The story of The Telltale Splotch missing from
the Smoking Gun
by Helena on vindicatemj.wordpress.com
August 21th, 2010
The article called The Telltale splotch has
suddenly vanished from the Smoking gun pages.
The article was my main reference source for the so-called
Linden report (I bet youve never heard about it),
so its disappearance put me very much on the alert.
The Smoking Gun published it as part of a package of
horrifically slanderous articles on the 2005 trial but the article
in question dwelt on something different - it referred
to the 1993 case and in particular to a certain splotch
which was allegedly seen by Jordan Chandler on Michaels
private parts and described by him as the color similar
to the color of his face (I dealt with Jordans
description in three parts of All you wanted to know
about it but were afraid to ask post and wont
discuss it here).
Quote from the Smoking Gun:
With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing
his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jacksons 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 boys
information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch
fell while Jacksons penis was erect, the length of the
performers pubic hair, and that he was circumcised.
This remarkable statement was allegedly fixed in the report
made by Santa Barbara Sheriffs Deputy Deborah Linden
which is usually described in the media as the Linden affidavit
(not to be confused with Jordans declaration of Dec.28,1993!).
The Linden document must be such a terrible secret that no
one has ever seen it, though those who talk about it are
Lindens report was the legal basis for issuing a warrant
for Michael Jacksons strip search. The idea of it
was to compare the description given by Jordan with the photographs
which were taken of Michael Jacksons genitals during a
humiliating and totally degrading procedure arranged on December
20, 1993 (as a Christmas present for him?).
To add to the humiliation of the intimate examination which
takes place only in prisons or with those who are arrested
or detained on charges of sexual abuse (which was absolutely
not Michaels case as no criminal charges
were brought against him), Michael Jackson was asked to adjust
his private parts so that the audience could see the splotch
the boy allegedly described as being somewhere there on
A week after the examination the police were still completely
dumbfounded by the discovery that Michael Jackson was not
circumcised (while Jordan Chandler said he was) and
other inconsistencies between the description and the photographs,
and were evidently not ready to make any official statement
to that effect - though they did venture some talk about the
pictures not taken properly because there was no flash,
no film, no camera or whatever other equipment they forgot to
take to that notable examination.
In the absence of any clear comments from the police the Chandlers
had to fill the awkward silence with something substantial
and as a preventive measure against any possible embarrassing
questions presented to the public a Declaration in Jordans
name (December 28, 1993)
which, instead of giving any news about the genitals issue,
spoke of Jordan-Michaels relationship in most
graphic detail and no uncertain terms.
However the pictures were still not giving the Chandlers a moment
of quiet and a week later, on January
5, 1994 the Chandlers lawyer Larry Feldman
suddenly demanded that:
1) a copy of the photographs taken during the strip search
should be provided to the Chandlers,
2) another photo session should be arranged for Michael Jacksons
3) or he would motion for the court to bar the photographs from
the civil trial as evidence altogether.
THE METROPOLITAN DIGEST in their LOS ANGELES COUNTY NEWS IN
BRIEF column reported in this connection:
Boys Lawyer Seeks Photos of Michael Jacksons Body
Metropolitan Digest / LOS ANGELES COUNTY NEWS IN BRIEF
January 05, 1994
The attorney representing a 13-year-old boy who claims he was
molested by Michael Jackson filed court documents Tuesday in
an effort to obtain photographs of the entertainers body.
Last month, Jackson submitted to a body search by investigators
seeking evidence to corroborate the boys claims.
We think that the fact that my client can establish what
Mr. Jackson looks like naked is very substantial evidence of
Mr. Jacksons guilt, said Larry Feldman, the boys
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.
Feldman said he has asked Jacksons attorneys and the Los
Angeles County district attorneys office for copies, but
they refused. Los
The reason for such an expected move from the Chandlers
only two weeks after taking the pictures was undisclosed by
the attorney. But now that the news about Larry Feldmans
move became known to us (only recently) any person who is capable
of putting two and two together will realize that the urgency
of the motion and the threat to bar the pictures from the
civil trial can speak ONLY to the fact that the pictures were
NOT to the police or Chandlers liking and were a glaring
disparity from the real thing.
Hence the ULTIMATUM from the Chandlers lawyer:
- you either show us the pictures to correct our story accordingly,
- or we bar them from use during the civil trial as they
will disprove our lies there.
It is no wonder that the events that immediately followed included
a sudden drop by the Chandlers of all charges of sexual abuse
by Jackson and a financial agreement with Jackson sought and
However the matter of the pictures taken in December 1993
was not forgotten.
When new allegations were made against Jackson some ten
years later the so-called Linden affidavit, the ensuing
strip search and the resulting photos surfaced again. Since
this is exactly the time period when the Smoking Gun article
(the one which disappeared) was written, let us have a closer
look at its text.
Besides the facts already mentioned above, the article
refers to the affidavit made on
May 26, 2005 by Tom Snedddon who is quoted
Chandlers pre-search description
(and a drawing) corroborated photos taken of Jackson
and observations made by officers who examined the body of evidence.
In light of Sneddons proclivity for hardball tactics,
perhaps it shouldnt be a surprise if he tries to have
those old images finally admitted into evidence.
This last remark clearly identifies the time when the
article was written the Arvizo case was in full swing,
Tom Sneddon had already made his declaration and was thinking
of introducing the pictures as evidence of previous molestation.
And now that the time of the article is more or less clear and
weve made sure that the 1993 case is presented there in
the usual for the Smoking Gun outrageous way,
only one question remains unanswered:
WHAT is WRONG with the article and
WHY has it DISAPPEARED?
1) Its first wrong is in its reference to a light splotch
of a color similar to his face which is completely AT
VARIANCE with Tom Sneddons declaration also mentioned
in the article.
The problem is that in his declaration dated May 26, 2005 Thomas
W. Sneddon. Jr. said under oath that:
Point 5: ... I have examined
the drawing made by Jordan Chandler at Detective Ferrufinos
request and the photographs taken of Defendants genitalia.
The photographs reveal a mark on the right side of Defendants
penis at about the same relative location as the dark
blemish located by Jordan Chandler on his drawing of Defendants
So besides showing that it was not a DOCTOR as a neutral party,
but PROSECUTOR Tom Sneddon who made the determination (whether
there was a match) this remarkable document also shows to us
that the Prosecutor found at about the same relative location
a DARK blemish - which as you understand has nothing
to do with the splotch of a light color similar to
his face described by Jordan in his interview with
Which in its turn shows to all attentive readers that the difference
in the description was not only in the crucial circumcision
or NON-circumcision issue, but in the COLOR of the splotch as
well as the overall color of Michaels private parts
a DARK blemish can be found only on a LIGHT background (and
Which in its turn shows that Jordan was speaking of a BLACK
and CIRCUMCISED man while the pictures to which Tom Sneddon
was referring demonstrated that Michael was NON-circumcised
and WHITE in that part of his body
So Jordan did lie about Michael, because if this
is supposed to be a match, the whole of the Smoking
stuff involved in writing that article or the prosecutor arriving
at such a conclusion should be dismissed for complete inability
to tell white from black, or a lie from the truth which is an
essential thing for every journalist, prosecutor or any human
being at all.
2) The second obvious reason why the article disappeared
from the public view is its reference to the Linden report
where Jordans lie was recorded.
The only information we have about the report is what this
particular Smoking Gun article told us about it. The only other
piece of information available on the internet was provided
immediately after the events, in 1994, when Lisa Campbell
published her book The King of Pops Darkest Hour
which said on p. 209 regarding Lindens report:
King of Pop's Darkest Hour
On March 22, 1994, a hearing
was held concerning the request of Michaels attorneys
for the return of the photos taken during the body search. They
also asked for a full copy of the affidavit used to obtain the
warrant on Michael Jacksons body. His attorneys had previously
been given a readapted version, with portions of the affidavit
blocked out. A decision on the matter was postponed until April
11. Meanwhile the photos were being held in a safe deposit box
in a Santa Barbara bank. Two signatures of high ranking officials
were required to remove the photos. The request was denied.
A renewed request for the return of the photos was made by Michaels
lawyers on May 10 . They argued the body search was unconstitutional
and that it made Michael hysterical. Thomas Sneddon argued that
Michael was not naked during the search, that he wore swimming
trunks and two robes and that the search was done in sections,
as if it made some difference. Super Court Judge James Slater
postponed any decision until later.
So in addition to some details about that horrific procedure
and photos we have just learned that the affidavit from Deborah
Linden was so secret that even Michaels lawyers didnt
see it in full not to mention us, poor laymen.
And now that the Smoking Gun article has disappeared from public
view the matter of Lindens affidavit is apparently meant
to be buried for good and never to be remembered again.
Somebody wants us to forget that Lindens affidavit
recorded something completely different from what was
later said by the police and therefore testified vividly to
Jordan telling lies about Jackson
3) But the mystery of the Smoking gun article will be incomplete
if we dont pay attention to its DATE.
The date of the article is January
6 just January 6 with no mention
of the year of it. Since the year was needed for the
purposes of archiving the catched copy of the article I made
a couple of chronological calculations which astonished me to
their very extreme:
The article refers to Tom Sneddons declaration which was
made on May 26, 2005. This
should be some three weeks before the end of the trial, which
explains why Tom Sneddon wanted to use the pictures at all (they
were his last hope). Let us remember this date.
So the article should be dated January
6, 2006 since it is written after Tom Sneddons
declaration however the year 2006 is impossible
as it speaks of the trial being still in full swing and
is debating whether Tom Sneddon will or will not use the pictures
as the evidence there.
So it means that either the article was written much later
(already after Michaels acquittal) or Tom Sneddon spoke
of the intention to make a written declaration about the dark
color of the splotch before (in the winter of 2005),
and when writing his article the author just didnt
notice that by then the story of the police was already
drastically different from what Jordan said at the very
beginning to Deborah Linden and whose words he is quoting in
such a naive manner.
In short NOTHING adds up in this article. This is what happens
when you have to do with LIES no matter how hard you
try there will always be a way in which they will give themselves
Now I undersand why the Smoking Gun is so shy about this article
as their contribution into history and has a desire to burn
it in order to hide some of its most ambiguous and embarassing
pages. They are concerned about the danger that sooner or later
someone will discover all their blunders and expecially
the color inconsistency between the police photographs
and Jordans lies fixed in Lindens report and
are afraid that their version of the 1993 events will be challenged
hence the desire to drop the article altogether for everyone
to forget about it
However Manuscripts do not burn as one famous writer
said about it, and here is the article back again in
its full glory and disgrace for us to remember
that the initial story of the splotch told by
Jordan Chandler was completely different from its later
version based on the photographs and told to us by the police.
Photos of Jacksons body confirmed 93 claims
JANUARY 6As search warrants go, you wont find
one more intrusive than the one executed on Michael Jacksons,
um, person in 1993. And the results of that intimate Kodak
moment from a decade ago could resurface
in the performers upcoming molestation trial.A detailed
recounting of the criminal probe of Jackson is contained
in sealed documents reviewed by TSG. An affidavit from former
Santa Barbara Sheriffs Department deputy Deborah Linden
was filed in 1993 to secure court permission to photograph
Jacksons private parts. Investigators sought the images
in a bid to corroborate allegations made by 13-year-old
Jordan Chandler. The boy told police that Jackson frequently
masturbated him, adding that he could provide a detailed
description of the stars penis as a way of proving
the pair had been intimate.According to the Linden affidavit,
Chandler told police that Jackson justified the illicit
acts by saying, it was okay and natural because other
friends had done this with him. The singer, then in
his mid-30s, also allegedly told the boy that, masturbation
is a wonderful thing.
The celebrity also told Chandler that if he ever spoke about
the incidents, he would be placed in Juvenile Hall,
and they both would get in trouble.The document also describes
a confrontation between Jackson and Chandlers father
Evan, who suspected that the performer may have been assaulting
his son during sleepovers. The elder Chandler tracked Jackson
down to his hideaway apartment in Los Angeles.The
boys father asked Jackson, Are you fucking my
kid?The entertainer became very upset
and told Chandler that he did not use that word. Linden
notes that the singer did not answer the question or deny
the allegation.With Los Angeles Police Department detectives
weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jacksons
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 boys information was so precise, he
even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jacksons
penis was erect, the length of the performers pubic
hair, and that he was circumcised.It wasnt long after
law enforcements photo session that Jackson agreed
to settle Chandlers civil claim for north of $20 million.In
a recent sealed affidavit, Tom Sneddon is quoted as saying
that Chandlers pre-search description (and a drawing)
corroborated photos taken of Jackson and observations
made by officers who examined the body of evidence.
In light of Sneddons proclivity for hardball tactics,
perhaps it shouldnt be a surprise if he tries to have
those old images finally admitted into evidence. Were
pretty sure Jackson would oppose that, though he did tell
Chandler years ago that he was proud of his coloration
and thought he looked like Pan.
Those who are still thinking that the insanity of the
above article may be in any way true may I suggest for
them some earlier blog posts made on this breathtaking issue
in April this year:
All you wanted to know
ABOUT IT but were afraid to ask. Part 1. CIRCUMCISON or ERECTION?
All you wanted to know
ABOUT IT but were afraid to ask. Part 2. JORDAN´S DRAWING
All you wanted to know
ABOUT IT but were afraid to ask. Part 3. A TELLING BLEMISH?
The matters of cimcumcison, non-circumcison
and the blotches are discussed there in minute detail.
I really wouldnt like my motives to be misinterpreted
here. I find all those Smoking gun articles absolutely disgusting
and the ONLY reason why I think that missing article valuable
is because it alludes to the document which otherwise everyone
would completely forget about.
>The fact is that Lindens report is our only source of
information about what exactly the police said about that notable
splotch AT THE BEGINNING.
And at the beginning they quoted Jordan as saying that the
splotch was light similar to the color of his face.
Then the pictures were made and all of a sudden the story turned
180 degrees and became a dark
colored spot Diane D. spoke about a
dark spot, Tom Sneddon spoke about a dark spot, every haters
book is speaking of it as a dark spot and NO ONE REMEMBERS
that at the very beginning Jordan was supposed to be saying
that it was light colored similar
to his face.
If this last article from the Smoking Gun disappears there will
be NO OTHER EVIDENCE LEFT of the
crucial blunder once made by the police and the
THIS IS WHY this article is so precious to us. And this is why
I am asking (in the comments section) for a link to the original
1993 DCFS report where the same thing was probably also noted.
And one final observation. All original documents from the 1993
seem to be missing or are at least very hard to obtain. The
person who was writing the Smoking Gun article evidently had
access to the original report and made some quotations from
it the way they were written there. Poor thing, he didnt
know that by the year 2005/2006 the story of the police had
already changed and was the opposite to what he was saying.
And though the story of a light splotch similar to the
color of his face is still remembered
by the survivors of that period, if you browse the
internet for the light splotch or for Lindens report you
will find no more written evidence remaining there.
Thank you Helena for your generosity
sharing your investigation!