The 300lb Gorilla

What is the 300lb gorilla?

It’s that thing that just can’t be ignored – and in this case it was Jordan Chandler’s description of Jackson’s genitals. This, more than anything else, propelled Jackson’s side towards a settlement with the Chandlers, as was admitted by a member of Jackson’s legal team – lawyer Carl Douglas.

Jordan gave his description to police and to Jackson’s defense lawyers to support his claim of molestation filed on September 14 1993. It is worth noting here that nobody, apart from a handful of people, have ever read Jordan’s description.

Naturally law enforcement wanted to test the veracity of Jordan’s description, and when Jackson returned to the United States in December 1993, the District Attorney’s office had negotiated with Jackson’s lawyer Johnnie Cochran to have Jackson strip searched and photographs taken of his naked body. Below is a description of what eventuated at that strip search, based on a deposition from Santa Barbara sheriff’s office photographer Gary Spiegel, who was tasked with taking pictures of Jackson’s genitals to see if they matched Jordan Chandler’s description

I entered the room. In the room, I saw Mr. Jackson sitting on a sofa against the far wall. I carried with me a Canon AE-1 Program 35mm camera with a Vivitar Series 1, 28-90mm zoom lens attached to the camera and a Vivitar model 283 flash unit detached with a remote sensor cord. I carried with me a second lens, which was a Vivitar Series 1, 70-210mm zoom lens, which I intended to use for close-up photography. Loaded into the camera was a fresh 36-exposure roll of Kodak color negative film rated at 200 ASA. I took two photographs of Jackson sitting on the sofa. Mr. Swayne was to my right and when I began to take photographs so did he. Dr. Klein made a statement that we were interested in photographing Jackson’s genital area and directed Jackson to stand and remove the robe he had on.

Jackson protested, saying things like “What do I have to do that for?” and “Why are they doing this?”

In my opinion, Jackson’s demeanor was a combination of hostility and anger. Jackson complied with Dr. Klein’s request to remove the robe and to lower the pair of gray swimming trunks he was wearing. As Mr. Jackson was complying with Dr. Klein’s request, Dr. Klein made the statement that others in the room should turn their heads so as not to view Jackson’s genital area.

At the time, I found this peculiar because the only persons in the room at the time were Mr. Jackson, the two doctors, me, and the other photographer. Dr. Klein also made the statement that he was not going to look. He said he had never seen Mr. Jackson’s genital area and he was not going to do so at this time. As Mr. Jackson lowered his trunks, he said something to the effect of, “I don’t know why they are making me do this” or “Why are they making me do this?” Mr. Jackson’s attitude was, in my opinion, still one of hostility and anger. The thought occurred to me that although he was somewhat cooperative, his cooperation could end abruptly. I took several photographs of Jackson’s genitals from his right side first and moved to his left side. The other photographer switched positions from Mr. Jackson’s right side to his left side as I shifted positions.

While I was on Mr. Jackson’s left side, Dr. Strick asked Mr. Jackson to lift his penis. Mr. Jackson questioned why he had to do that, but he did comply with the request. When Mr. Jackson complied with Dr. Strick’s request to lift his penis, I observed a dark spot on the lower left side of Mr. Jackson’s penis.
Excerpt from ‘Be Careful Who You Love’ by Diane Dimond

Soon after the strip search, within one month, Jackson had settled his civil suit with the the Chandlers. Quite a strange thing to do if Jackson and his lawyers were confident that Jordan Chandler was lying and the strip search had proven that his description of Jackson’s genitals didn’t match.

Check out  Michael Jackson's Neverland Favourites, an All Boy Video Anthology - Whose tape was it?

Jackson defenders have always insisted that the photos and description unequivocally didn’t match, and have offered various scenarios as to why Jackson settled ranging from mildly plausible to wildly bizarre. Since then, they have failed to take in to consideration the information supplied by two people who were closely involved in the case showing that Jackson desperately did not want the case to proceed to a criminal trial, and that was because of Jordan’s description. In 2009 Investigator David Corbett, who worked for the Chandlers, insisted the settlement was paid to keep Jordan Chandler quiet.

“An unwritten part of the agreement was that the boy would not testify before the grand jury. This is illegal, but who was going to prove it happened? Anyhoo, Michael slipped out of that one, as we all know.” – Chandler Case Insider Talks

Granted, some may dismiss this evidence because it comes from someone involved in the Chandler camp, and rightly so. Journalistic integrity means we need two sources to collaborate a story.

Incredibly, a member of Jackson’s legal team corroborated David’s story at a seminar held in Los Angeles on September 15th, 2010, hosted by  the Los Angeles County Bar Association, titled FROZEN IN TIME: A Riveting Behind-the-Scenes View of the Michael Jackson Cases. Featuring those most closely involved with these cases: the judge, Honorable Rodney Melville (Retired); the prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Ronald Zonen; defense attorney Thomas A. Mesereau, Jr. who represented Jackson in the Santa Barbara County criminal trial; attorney Larry Feldman who represented the alleged victim in the civil case; and attorney Carl E. Douglas who represented Jackson in the criminal investigation of the civil case, it was a fascinating behind the scenes look at both the 1993 Chandler case and Jackson’s 2005 molestation trial (you can order a DVD copy of the entire seminar here, or check out the Youtube links below).

Check out  Rothman v. Jackson (1996)

Carl Douglas was very honest (much to the chagrin of Jackson defenders!) and provided a very insightful view about why Jackson settled with the Chandlers.

“…in our [Jackson’s defence lawyers] perspective, you have to remember that there was a companion criminal investigation case going on by both the District Attorney’s office in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. There had been an occasion where Michael Jackson was examined, and his genitalia was recorded, which was part of an investigation. And that was part of the 300 pound gorilla in the mediation room. We wanted to do all that we could to avoid the possibility that there would be a criminal filing against Michael Jackson, and the reality was we were hopeful that if we were able to “silence” the accuser, that would obviate the need for any concern about the criminal side, so from our perspective there was a great deal of trust, not only with Johnnie and Larry because they had a twenty year prior friendship, there was a tremendous trust with Johnnie and the three judges being recommended. And we were facing the purple gorilla in the room of “If we don’t get this case settled before March, there is a criminal investigation looming, and no one wanted to consider the implications of that as it affected Michael Jackson”…

As Carl says, Jordan had be “silenced” because his description accurately described Jackson’s genitals. It was gratifying to hear this confirmed from the Jackson side, proving once again that Realists have a better handle on the issues than Jackson defenders.

While some insist that Jordan’s description was incorrect because it included a reference to Jackson being circumcised, whilst Jackson’s autopsy in 2009 revealed he was uncircumcised, this is just a non issue. The fact that Jordan’s description alarmed Jackson and his legal team enough to proffer a settlement means that either it included no reference to circumcision or it included a reference that Jackson was uncircumcised. It is not a point worth arguing over because Jackson paid. If Jordan’s description was inaccurate, we wouldn’t have Carl Douglas’s comment above nor would there have been a multi-million dollar settlement. Jackson and his lawyers would have quite happily taken both the civil and the criminal cases in their stride and fought them easily.

There is no getting away from that 300lb gorilla.

 

  • Pea

    While I won’t refer to Carl Douglas’s comment as direct evidence of a ‘match’ (Douglas & Co., from what I’ve read, did not have access to Jordie Chandler’s description or the affidavit in support of the body search, although given Johnnie Cochran’s connections in the LAPD and LA DA’s office, it’s possible a copy could’ve been slipped to Jacko’s side — at any rate Douglas falls short of actually speaking to his personal knowledge of the photos the Jacko team had and a comparison, if one was done by them, with Jordie’s description), it’s certainly persuasive circumstantial evidence of a match, and it especially has resonance because it’s from a Jacko team member.

    And Douglas used the word “silence”, which is very interesting coming from Jacko’s side and is in direct contrast to Jacko’s defenders’ spin on the settlement (which he paid — thanks Mesereau!).

    The photos along with the possibility of Jordie’s testimony at a civil/criminal trial, in which he would speak to how he was able to describe Jacko’s genitals, hung over Jacko’s head like a sword. If we were to ignore the circumcision issue and not presume, like so many people have, to know what Jordie said about it (I personally believe he did say it was circumcised), it seems self-evident that Jacko settled — and he certainly did not have to if there was no match — because he understood the significance of Jordie’s willingness to describe his penis and that it spoke volumes of his guilt.

    He wanted the whole thing SHUT DOWN. His words to Martin Bashir about the case were also pretty telling: he said (paraphrased), “I didn’t want a long, drawn out thing like OJ [for the record, OJ’s case had yet to even come into view when he settled]. It wouldn’t look right.” I imagine so…

  • Joni Hector Storhammar

    In one article here I remember reading that Tom Sneddon wanted to introduce the pictures as evidence in the 2005 trial? I can’t find it now. Why was there no criminal investigation based on those pictures alone? Why would they not prosecute with such evidence?

    • ShawntayUStay

      Two reasons:

      1. The photographs were not a 100% match to Jordie’s description, namely, MJ was uncircumcised and Jordie said he was circumcised. Even though all the other information Jordie have was accurate, according to reports, the circumcision thing was a big deal for investigators. Cops want evidence so conclusive that the perpetrator will confess so there will be no need for a trial. What Jordie Chandler gave most likely was good enough to charge most people.

      2. It was Michael Jackson, the king of pop. Huge celebrities with the best lawyers money can buy are intimidating and are therefore treated with kid gloves by law enforcement. This goes with reason number one: if Jordie’s description was not a dead on match to MJ’s genitals, the cops weren’t going to arrest MJ and risk him coming after the police department with these hot shot attorneys, alleging harassment, malicious prosecution, etc…especially if the accusations ended up being false, and at that point they only had a juvenile alleged victim and no corroborating evidence by a third party. That could bankrupt the department and a lot of resources would be spent defending themselves. Simply put, the evidence wasn’t strong enough for someone of Michael Jackson’s status.

  • Pingback: The Telltale Splotch()

  • Eduajrdo Gustav

    Wow! This article is a reach, at best. That statement is subjective at best, and doesn’t say what you claim it does. Clearly you are as fixated on his guilt as fans are on his innocence. Including being dismissive of the circumcision aspect. I’m not sold one way or the other as this was WAY before my time, but based on your “conclusions” stated in this article it’s clear you grasp at straws. To “silence” a victim is to give them what they want. If Jackson was guilty, proceed with charges and gain a civil judgement; it would have probably been larger. What type of parent would trade justice for a quick payday? Especially when a payday would have been had at the end anyway (think of OJ Simpson winning the criminal trial, but losing most of his wealth in the subsequent civil trial). The kid refused to testify at the second trial. There was no language barring him from doing so in the settlement as that would be illegal. The mother denied it. The father was in a custody battle at the time. At any rate, Jackson is dead. Move on. Find a real hobby.

    PS I read recently that the boy’s description was never released. Since criminal proceedings were averted there would be no discovery process. On what basis can it ever be concluded that the boy’s description was actually correct? It sounds like you’re as fascinated and desperate to prove your agenda as the fans you seemingly bash on your site. I’d say you’re far from a “realist”, but whatever helps you sleep at night.

    This is the part where you accuse me of being a Jackson Loyalist, and point out some BS about my desperation. That, my friend, is called deflection. Or I guess you’ll simply delete my post, or never approve it to begin with. Now what does that say about you? LOL

    • Hey Eduajrdo!

      My goodness, you’ve put me in a quandary now.

      Do I demolish your comment now (which would be easy to do) and risk you calling me “obsessed”, leave you to bask in your feelings of smug superiority for a few days to lull you into a false sense of security, or just ignore your comment and let you think you’ve “won” (even though all you’ve done is make yourself look like a fool).

      I’ll have to mull that over.

      Have a great day 🙂

  • Arnela de Noir

    First of I think you are full of hate and shit. You are no name person writing whatever you think it’s right. Second, strange enough, I find you brave to call person pedophile, without proof. I read lot of your writing, am insomniac, it’s connected to that and I can’t find any black/white proof that you are right. All I can see are your interpretations. Probably you won’t post my comment and you don’t have to. You are no name person, scared of whoever, but you know… It’s easy that way, hide and spit.

    • Pea

      Your comment here was published for spectator purposes, i.e., so that anyone reading this website can see how utterly ridiculous it is to complain about inconvenient information while being too lazy (or incapable) to support the criticism. The result is a totally pointless “contribution” (using that word very loosely) that adds nothing to anyone’s knowledge.

      If you can’t provide a legitimate critique, please don’t bother posting here.

      And, by the way, why do you care about the names of this website’s writers? Seriously, the obsession Jacko’s Wackos have with people’s identities truly reaches the level of pathology…. But no doubt “Arnela de Noir” is also a fake name.

      • Man, did I get it wrong with you, BIG TIME. I understand that some people’s responses are absurd, but this pattern of you and the mjfacts guru are absurd in itself. Has this site become nothing more than a stage for you guys to line up people and shoot em down in some sort of deranged, “Hey look at how smart-assedly demeaning I can be” facade? Weak. This is a “comments section” dude. Just publish people’s comments (as long as they’re not horribly offensive) and move on. OR make a “rules for posting” page which dictates every menial requirement you guys have in order for people to post here, because your guys’ policing goes beyond censorship and ridicule. I understand having the need to approve peoples comments, because jacko fans could just go nuts and spam you guys to high-heaven, but on the other-hand… You have gotten to a point (obviously) to where jackson defenders annoy the living piss out of you. I don’t care if someones post claims that they met jackson on a ufo… Just publish it and move on. People have the right (no matter how dumb) to have their comments published. You catch my drift ole, mighty jacko master?

        • Pea

          Calm down. Do you realize that people have lives and interests away from moderating comments on a website? Or no?

          “I understand having the need to approve peoples comments, because jacko fans could just go nuts and spam you guys to high-heaven, but on the other-hand… “

          Do you understand, James? Not sure about that. A lot of fan comments do come in, and I am not opposed to publishing them as long as they present a modicum of coherence (many of them are typo-ridden curses). But the ones that don’t add anything are deleted. Yes, that includes tripe akin to “meeting Jacko on a UFO”.

          “People have the right (no matter how dumb) to have their comments published.”

          Commenting on anyone’s website — especially when you have not paid for its maintenance fees and what not — is a privilege, not a right. You don’t have the right to be here at all; come on, James, you are smart enough to know that.

          In the same way as Arnela de Noir, I’m publishing your comment for spectator purposes; people clearly aren’t getting that moderation isn’t personal.