I'll think you'll find that the Almighty child defender Thomas Sneddon wasn't the only person investigating Michael Jackson.<quoted text>
Not only is there no evidence (Sneddon's opinion does NOT count) that Jordan's description matched the photos, the fact that two grand juries presumably viewed the photos/description and yet refused to indict is a strong indicator that they did NOT match.
Here's what the lead investigator from the LAPD had to say about Jordy's description and Michael Jackson splotchy penis.
"He 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".
Jordy Chandler's description of splotches in a certain location on Michael Jackson's penis was 100% correct.
Now go and have a cry, CHILD HATER.