All you wanted to know ABOUT IT but were afraid to ask. Part 3. A telling blemish?



  by Helena on vindicatemj.wordpress.com



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 true.
Executed 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 light!

And it isn´t the matter of just one spot… Was it 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!









TOP