Proof That Jordan Chandler Accurately...

“Evolution is fab!”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#631 Jan 6, 2014
Get a life hater stans wrote:
You mean that crummy photo that Jordan drew? I don't expect anyone to be Van Gough but it looked like something a 5 year old drew. Anyway, there's been no document saying that it matched or didn't match. There's conflicting reports. Nobody really knows. Of course you will say it does match because you hate Michael Jackson and anything that does hate him automatically means its right in your delusional mind. I highly doubt you even care whether MJ was a pedophile just given how disgusting and untrue your comments are. You just love stirring up trouble and drinking the kool-aid. LOL you must be so pathetic in real life.
Unless something has changed recently, the drawings made by Jordy, and the photographs taken by the police have never been released to the public.

Thomas Sneddon declared under penalty of perjury that it matched and every single one of Pedo Pan's lawyers have never contested it nor did he.

Bill Dworin, a former child molestation expert has also confirmed it matched and a impartial doctor who was there during the photographing confirmed that Pedo Pan had a splotchy penis.

Since: Jun 13

Raleigh, NC

#633 Jan 6, 2014
Butterballs wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless something has changed recently, the drawings made by Jordy, and the photographs taken by the police have never been released to the public.
Thomas Sneddon declared under penalty of perjury that it matched and every single one of Pedo Pan's lawyers have never contested it nor did he.
Bill Dworin, a former child molestation expert has also confirmed it matched and a impartial doctor who was there during the photographing confirmed that Pedo Pan had a splotchy penis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =panosN01HrkXX
Yep. This was looked on and investigated and no proof that Sneddon lied. People need to stop grasping at straws, there's nothing to make MJ innocent in any of this.

“Evolution is fab!”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#635 Jan 7, 2014
BadMan84 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. This was looked on and investigated and no proof that Sneddon lied. People need to stop grasping at straws, there's nothing to make MJ innocent in any of this.
I think if he really had tried to pull a stunt like that, it would have been exposed instantly.
I'm curious to know whether Jordy's description will be allowed at Wade's upcoming trial.
That shall be interesting if it is, and will surely send the celebrity worshippers into meltdown.

Since: Jun 13

Raleigh, NC

#636 Jan 7, 2014
Butterballs wrote:
<quoted text>
I think if he really had tried to pull a stunt like that, it would have been exposed instantly.
I'm curious to know whether Jordy's description will be allowed at Wade's upcoming trial.
That shall be interesting if it is, and will surely send the celebrity worshippers into meltdown.
I'm sure they'll allow it this time unless MJ's estate's attorneys try to strong arm against it, which they probably can't do. But seeing as it's in the office of the Santa Barbara police department, it'll be interesting to see what develops here. But maybe the Los Angeles police department (which also has a copy of the photos if I recall correctly) will allow it into evidence at the trial.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#639 Jan 8, 2014
BadMan84 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure they'll allow it this time unless MJ's estate's attorneys try to strong arm against it, which they probably can't do. But seeing as it's in the office of the Santa Barbara police department, it'll be interesting to see what develops here. But maybe the Los Angeles police department (which also has a copy of the photos if I recall correctly) will allow it into evidence at the trial.
So long as it's brought into the trial, from the beginning, under Section 1108, Prior Bad Acts. That's where Sneddon went wrong when he tried to introduce it, in 2005. He tried to bring the evidence into court, late in the trial, under Section 1101(b), Character Evidence.

Since: Jun 13

Raleigh, NC

#640 Jan 8, 2014
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
So long as it's brought into the trial, from the beginning, under Section 1108, Prior Bad Acts. That's where Sneddon went wrong when he tried to introduce it, in 2005. He tried to bring the evidence into court, late in the trial, under Section 1101(b), Character Evidence.
Interesting. But yeah if he went with Section 1108, chances are we might've had a different outcome in the trial.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#641 Jan 9, 2014
BadMan84 wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. But yeah if he went with Section 1108, chances are we might've had a different outcome in the trial.
It would have been very difficult for Mesereau to spin it, had they been introduced at the beginning of the trial. Too bad he was able to keep the evidence out of court, based on a technicality. But he must have stayed awake, all night, losing sweat, while he frantically searched for that technical glitch. It would be fantastic to have the drawing, description, and photos brought in, under Section 1108, for Wade's case against the estate.

“Why can't you share your bed?”

Since: May 13

Canada

#642 Jan 9, 2014
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
It would have been very difficult for Mesereau to spin it, had they been introduced at the beginning of the trial. Too bad he was able to keep the evidence out of court, based on a technicality. But he must have stayed awake, all night, losing sweat, while he frantically searched for that technical glitch. It would be fantastic to have the drawing, description, and photos brought in, under Section 1108, for Wade's case against the estate.
Did the pictures of MJ's blemished wiener get destroyed after he died??

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#643 Jan 9, 2014
TripleH1976 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did the pictures of MJ's blemished wiener get destroyed after he died??
No, they're locked up, at the Santa Barbara County Police Department. Team Michael tried to get ahold of them, after the trial. Michael tried to say they were his property. He was denied and told they are police evidence and were never his.

I wonder if he ever tried to get his NAMBLA-recommended books of nude and seminude boys back.

“Evolution is fab!”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#644 Jan 10, 2014
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
So long as it's brought into the trial, from the beginning, under Section 1108, Prior Bad Acts. That's where Sneddon went wrong when he tried to introduce it, in 2005. He tried to bring the evidence into court, late in the trial, under Section 1101(b), Character Evidence.
That's interesting, so there's a good probability we may very well see JC's description and photographs at Wade's trial. I hope as well, the NAMBLA recommended books and naked boy pictures that Pedo Pan owned are introduced as they were certainly something that he possessed at the time he was bedding boys like Wade.

“Evolution is fab!”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#645 Jan 10, 2014
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they're locked up, at the Santa Barbara County Police Department. Team Michael tried to get ahold of them, after the trial. Michael tried to say they were his property. He was denied and told they are police evidence and were never his.
I wonder if he ever tried to get his NAMBLA-recommended books of nude and seminude boys back.
It still makes me chuckle that Thomas Mesereau attempted to have those photographs returned to Jacko by claiming they were his property. If that's not a clear indication that team Pedo Pan thought they matched then and I don't know what is.

Since: Jun 13

Raleigh, NC

#646 Jan 10, 2014
Butterballs wrote:
<quoted text>
It still makes me chuckle that Thomas Mesereau attempted to have those photographs returned to Jacko by claiming they were his property. If that's not a clear indication that team Pedo Pan thought they matched then and I don't know what is.
Yeah. If it didn't match, why fight to get them back? Why even go there if you claim the photos didn't match? I doubt they returned his sick books either. I remember when he and Janet were trying to get Henry Vaccaro to return their stuff and they were rebuffed. Of course, MJ's draws and two pictures with boys were never returned to him either. Neither were the canceled checks Katherine found of her son trying to send to Jimmy Safechuck's parents, resulting in Katherine yelling a homophobic slur at him.

Since: Jun 13

Raleigh, NC

#647 Jan 10, 2014
Butterballs wrote:
<quoted text>
That's interesting, so there's a good probability we may very well see JC's description and photographs at Wade's trial. I hope as well, the NAMBLA recommended books and naked boy pictures that Pedo Pan owned are introduced as they were certainly something that he possessed at the time he was bedding boys like Wade.
No doubt they will. Plus don't forget the nude and semi-nude photos MJ had with the boys who were with him while at his Hayvenhurst, Neverland and Century City residences.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#650 Jan 10, 2014
Butterballs wrote:
<quoted text>
It still makes me chuckle that Thomas Mesereau attempted to have those photographs returned to Jacko by claiming they were his property. If that's not a clear indication that team Pedo Pan thought they matched then and I don't know what is.
It makes me both laugh and roll my eyes, at the weak excuse Mesereau used, to try and get his hands on the evidence. If they didn't match, I doubt he would have cared so much.
Juggs Judy

AOL

#651 Jan 13, 2014
goodvibrations wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait till you get there and report back. I bet you will be disappointed in finding out the real hell is in your miserable world:-(
And the fact is that the various families always, without fail, cooperated with the police and had no problem sending their children to child molestation expert's to be evaluated. While Jackson, without fail, never once cooperated with anyone but his paid lawyers and always made multimillion dollar settlements to make the allegations go away.

“Evolution is fab!”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#652 Jan 16, 2014
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
It makes me both laugh and roll my eyes, at the weak excuse Mesereau used, to try and get his hands on the evidence. If they didn't match, I doubt he would have cared so much.
I wonder if any floon sites have picked up on the fact that Thomas Mesereau, desperately tried to have those photos return to Pedo Pan? I'm sure they could put a spin on it and make it look like it was all completely innocent.

<Laughter>

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#653 Jan 17, 2014
Butterballs wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder if any floon sites have picked up on the fact that Thomas Mesereau, desperately tried to have those photos return to Pedo Pan? I'm sure they could put a spin on it and make it look like it was all completely innocent.
<Laughter>
They'd probably side with Mesereau and think they belonged to Michael, instead of police evidence that proved Jordan's drawing and description were a match.

“Evolution is fab!”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#655 Jan 17, 2014
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
They'd probably side with Mesereau and think they belonged to Michael, instead of police evidence that proved Jordan's drawing and description were a match.
Oh, they would 100%. And I'm sure they would scrape the barrel and spin it to make it look very convincing to themselves anyway. The fact remains no individual is going to care about a few photographs of their private parts if it didn't pose a threat to any potential future court cases. Mesereau as good as confirmed Jordan's description matched by trying claim and eliminate the photos for good.
ella

Manosque, France

#657 Jan 21, 2014
And yes, he describes perfectly the beauty of grain on the sex of Michael Jackson, is that it makes MJ a pedophile so far? Is that it could be possible that unintentionally have noticed the kid said grain beauty turned out if they could get all 2 in a public restroom at a show by example? It turned out that he also speaks of circumcision as Michael did was not!
It seems to me that before drawing hasty conclusions that can have dramatic consequences, it would be good to consider all parameters!
You wish

Avon, CT

#659 Jan 21, 2014
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> That the prosecution was so desperately seeking to turn the proceedings into a 'case within a case' proves just how dismal things had become for them.
I suggest you check your facts; Larry Feldman requested either a copy of those photographs (which were police property) and failing that, requested another nude photo session. If he couldn't get that, he requested that those very same photos not be allowed in court.
Doesn't sound to me like those photos were so astonishingly accurate or useful.
Dworin:“We had served a search warrant to photograph Michael Jackson. Those photographs corroborated the description that the boy gave us regarding Michael Jackson’s genitals.”
Mankiewicz:“The boy was able to describe discolorations of Jackson’s skin?”
Dworin:“Yes.”
Mankiewicz:“On his genitals, accurately.”

You lose floon. Sneddon also stated under risk of perjury that indeed it was a match

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Michael Jackson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Paris Jackson cuts touches down in London follo... 1 hr Just Me 5
News Paris Jackson Posts Rare Home Video From Childh... Sun Just Me 25
News Quincy Jones Wasn't Lying About Michael Jackson... Sun Just Me 16
News Rabbi Shmuley Boteach (Aug '10) Sun zionist media cabal 13
MJ haters slander and illegal activity against ... (Aug '13) Sun Just Me 49
News Michael Jackson's secret sister was 'rejected b... Feb 16 Just Me 1
News Profile of a Pedophile: Does Michael Jackson fit? (Dec '08) Feb 15 Philip 64,803
More from around the web