We left Dr. Strick saying he was TOLD that
the photos and Jordan´s description matched. This
definitely contradicts media reports that it was him
who made such a determination, but the question is if
it weren´t him, who determined that there was a similarity?
On the other hand, who cares about it? If the description and
photos do match any reasonable person would be able to see and
confirm the fact, if they don´t no one would. This
was the first carefree thought that came to my mind, but the
second one made me analyze it in terms of prosecution and defense
and this is when the problem seemed not that formal.
If the party making such a determination belongs to the prosecution
the chances they´ll see something which is not there are
much higher than in the case it is done by an impartial expert.
Imagine how biased a determination could be if it were made
by a defense attorney? Absolutely the same goes for the prosecution
I more or less expected that nothing was too bad for Michael
Jackson in the eyes of the Santa Barbara DA Tom Sneddon, so
it didn´t really surprise me that he flatly admitted that
it was him who made the determination. See the declaration Tom
Sneddon made on May 26, 2005 which is provided here in full:
(BEWARE, dear innocent Michael´s fans, you are entering
the twilight zone of Michael´s haters but it is
nevertheless a MUST read)
DECLARATION OF THOMAS W.SNEDDON, JR.
I, Thomas W.Sneddon, Jr., say:
1. I am a lawyer admitted to practice in all the courts of this
state. I am, and since 1983 have been, the elected District
Attorney of the County of Santa Barbara. I am the lead counsel
for the prosecution in the trial of The People of the State
of California v. Michael Joe Jackson, Santa Barbara Superior
Court Case No. 1133603.
2. In 1993, the Los Angeles Police Department commenced an investigation
of allegation by Jordan Chandler, a minor child, and his family
that young Jordan had been sexually molested by Defendant in
Los Angeles and in Santa Barbara Counties. Los Angeles Police
Detective Rosibel Ferrufino was one of the investigators in
that investigation. The Santa Barbara Sheriff´s Department
commenced its own investigation of the allegation, in cooperation
with the Los Angeles Police Department. Sheriff´s Detective
Deborah Linden was one of the investigators.
3. In the course of LAPD´s investigation of the allegations,
Jordan Chandler was interviewed by Los Angeles Deputy District
Attorney Lauren Weis on September 1, 1993, during which interview
Detective Ferrufino and a court reporter were present. Jordan
was asked to relate information concerning his reported relationship
with Michael Jackson. In the course of the interview Jordan
Chandler made detailed statements concerning the physical appearance
of Michael Jackson, in particular the coloration of and marks
on the skin of his lower torso, buttocks and genitals, including
a particular blemish on his penis. Jordan was asked to draw
a picture of Mr. Jackson´s erect penis and to locate on
that drawing any distinctive marks he recalled. Jordan did so.
The drawing was signed and dated by Jordan Chandler and was
attached as Exhibit 1 to Detective Ferrufino´s report
in LAPD Case No. 930822245.
4. On December 13,1993, as part of the Santa Barbara Sheriff´s
investigation into young Chandler´s allegations a search
warrant was obtained authorizing the search of Michael Jackson´s
person and for the taking of photographs of his genitals. That
warrant was executed at Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara on
December 20, 1993. The resulting photographs have been retained
by the Sheriff´s Department, under tight security. (Note:
the Veritas Project says that the security was so tight that
even Geraldo Rivera saw the photos)
5. I have reviewed the statements 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 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. 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 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 the 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.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct except for those statements made on information
and belief, and as to those statements, I believe them to be
May 26, 2005, at Santa Maria, California.
Did you NOTICE IT? I am not referring to the fact that
Tom Sneddon didn´t mention any expert´s opinion
about the match and said it was him who compared Jordan´s
description with the photos. Or the fact that he omitted circumcision
and focused on discoloration only. Or that he sounded terribly
evasive about the location of that mark when saying it was at
about the same relative location as the dark blemish
located by Jordan Chandler. No, not about that,
though it is important too.
Did you notice the MAIN thing? Tom Sneddon was speaking
of a DARK blemish located by Jordan back in 1993 while the boy
was universally quoted as saying it was a LIGHT color
similar to the color of his face! So one of them said
the blemish was dark while the other one said it was
And it isn´t the matter of just one spot
a light spot on a dark background or a dark one on a
light background? Well, the photos are a primary source
of information of course and they showed the blemish as dark
so the background must have been light-colored.
This means that Jordan didn´t even know the general
color of the whole thing let alone the details? So first
he made a guess about circumcision and now he bet on a color
and was wrong AGAIN?
Mind it that when someone is as speckled as Michael was, whichever
way you describe it the chances of the description being
more or less accurate are very high indeed. But even despite
all the easiness of such a guess Jordan was still wrong and
made a terrible mess of his evidence missing the mark on all
basic things like circumcision, the general color of
Michael´s man parts and the color of that damned blemish!
Well, if THIS is ACCURATE what is INACCURACY then? Are they
able to tell white from black at all? With such a grave
difference between Jordan´s description and the real thing
no wonder Tom Sneddon didn´t ask Dr. Strick´s opinion
and had to make the determination himself
But could there be a mistake in the earlier reports about Jordan´s
words? Well, the media is quoting it as an established fact
(see the Smoking Gun haters´s report at The
Telltale Splotch and Jordan´s revelations
about the light color of that blemish are all over the internet
with nothing but this version of his words.
No, it is TOO LATE now to say it was a mistake. What
is more probable is that the media was in so much hurry to make
a dirty story out of Jordan´s allegations that they
did a terrible disservice to themselves first they
hurriedly reported the lies and chewed them over for several
months running, and by the time the photos were made Jordan´s
words had been so heavily publicized that they were unable to
revoke them. They faced the alternative of either having to
disprove their own stories or just let it go in the hope that
no one would really notice
Which was indeed what happened. In the hysteria that followed
NO ONE REALLY NOTICED. Diane Dimond shamelessly carried out
a new media onslaught referring to her ´sources´
which now said there was a tell-tale ´dark splotch´
on Michael´s man parts that matched the description. By
the way seeing her solidarity with Tom Sneddon on ´the
color issue´ there can be no more doubt as to who was
the source of her information and all those leaks into the media.
Why is the leakage of information by the prosecution considered
illegal and even criminal the world over? Because it gives
a decisive advantage to the accuser´s side (whose claims
are not necessarily correct), breaks the innocent until
proven guilty principle and destroys the defendant even
before any trial takes place. Who needs hearing a case in the
court of law if the court of public opinion passes its
verdict before the trial has even started and in a much
more destructive and ruinous manner and independent
of the verdict of the jury too?
What does it matter that the two grand juries more than 100
miles apart from each other looked into all this trash collected
by Tom Sneddon in 1993 and found no grounds for indicting Michael?
What of it that the whole thing was a complete nonsense from
beginning to end where nothing added up and there were
no facts to corroborate the accuser´s crazy story?
The public opinion was already formed, the life of an innocent
man destroyed, his good name done away with and his health forever
ruined and all this just over nothing
JUST AS MICHAEL ALWAYS TOLD US AND WE NEVER BELIEVED HIM.
Thank you Helena for your generosity
sharing your investigation!