medication on a regular basis with the first results
being seen in several months only. It involves burns and reddening
of the skin (which turns pink first) which later subdues to
a more or less natural color.
Could Michael even out the color of his genitals? Ive
been told that Dr. Klein said Michael tried a bleaching
cream there too, was burned and was treated by Debbie
Rowe. Okay, why couldnt he try it once? If everywhere
else your skin is more or less even why should all those disgusting
patches remain there? ( I would try it if I were him).
However is a person likely to do it again if he tried
it once and was burned to a point of having to seek medical
help for it? This I doubt very much indeed as bleaching
ones genitals should be a terribly painful process and
it will definitely not allow any such things as masturbation
so masterfully described in Jordans declaration
and interview to take place at all. Moreover, if Dr.
Klein did really say that sometime in April or May 1993 (when
the relationship was in full swing) Michael tried
this medication on his genitals, was burned and had to be treated
for it this fact alone will mean that he could not
be involved in any sexual games described in all those fiction
stories and in such colorful detail too.
5. Now let us suppose that Michael did lighten the skin of his
private parts. Was it possible for
him to change within several months a light splotch which
is the color of his face into a dark spot
? A light one turning into a dark one? Exactly in
The problem is, the light splotch which is the color
of his face description, evidently stated in Lindens
or Ferrufinos report, dates back to May 1993 and the dark
spot comes several months later, in December 1993 and
is found in Tom Sneddons declaration of 2005 where he
describes Michaels private parts on the basis of the pictures
taken in 1993. Thus a white slotch turned into a dark spot
interesting change in color, isnt it?
Ive already spoken about this in one of the comments,
but will repeat it here to make the story complete:
Why are some of you so confused with this bleaching-the-skin
issue? To me the number of spots or application of a depigmentation
cream does NOT change anything at all.
When you look at Michael during the February 1993 interview
with Oprah Winfrey you see that he was more white than black
at the time. It would be natural to assume that he had a great
many dark small spots all over his body which means that the
pattern should be the same in his genitalia too and that
is why any of us would be able to describe his genitals
pretty accurately (I would say they were white with many darks
The police knew it and evidently asked for some particular
mark. Jordan made a guess that there one distinct splotch which
was bigger than the rest (a very safe guess I would say).
BUT the crucial mistake he made was the color of that distinctive
splotch he said it was light (the color of his face)
meaning that the general background was dark. Which means
that Jordan was essentially speaking of a black man with
one light splotch, while the pictures showed that his private
parts were mostly white with a distinctive dark spot
Can you change the background from dark into white? Even if
you use all the bleaching creams that money can buy you cannot
change BLACK skin into milky-white the only thing you
can do is lighten the color into a lighter shade. Thus black
will turn into brown, or brown will turn into
light-brown but it wont change the overall
pattern of the picture. Yes, the PATTERN will remain the
same it will only become less vivid and more subdued,
but essentially the same.
Imagine you have a black curtain with white splotches on it
(of a cow-skin type) and the sun bleaches it into a lighter
color will the pattern of splotches change because of
that? Absolutely not it is only the background which
will become slightly lighter and THAT IS ALL.
Is it possible to bleach black skin into a milky white so that
the background is changed? Absolutely not! Moreover, it is impossible
to bleach white skin into the color of vitiligo blotches either
because vitiligo skin is unnaturally white it
loses ALL its pigment and turns into the color of milk or porcelain.
Even white people cannot reach the desired effect, not to mention
black ones! Ive seen white people with vitiligo and must
assure you that the impression is rather painful because it
looks like pieces of white paper put all over their hands, face
For the past decade new methods have been developed for regaining
the skin pigment. They work best for the face and were not known
back in the 90s
But with black people the effect should be really dramatic
I cant even imagine what an awful contrast it should
make for them. Even after all possible and impossible bleaching
the most result they can achieve is reaching a condition
where a white person with vitiligo only starts
which is also so noticeable that everyone stares.
What I mean to say is that it does NOT matter whether Michael
did or did not bleach his skin or even genitals
(if he could survive the pain of it). The only result he
could reach was getting from a dramatic zebra into a
subdued one, with all its stripes remaining it their
However if we believe Tom Sneddons story it wasnt
only Michaels dark background which was to change into
its opposite color, but the distinctive white vitiligo splotch
was to turn into its opposite too
. Let us be serious
and ask a question: Was it possible for a white vitiligo splotch
become dark with the dark background simultaneously changing
into white? Back in the 90s?
I specially looked up the new methods of treating vitiligo and
found that within the past 10 years some ultraviolet methods
of tanning the skin back into its dark color have become possible,
however they dont work with all patients, take indefinite
time, have unpredictable results (they prove best for the face)
. and were first developed not earlier than in 1997: The
Methods employed in 2010: Mayo
In short if Tom Sneddon said that there was a dark spot standing
out on the light background, so it WAS dark and any white
splotch which is the color of his face described by Jordan
is a laughable MISMATCH which makes the picture of a
terrible lie told by the Chandlers clear to us as black and
6. To close this genitalia issue today let
me produce to you a drawing of MJ genitals allegedly made by
Click on the image to enlarge
It is found in Victor Gutierrezs book and is also cited
by Ray Chandler as a drawing allegedly describing MJs
private parts which was supposedly made by Jordan for
his father in October 1993.
The picture itself does not resemble anything similar to a males
genitals or it may have been drawn in this unskillful manner
in order to intentionally look like a picture made by a child.
Please pay attention to the handwriting it is
not slanted and all its letters are uneven. The square on the
right features the words my theory which makes you think
that the person drawing the picture was not sure of what
he was writing about.
In general the picture raises too many questions, especially
since the handwriting in this drawing is drastically different
from the one which is supposed to be Jordans in his Declaration
of December 28, 1993 (provided below).
Let me ask you a question please. If this picture was indeed
drawn by Jordan Chandler and this is the boys handwriting
WHO signed the so-called Jordans
Look at how slanted and even this handwriting is!
Click on the image to enlarge
Isnt it a bit too much to have
two diffirent types of handwriting for one and the same
Given that the picture is provided by a seasoned liar Victor
Gutierrez and reproduced by our old friend Ray Chandler it is
easy to assume that it is the drawing which is falsified
however if we think that the drawing is genuine then
it is the Declaration of Jordan which is a fake. So whichever
way you look at these papers at least one of them should be
falsified. Or probably both of them are?
Now that youve seen all those discrepancies with your
own eyes DO YOU KNOW what to answer those who say about the
drawing and the photographs that they were very consistent
or even identical though these guys didnt
see the pictures themselves and didnt know
that to be a fact?
Thank you Helena for your generosity
sharing your investigation!