At 16:20 in this interview he claims there are no markings on his p****

In the article you linked, the doctor who was present during the police photographs said

“The genitalia were very oddly colored with dark skin and light skin and I was told later that the deposition and the photos that were taken absolutely matched what the child had described”

The doctor did not see the sketch made by Chandler but he very clearly saw MJ’s p****

Why would Michael Jackson lie about his p****? All he did was insinuate mistrust in the police.

The claim that Jordy described Michael Jackson’s p**** as circumcised comes from a clickbait article from a website called Smoking Gun. That isn’t a good source. Gutierrez also claimed to be close to the prosecution and was VERY wrong about key pieces of evidence, claiming that there was a s***tape. Only the police know what Jordy’s description was like.

this doesn't prove criminality but

@ you lil weirdos who think the 6ix9ine situation is similar to Mike’s

Smoking gun was a pro prosecution site who were given court documents by the prosecution in 2003-2005

If only police know why are you claiming it was accurate

I’m pretty sure Smoking Gun is the same site that exposed Rick Ross

Don’t know why tf he had those boy books, those pics are NASTY

Smoking Gun was a pro prosecution site who CLAIMED they were given court documents. In reality the media went into a frenzy over the 2005 case and often reported incorrect facts.

I am claiming it is accurate because Sneddon filed a motion to show both Chandler’s drawing and the photographs of Jackson to the jury. This was ultimately thrown out because Chandler was out of the country for some reason. I don’t think Sneddon would have been ready to show the pictures if there was no connection; it would’ve made him look like a clown. The drawing had to be accurate or Sneddon would have lost his career.

Then why did Sneddon ask Katherine in 1994 if Jackson had altered his p****

Was a gift from a fan

It’s a book of the lord of the flies film

Questionable but not any sort of evidence especially considering its origin

nigga, if you have a book with a picture of a lil white boy w his dingaling out idgaf what film book it is that s*** is SUS and NASTY

Perhaps he could not tell. In fact, the officials who performed Jackson’s autopsy couldn’t tell either. In the autopsy it is stayed he “appears uncircumcised”. No other pet of their physical external description used the word “appears”

Also why did he have a photograph of Jonathan Spence nude at his house?

Sorry never saw this.

The prosecution never proved this photo ever existed, nor did they present it to the court. The only ever mention of it was in a motion. Once.

This is a common 'bombshell, ha we got ya!' piece of evidence 'guilters' will use. It was mentioned in a prosecution motion - those things contain one-sided claims etc that never have to be proven.

If such photo existed, it would've been used. The fact is the prosecution were desperate for 'victims' and thus tried to forge such mention of a photograph.

In March 2005 after the 'Prior Bad Acts' was brought in the only thing was the supposed 'art books'. By police admission, and I quote, the Neverland Valley Ranch raid ended up that, “the search warrant didn’t result in anything that would support a criminal filing”.

Also, on March 28th 2005 as the case was wrapping up the prosecution tried to bring in testimony regarding Spence and his 'grooming' (aka Jackson buying him gifts like he bought everyone and anyone) and the Judge refused it. Now, if such photo existed it would've been used, surely.

It's an interesting discussion of what a prosecution is allowed to do and further proof of what the media report vs what actually happens in the court room are two completely different things.

Time for part 3?