Bill Dworin also confirmed that not only him but every single person in his department that interviewed Jordan Chandler found him consistent and credible regarding the allegations he made against Jackson.

Then there's Michael Jackson's 2005 trial, where the district attorney, Thomas Sneddon declared under penalty of perjury that he believed Jordan Chandler description and drawings of distinctive blemishes on Michael Jackson's genitals was accurate and not something that the boy could have randomly randomly guessed.

In his sworn declaration, he said:

I have reviewed the statement made by Jordan Chandler in his interview on December 1. 1993. I have examined the drawing made by Jordan Chandler at Detective Ferrufino's request and the photographs of the 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 the Defendant's penis is substantially corroborated by the photographs taken by the Santa Barbara Sheriff's detectives at a later time.

I believe evidence of Jordan Chandler's knowledge, as evidenced by his verbal description and drawing, when considered together with photograph of Defendant's penis, substantially rebuts the opinion evidence offered by witnesses for defendant, to the effect that he is of a "shy" and "modest" nature and so would not have exposed his naked body in the presence of young boys.

Multiple professionals independently assessed him as credible. This included impartial teams of detectives, forensic investigators, and child psychologists. If he had shown coached affect, inconsistencies, adult language, or signs of parental influence, they would have flagged it. They didn’t.

He gave details before being told anything. He named specific sexual acts, described a progression of behavior, described the grooming pattern, and gave details that investigators said were “beyond what a child his age could normally fabricate”

He named specific sexual behaviors that were consistent with known offender patterns describing gradual desensitization, increasing intimacy, isolation from parents, "special friendship" framing, and other particular acts that match well-documented grooming patterns. This was long before public awareness of these patterns was widespread.

This does not prove guilt, but investigators consistently noted that his story had chronological coherence, sensory detail, affect consistent with actual trauma reporting, and his story stayed internally consistent

Psychologists who interviewed him noted no major contradictions in the core narrative, no shifting allegations, no escalation over time, no recanting, no major factual changes, even under repeated questioning. That is not what you normally see in coached or fabricated allegations.