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 you’ve 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 Michael’s private parts and described by him as “the color similar to the color of his face” (I dealt with Jordan’s description in three parts of “All you wanted to know about it but were afraid to ask” post and won’t discuss it here).

Quote from the Smoking Gun:

“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”.

This remarkable statement was allegedly fixed in the report made by Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Deputy Deborah Linden which is usually described in the media as the Linden affidavit (not to be confused with Jordan’s 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 many.

Linden’s report was the legal basis for issuing a warrant for Michael Jackson’s strip search. The idea of it was to compare the description given by Jordan with the photographs which were taken of Michael Jackson’s 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 Michael’s 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 the bottom”.

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 Jordan’s name (December 28, 1993) which, instead of giving any news about the genitals issue, spoke of Jordan-Michael’s ‘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 Jackson’s private parts

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:

Los Angeles
Boy’s Lawyer Seeks Photos of Michael Jackson’s 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 entertainer’s body.

Last month, Jackson submitted to a body search by investigators seeking evidence to corroborate the boy’s claims.

“We think that the fact that my client can establish what Mr. Jackson looks like naked is very substantial evidence of Mr. Jackson’s guilt,” said Larry Feldman, the boy’s attorney.

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 Jackson’s attorneys and the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office for copies, but they refused. Los Angeles Times


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 Feldman’s 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 soon finalized.

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 as saying:

“Chandler’s 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 Sneddon’s proclivity for hardball tactics, perhaps it shouldn’t 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 we’ve 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 Sneddon’s 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 Ferrufino’s request and the photographs taken of Defendant’s genitalia. 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”.

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 Deborah Linden.

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 Michael’s private parts – a DARK blemish can be found only on a LIGHT background (and vice versa).

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 Jordan’s 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 Pop’s Darkest Hour” which said on p. 209 regarding Linden’s report:
The King of Pop's Darkest Hour


“On March 22, 1994, a hearing was held concerning the request of Michael’s 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 Jackson’s 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 Michael’s lawyers on May 10 [1994]. 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 Michael’s lawyers didn’t 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 Linden’s affidavit is apparently meant to be buried for good and never to be remembered again.

Somebody wants us to forget that Linden’s 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 don’t 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 Sneddon’s 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 Sneddon’s 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 Michael’s 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 didn’t 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 away…

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 Jordan’s lies fixed in Linden’s 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 Jackson’s body confirmed ’93 claims

JANUARY 6–As search warrants go, you won’t find one more intrusive than the one executed on Michael Jackson’s, um, person in 1993. And the results of that intimate Kodak moment from a decade ago could resurface in the performer’s 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 Sheriff’s Department deputy Deborah Linden was filed in 1993 to secure court permission to photograph Jackson’s 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 star’s 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 Chandler’s 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 boy’s 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 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.It wasn’t long after law enforcement’s photo session that Jackson agreed to settle Chandler’s civil claim for north of $20 million.In a recent sealed affidavit, Tom Sneddon is quoted as saying that Chandler’s 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 Sneddon’s proclivity for hardball tactics, perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprise if he tries to have those old images finally admitted into evidence. We’re 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.”

ATTENTION please:

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.

UPDATE 22.08.10:


I really wouldn’t 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 Linden’s 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 hater’s 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 Chandlers.

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 didn’t 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 Linden’s report you will find no more written evidence remaining there.






Thank you Helena for your generosity sharing your investigation!








TOP