Jordan Chandler’s 1993 Description: The Evidence That Shuts Down the Mismatch Myth
Mar 19, 2019
It appears there is widespread confusion — and, in some cases, deliberate misinformation — surrounding Jordan Chandler’s description of discolouration on Michael Jackson’s genitalia. You may have encountered numerous pro-Jackson articles claiming that Jordan’s account was entirely inaccurate, or suggesting that any match between his description and reality was fabricated by individuals such as Thomas Sneddon and other law enforcement officials.
On 1 September 1993, Jordan verbally described areas of discolouration on Jackson’s lower torso, buttocks, and genitals — including a dark blemish on his penis — to Lauren Weis, then deputy of the sex crimes division in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.
Jordan was subsequently asked to produce a sketch depicting the underside of Michael Jackson’s erect penis, noting the approximate location of the blemish.
On 13 December 1993, a warrant was obtained authorising law enforcement to photograph Michael Jackson’s intimate anatomy. During the procedure, he was asked to lift his penis into an upright, erect position so that the photographs could later be compared with Jordan’s drawing.
At the time, both the description and photographs were held under strict control by the sheriff’s department and were never released to any third party. According to multiple sources after Jackson’s death, both the description and the photographs were destroyed. Nevertheless, many fans continue to insist that copies surfaced in various places.
For instance, some claim that Jordan’s description appeared in Victor Gutierrez’s book Michael Jackson Was My Lover. Charles Thomson, who describes himself as an “award‑winning journalist”, has repeated this claim on his Twitter account, even sharing a cropped image in support of it — a claim that is entirely false.
Strictly speaking, I should not need to confirm whether there was a match or not. Thomas Sneddon’s statement affirming that there was, combined with Thomas Mesereau’s objection to the use of the description and photographs in the 2005 trial, ought to be sufficient to convince any objective observer — regardless of conspiracy theories.
Nevertheless, let's examine the evidence.
Initially, the prosecution, led by Thomas Sneddon, had no intention of presenting Jordan’s description and the photographs of Michael Jackson’s genitalia to the jury without Jordan’s cooperation. However, as the case began to slip from their grasp, they decided to introduce this material as a last‑minute measure to counter defence claims about Jackson’s supposed shyness and modesty.
Thomas Sneddon stated:
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 be 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.
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 Fernffino’s request and the photographs taken of Defendant’s genitalia. The photographs reveal a mark on the right side of the 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 Defendant’s penis is substantially corroborated by the photographs taken by Santa Barbara Sheriff’s detectives at a later time.
Executed May 25, 2005, at Santa Maria, California.
Full document: sbscpublicaccess.org
Jackson’s defence team adopted a firm stance, vigorously opposing the inclusion of the description and photographs in court — despite having what could have been a prime opportunity to expose any discrepancies or demonstrate a complete mismatch.
Jackson’s defence:
"The District Attorney is trying to do everything he can to keep the jurors from walking into the deliberation room with the facts of this case and the Arvizo family's credibility on their minds. The motion is devoid of legal merit, and, in fact, if granted, would result in a reversible violation of Mr. Jackson's confrontation rights. Even if there were some factual or legal basis to admit this evidence, it is improper rebuttal and would have to be excluded under Evidence Code Section 352."
"For the reasons stated below, the Court should not only deny the prosecution's motion but take whatever action it deems to be appropriate."
Full document: sbscpublicaccess.org
During legal discussions and correspondence with Judge Melville, Thomas Mesereau was corrected by both Ron Zonen and the judge after asserting that Jordan’s description constituted hearsay.
Read the document here.
The judge ultimately rejected Jordan’s description and the accompanying photographs, accepting the defence’s argument that, under Californian law, neither party is permitted to introduce sensational evidence at the close of a trial.
In 2005, Ron Zonen — a trusted associate of Thomas Sneddon — expressed unwavering confidence in Jordan’s description and the accompanying photographs. This conviction was clearly documented in correspondence exchanged between the judge and Michael Jackson’s defence team.
Fast‑forward to the present day, and Ron’s belief in the accuracy of Jordan’s account remains unchanged. In the BBC documentary The Real Michael Jackson by Jacques Peretti, which premiered in March 2020, Ron once again emphasised the precision of Jordan’s description, describing it as “remarkable cooperative evidence”.
Watch the segment below.
Lauren Weis served in the District Attorney’s Office from 1979 until 2002, after which she was appointed as a Superior Court judge in Los Angeles. During her time at the office, Jordan provided a description of Michael Jackson’s genitalia under her supervision — a description that would later be compared with photographic evidence.
In the Telephone Stories podcast, she went on to state:
"Correct. Not just the genitalia, but a particular mark on the underside of his penis, which the victim described… and we had information that that Michael had always maintained that he was never seen naked in front of any of these children."
Listen to the audio below.
Bill Dworin, one of the lead investigators with the LAPD and a veteran of decades of work on child sexual abuse cases, made the following statement in the documentary Michael Jackson and the Boy He Paid Off:
"He [Jordy Chandler] described Jackson's genitalia - it was unique because of the discolouration. And then we obtained a search warrant to photograph Jackson to cooperate, what the child had said. When photographing Jackson's genitalia, it did cooperate. In other words, the boy saw Jackson naked. Does that mean Jackson molested the child? No, but it adds to the credibility of the child."
Watch the segment below.
In a 2003 interview with nbcnews.com, Bill Dworin once again confirmed to Josh Mankiewicz that Jordan Chandler’s description matched the photographs of Michael Jackson’s genitalia. The following is an extract from that interview:
"Dworin says one critical piece of corroborating evidence was found not in Michael Jackson’s home, but on Michael Jackson’s body: an intimate description that the young boy gave police."
"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."
”Dworin: Very much so.”
Source: www.nbcnews.com
Dr Richard Strick, who represented the local authorities during the documentation of Michael Jackson’s genitalia, observed that “the genitalia was very oddly coloured, with areas of both dark and light skin.” He later received confirmation that the boy’s description matched the photographs taken.
Watch the Fox News segment below.
Although Dr Richard Strick never directly saw Jordan’s description, his perspective is noteworthy as that of someone outside the so‑called “crooked” law enforcement circle. Dr Strick personally observed discolouration on Michael Jackson’s genitalia and lower torso — a detail that corresponded with Jordan’s account.
In a 1995 interview with Diana Sawyer, Michael Jackson was questioned about Jordan Chandler’s description and the photographs taken by the local authorities. Instead of offering a direct response, he launched into a disjointed explanation, denying any connection and insisting there was nothing linking him to the charges. When pressed about whether there were any markings on his genitals, he categorically denied their existence, even claiming he would not be participating in the interview if such markings were present.
The transcript:
DS: How about the police photographs though? How was there enough information from this boy about those kinds of things?
MJ: The police photographs?
DS: The police photographs.
MJ: That they took of me?
DS: Yeah.
MJ: There was nothing that matched me to those charges. There was nothing.
LISA MARIE PRESLEY : There was nothing they could connect to him.
MJ: That’s why I’m sitting here talking to you today. There was not one iota of information that they found, that could connect me…
DS: So when we heard the charges…
MJ: There was nothing…
DS: …markings of some kind?
MJ: No markings.
DS: No markings?
MJ: No.
Watch the segment below.
Dr Strick’s statement confirms that, at the very least, in 1995 Jackson was audacious enough not only to propagate falsehoods on national television, but also to attempt to sway millions of viewers into doubting Jordan’s credibility and the accuracy of the police information concerning the description.
Numerous myths circulated by Jackson truthers attempt to undermine the accuracy of Jordan’s description. One persistent claim is that Jordan described Jackson as circumcised, a detail said to contradict the findings of the autopsy. This assertion appears to have originated from Victor Gutierrez’s book and an article published over a decade ago on the Smoking Gun website.
The truth — whether Jackson’s circumcision status formed part of the description — remains known only to the police. There is no indication in Thomas Sneddon’s declaration, nor in any law enforcement interviews, that this detail was ever included.
In addition, Jackson apologists have been known to spread misinformation on Wikipedia in relation to this specific claim.
The following is a direct quote:
"In March 1994, Jackson's mother Katherine was called to testify in front of the LA County Grand Jury. Investigators asked whether her son had altered the appearance of his genitalia. Jordan claimed that Jackson was circumcised. However, Jackson's autopsy report showed that he had not been circumcised and his foreskin appeared intact, with no signs of surgical restoration."
The autopsy report on Jackson’s genitalia makes no reference to “surgical restoration.” Instead, it is notably vague, stating only that his penis “appears” uncircumcised.
This could be interpreted as an acknowledgment that Jackson had a tight or unusual foreskin, or that his penis had retracted due to post‑mortem changes — a phenomenon not uncommon in a lifeless body.
It is also worth noting that Jordan was asked to depict Jackson’s “erect” penis, specifically the underside, which would only have been visible if Jackson were sexually aroused. The physiological changes that occur in an uncircumcised penis when aroused are well documented.
Ultimately, it remains purely speculative to determine whether Jordan’s description in this regard was accurate or erroneous.
The belief that Michael Jackson would have faced immediate arrest if Jordan Chandler’s description had matched the photographs is not supported by substantial evidence. There is no explicit provision in the police manual stating that a matching description of an accused person’s private parts in a sexual assault case constitutes an automatic arrestable offence.
Given Jackson’s formidable legal defence, led by the renowned Johnnie Cochran, it is reasonable to assume they were well‑versed in the finer points of the law. Yet they chose not to exploit the police’s decision not to arrest Jackson after the photographs were taken, developed, and analysed. Instead, they advised him to pursue a swift settlement, reportedly in excess of 15 million dollars.
Strange, isn’t it?
It is important to recognise that the purpose of the strip search went beyond the possibility of an immediate arrest or charges. Rather, it was intended to strengthen the credibility of Jordan’s allegations within the context of an ongoing and complex investigation.
Michael Jackson’s physical appearance changed markedly throughout the 1980s and beyond, most notably in relation to his skin colour. It is widely acknowledged that he suffered from vitiligo, a condition characterised by the loss of skin pigment in patches. However, the precise cause — whether the result of deliberate skin bleaching, a natural progression of the condition, or a combination of both — remains the subject of debate and speculation.
Photographs from the 1980s and 1990s show Jackson with a slightly blotchy complexion, a visible manifestation of the vitiligo he experienced. It is also a matter of public record that he had a Jacuzzi in his private quarters and, according to testimony from Wade Robson and his sister, would engage in semi‑naked bathing activities.
Q. Do you recall what Mr. Jackson was wearing in the Jacuzzi?
A. From my recollection, he was wearing shorts. You know, like swimming shorts. And that was it.
It is highly probable that Jordan Chandler, as a close acquaintance of Michael Jackson, was aware of his uneven skin tone. However, to suggest that he could accurately infer details about Jackson’s genitalia from this knowledge alone would be a considerable stretch.
Within the context of the allegation that Jordan’s father, Evan Chandler, was attempting to extort Jackson, it seems improbable that someone seeking financial gain would risk undermining their position by guessing at the appearance of Jackson’s genitalia — even if it were an educated guess.
According to Thomas Sneddon’s declaration, Jordan described several areas of discolouration on Jackson’s lower torso and buttocks, placing particular emphasis on a single dark mark on the underside of his penis. This detail was considered highly distinctive, visible only under specific circumstances when Jackson was unclothed and likely aroused.
Deputy District Attorney Lauren Weis stated that there was information indicating Michael Jackson had never inadvertently exposed his naked body to children, let alone the underside of his penis.
Adding to the complexity, Jackson and many of his supporters maintained that there were no markings on his genitalia. This contradiction prompts difficult questions: do Jackson’s supporters believe he lied about the absence of marks, while Jordan’s description of discolouration was accurate but not entirely consistent? Or do they prefer to construct alternative explanations to account for these discrepancies?
I have included this particular truther theory solely for its entertainment value, rather than for any factual accuracy.
Twitter user @AnnieIsNotFkOk and their friend @RaspberryR3d took part in a “game” in which they each drew up to ten marks on a “mushroom.” When they compared their drawings, they observed a strikingly strong — and in some cases, almost identical — match, which they claimed illustrated “how Sneddon got away with it.”
@AnnieIsNotFkOk claims that Jordan drew multiple marks on the shaft of Jackson’s penis and suggests that Thomas Sneddon was able to identify a match through a process of elimination, later stating in his declaration that it was in the same “relative location.”
As mentioned above, Jordan did describe discolouration on Jackson’s “lower torso, buttocks and genitals, including a particular blemish on his penis.” However, he drew only one distinctive dark blemish on the penis — not as many as ten.
That two fully grown adults genuinely believe Jordan sketched multiple markings, and that Thomas Sneddon was then able, through a process of elimination, to identify one in roughly the same location, illustrates just how absurd the Michael Jackson fan community can be — and how readily they twist events into a conspiracy.
The question of whether the description provided matched or conflicted with the actual photographs remains a matter of considerable dispute. Those closely involved in the case, who had the opportunity to examine both the photographs and the description first-hand, maintain that there was a clear correspondence. Moreover, the language used by Jackson’s defence team in 2005 strongly suggests that they regarded it as an issue best kept out of the courtroom.
Concerns about the description and photographs were not new. In 1993/94, Jackson’s legal team had already expressed unease. Carl Douglas, who worked alongside Johnnie Cochran, openly referred to the matter as “the 300‑pound gorilla in the room” and stated the need to “silence” the accuser. He made these remarks during a seminar in Los Angeles on 15 September 2010, where he appeared alongside Larry Feldman and Thomas Mesereau.
Watch the Carl Douglas segment below.
The photographs of Jackson’s genitalia appear to have been the decisive factor, prompting a swift multimillion‑dollar settlement with Jordan and his parents in mid‑January 1994. That fact alone speaks volumes.
Similar Posts
This article explores the 1993 Chandler case, detailing Jordan Chandler’s allegations against Michae…
This article debunks claims by MJ’s Fact Vault about Jordan Chandler’s description of Michael Jackso…
This article debunks the myth that Michael Jackson’s 1993 settlement was solely for negligence, reve…
This article debunks the myth that Michael Jackson wanted a criminal trial after the 1994 settlement…
This article debunks the myth that Jordan Chandler recanted his allegations, revealing how the rumou…