Skip to content

For the attention of fans of Peretti’s film about Michael. Its main “source” VICTOR GUTIERREZ is a proven LIAR and a suspected NAMBLA member

March 2, 2011

Those who will be watching Jacques Peretti’s film ridiculously misnamed “What really happened” should ask themselves a question what kind of people are standing behind its making. This question isn’t an idle one as once they learn who is selling them all this monstrosity their perception of it will surely change.

PERETTI’S FILM

The film was first broadcast by British television station Channel 4 on October 24, 2007 which was well after Michael Jackson’s full acquittal in 2005 and four years after Bashir’s documentary in 2003.

The timing of the initial broadcast was strange. It strongly suggested that the authors of the film wanted to turn Michael Jackson never proven “guilt” into a non-stop speculation and fix their dirt about the man in people’s minds for generations to come.

The idea behind their present plans to re-air the film today (March 2,  2011) on French/German television  is also clear – now they want to make sure that the public doesn’t feel a morsel of respect, pity or compassion for a “criminal” like Michael Jackson and knows which side to take during the forthcoming trial of a doctor who gave Michael Jackson a lethal doze of propofol.

The quality of the film is such that one of the independent viewers summed up this masterpiece as follows:

  • “It makes the Bashir piece look almost impartial. Unreal. I was disgusted”.

The film is indeed an ultimate accomplishment of Michael’s detractors. It accumulates all possible lies made about Jackson for decades and is meant to draw a bottom line under the many years of hard work done to vilify the man and assassinate his character without any hope for its future resurrection.

The tone of the narration is triumphant and is seething with deep satisfaction and delight at the mission accomplished.  Jacques Peretti, the producer of the film, portrays himself as a lifelong Michael Jackson’s fan which is a flat lie of course – the goal of the lie is to send the world a message that even Michael’s fans know how deeply fallen and corrupt their idol is.

Every half a minute Peretti comes up with innuendoes like Is it the man who enjoys innocent fun or are we watching something darker here?” or What was this construction hiding?” or Is it all it seems?” or “I was beginning to descend into the basement of the Jackson story” or “The story emerging was more complex and much darker than I had ever imagined” and “It’s amazing that his fate is to become an anonymous suburban freak”.

From time to time Peretti makes long and affected pauses to set off phrases like they would lie together on the carpet and imagine flying over Neverland(as if it were supposed to mean something sinister) or falls into a horrified tell-all silence for full several minutes of precious TV time after hearing Bob Jones saying that “they were in the bedroom at night too”.

If you add to the picture the type of music usually accompanying horror or suspense movies which is meant to convey to the viewers what abominable crimes must have been taking place there, you will get the complete picture of a horror film we are being presented with. This kind of presentation is exactly the proof we needed to make sure what kind of a “fan” Jacques Peretti is …

DIANE DIMOND and VICTOR GUTIERREZ

Diane Dimond

But no matter how vicious the way of presenting the material is, the main characters of the film are the triumphant DIANE DIMOND and a less known guy who was Diane Dimond’s right hand for many years whose name is VICTOR GUTIERREZ. The film is a true shining hour of these characters and a tribute to their life-long meddling with Michael Jackson’s life.

Fame has found its heroes at last and it is no chance occurrence that both of them make their appearance in this film together – this way the proud authors have unwittingly shown to us who the main players in Michael’s vilification campaign are and emphasized an inseparable link between the two.

Victor Gutierrez

Since everyone knows Diane Dimond’s ludicrous stories about “love letters” never found in Neverland or her delicate methods of reporting like dangling on TV someone’s soiled underwear this post will focus on a less known Victor Gutierrez who has been Diane Dimond’s best source of information for about twenty years since 1993 when the first allegations against Michael Jackson broke out.

DIANE DIMOND’S “BEST SOURCE”

How do we know that Victor Gutierrez was Diane Dimond’s best source who consistently supplied her with ‘information’, a better word for which would be actually misinformation?

Well, Diane Dimond named Victor Gutierrez as her best source herself – in her infamous report about a certain video tape which allegedly caught Michael Jackson’s “molesting” his nephew and which naturally never existed as the mother of the boy, who was supposed to show the video to Victor Gutierrez, never knew the man and never heard the story until it was told to her by a friend.

Diane Dimond first mentioned her “best source” when she was launching the fake video story on January 9, 1995, on the “The Ken and Barkley Show” broadcast by KABC-AM radio. Diane Dimond didn’t disclose his name then but was full of praise for the man whose word she “never, ever doubted” and who had “surely seen the tape” and told her that it was “truly explicit”.

Please see the transcript of the show which later laid the basis for a defamation suit filed by Michael Jackson against Diane Dimond and note the triumphant and confident way in which she is presenting her lie there:

Q: “It is an x-rated tape?”

Dimond: “It is . . . yes.”

Q: “Of Michael Jackson?”

Dimond:Truly explicit.”

Q: “It’s what? Michael Jackson and little boy. Are you 100% sure that this tape exists?”

Dimond:I am as sure as I can possibly be.

Q: “You have not seen it?”

Dimond: “I have not seen it but one of my best sources on the Michael Jackson story has seen it.”

Q: “Who .. . you have no doubts about.”

Dimond:I have never had a doubt about this person, ever. I know the District Attorneys’ Office is looking for it because they are calling up reporters saying ‘Have you seen it.’ . . . Do you know where we can get it?”

Q: “Who had it and was showing it? His security people?”

Dimond: “Well, someone close to Michael Jackson found this tape and, in deep concern for the boy involved, gave it to boy’s mother.”

Q: “Uh oh. Should Michael not know that one of his own security cameras was recording what he was doing?”

Dimond: “Oh no, he knew. He absolutely knew.”

Q: “He is asking for trouble.”

Dimond: “You know, I remember way back when, more than a year ago, we interviewed the head of the pedo[ph]ile unit at the FBI in Quantico, Virginia and he said you know the down fall of pedo[ph]iles is that they love to keep a momento of their victims. Or, they love to take pictures or take videos. We don’t know why, but they do this. It is for their own self gratification later but it always comes back to bite them.”

Q: “Somebody close to Michael Jackson got a hold of it and thought holy, baloney this is worth a lot of money. Look, I’ll split it 50/50 with you and we can get maybe $50 million.”

Dimond: “That could very well be.”

Q: “And he gave it to the mother of the boy?”

Dimond:Correct.”

Q: “So she has it.”

Dimond: “And, I have to tell you, if my source is correct, who has seen this tape, and again, he always has been. The acts that are being performed on that tape are exactly what the accuser a year ago said Michael Jackson did to him.”

Q: “Well, I mean you don’t need to beat around the bush. What are those acts?”

Dimond:We are talking about oral sex.”

Q: “Um, hmm. Performed on Michael Jackson or by Michael Jackson?”

Dimond: By Michael Jackson. . .

Later that evening, “Hard Copy” showed a report where Dimond’s best source Victor Gutierrez made a personal appearance at last and spoke of what he had allegedly seen on the tape and how he had allegedly interacted with the mother of the alleged victim.

The speakers on the tape include Diane Dimond; Victor Gutierrez; Barry Nolan, an anchorperson for “Hard Copy”; and Kevin Smith, a reporter, who was also seeking to track down the alleged video.

Diane Dimond’s presents her slander about Michael Jackson as a New Year wish for him, speaks of the film as if it were an established fact confirmed by sources even in London and provides numerous false details about the video (she even knows that it is black-and-white and lasts 27 minutes!):

Dimond: “If Michael Jackson thought the new year would bring him a new lease on life, it just isn’t happening that way. Hard Copy has learned that there is now a renewed police investigation into the entertainer’s relationship with young boys. This time, authorities are hot on the trail of an explicit video tape they believe could make their case. Michael Jackson’s videos have been seen around the world. But it is not his music videos authorities are interested in. Nope. Hard Copy can now reveal that investigators from the L.A. District Attorneys office have been working around the clock lately trying to find an x-rated video of the pop superstar which they believe shows him naked and fondling a young boy.

Gutierrez: “When you [Unintelligible] . . . the tape, there is no doubt about it. It is very graphic.”

Kevin Smith: “If the D.A. gets a hold of the tape and it shows what it’s supposed to show, then Michael Jackson will be in handcuffs.

Dimond: “The investigators are working for this woman. Assistant D.A. Lauren Weiss. She was once a key player in the Jackson child molestation investigation. Last year, police helped question witnesses brought before a secret grand jury. Now she has her investigators scrambling to find that video tape. Journalist Kevin Smith was questioned by the D.A.’s office.”

… “It is impossible to independently confirm the existence of the video but several sources including some as far away as London say that this tape is black and white, 27 minutes long, and reportedly recorded by one of Jackson’s own security cameras. Sources also tell Hard Copy the tape was somehow turned over to the Mother of the young boy seen on the video.”

Smith: “The investigator I spoke to said this is what they’ve been waiting for. If they had the tape, that’s all they needed to make an arrest.”

Dimond: “Victor Gutierrez has reported on Michael Jackson for the last decade and has a book about to be published regarding the entertainer’s relationship with various boys. Gutierrez has talked with this young boy’s mother.”

Gutierrez: “And now she is scared. And now, not only that, the District Attorney is trying to get these tapes and I guess through my sources, they already been in contact with the Mother. So, it’s up to the Mother now to make the final decision.”

Smith: “Even if the original copy damages or is destroyed or is hushed up, there has been a copy made and that is what the D.A. is going after.”

Dimond: “Could there actually be such an x-rated tape. Well, late today, Jackson’s lawyer, Howard Weitzman categorically denied the existence of such a video and he says to his knowledge neither the D.A. in Los Angeles or Santa Barbara has reactivated the case. We will have more on this developing story tomorrow. Barry?”

Barry Nolan: “Thanks Diane. . .”

Source: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1288872.html

 TRUTH BEHIND THE VIDEO TAPE STORY

In response to the allegations, Jackson filed a defamation of character lawsuit against Victor Gutierrez and Hard Copy. During the civil proceedings, the boy’s mother Margaret Maldonado testified that she knew nothing of the story, had never been in contact with either police or Victor Gutierrez, had never seen the video, had never negotiated it with Jackson and the whole thing was nothing but an outrageous lie.

In the book Jackson Family Values Jermaine Jackson’s ex-common-law wife, Margaret Maldonado, wrote in early 1995,

“I received a telephone call from a writer named Ruth Robinson. I had known Ruth for quite a while and respected her integrity. It made what she had to tell me all the more difficult to hear.

“I wanted to warn you, Margaret,” she said. “There’s a story going around that there is a videotape of Michael molesting one of your sons, and that you have the tape.”

If anyone else had said those words, I would have hung up the phone. Given the long relationship I had with Ruth, however, I gave her the courtesy of a response. I told her that it wasn’t true, of course, and that I wanted the story stopped in its tracks.

She had been in contact with someone who worked at the National Enquirer who had alerted her that a story was being written for that paper. Ruth cross-connected me with the woman, and I vehemently denied the story. Moreover, I told her that if the story ran, I would own the National Enquirer before the lawsuits I brought were finished. To its credit, the National Enquirer never ran the piece.

“Hard Copy,” however, decided it would. “Hard Copy” correspondent Diane Dimond had reported that authorities were reopening the child molestation case against Michael. She had also made the allegations on L.A. radio station KABC-AM on a morning talk show hosted by Roger Barkley and Ken Minyard. Dimond’s claims were based on the word of a freelance writer named Victor Gutierrez.

The story was an outrageous lie. Not one part of it was true. I’d never met the man. There was no tape. Michael never paid me for my silence. He had never molested Jeremy. Period.”

http://www.mjcafe.net/the%20legend%20speeches%20&%20faq/c13.htm

Though the slander suit filed against Diane Dimond did not reach its goal as she escaped justice by hiding behind the Shield Law which allowed her to put the burden of responsibility onto the shoulders of her “source”, the slander suit filed by Michael Jackson against Victor Gutierrez was won by him in court on April 9, 1998.

Superior Court Judge Reginald Dunn ruled that Gutierrez was acting with malice, his story was false and the jury subsequently awarded Jackson $2.7 million in damages (for details please go to http://www.allbusiness.com/services/motion-pictures/4926892-1.html )

However Victor Gutierrez escaped justice too as he quickly fled to Mexico and filed there for bankruptcy thus managing to avoid paying the money. According to Chilean fans who wrote in MichaelJackson forum, immediately after Michael’s death Gutierrez appeared on Chilean TV to announce how happy he was that the singer was gone and now he was free from the need to pay the millions he owed him.

Since Victor Gutierrez is generously quoted in Peretti’s film let me remind you that over there he is presented as an innocent victim of harassment on the part of Michael Jackson or his people:

  • “Victor Gutierrez fled the US for ten years as a result of threats against him…”

If you think that the shame of being caught red-handed telling malicious lies about Jackson made Victor Gutierrez shut up you are very wrong indeed.

Veritas Project says that in November 2003, when Jackson was accused of child molestation the second time, Gutierrez began giving interviews about the case to Chilean newspapers. He claimed that the new set of allegations validated the contents of his book and as a result, it was Jackson who had defamed his character and now owed him money.

The people who saw him on TV commented that Gutierrez was so confident they would be able to get rid of Michael Jackson this time that he even bragged that Jackson’s 2,700-acre ranch would soon be his – evidently in return for some valuable help rendered to someone  – otherwise how could such a crazy idea enter his mind? However with a liar like Victor Gutierrez you never know…

During an interview with “La Cuarta”, Gutierrez lied that Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon had contacted him about being a potential witness in the current case against Jackson. However a week later, a member of the District Attorney’s office contacted “La Cuarta” to refute those claims. (Source: http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/part4.html)

Despite the so-called threats to Gutierrez which were announced in Peretti’s film and which were supposed to haunt Gutierrez for ten years after the judge’s ruling, it didn’t prevent Gutierrez from working for Dateline NBC and getting from them $25, 000 a month for covering the Jackson case in 2005. He accepted the offer and became a consulting producer for the news program, as the picture below shows it.

Dateline NBC

“In 2005 Dateline NBC aired a report entitled “Inside the Michael Jackson Case”. The credits reveal that Gutierrez was the consulting producer for the program”, says the Veritas Project.

The desire of NBC to have access to a liar like Gutierrez is easy to understand however the thing I do not understand is why they didn’t make deductions from Gutierrez’s official salary as some form of repayment of the damages to be paid to Michael Jackson?

For the full story about the fake video tape and the events that followed please go to this post .

VICTOR GUTIERREZ LIES IN PERETTI’S FILM

In the film Jacques Peretti is speaking to Victor Gutierrez in a car with the face of the man barely discernable in the dim light. This way the producers of the film are probably trying to imply that Gutierrez is hiding from Michael Jackson – though at the time of making the film (2007) Michael was not even in the US.  However Victor Gutierrez may have much more valid reasons for not showing his face to the public in broad daylight – but we will discuss it a little later.

In the meantime let’s focus on the lies he is telling to Peretti and note that despite the darkness enveloping Victor Gutierrez we can still make out how terribly pleased he is with himself as he is reciting his fantastic lies about Jordan Chandler and Michael Jackson:

  • “He fell in love with the boy.  Instead of concerts he was spending time with Jordan.  He moved into his house. He spent a month in the house.  Father who was a dentist went to work.  Mother Natalie went to work.  Somebody had to take care of the house and Jackson became the nanny.  He did the laundry… He would do the laundry for Jordie.  He was folding all the clothing for Jordie. He was making the bed for Jordie.  He was cooking for him – he was like a maid”

Jacques Peretti is awestruck by these revelations:

  • “So in 1992 with a 14 year old boy he spent a month doing the laundry…!????”

The lie told by Gutierrez is indeed fantastic and would be laughable if it were not that tragic. To begin with, both guys are talking about 1992 and don’t know the basic fact that Michael didn’t even see Jordan until 1993 as he was on a tour before that and it was only in February 1993 that Jordan, his sister Lily and their mother June Chandler made a completely innocent visit to Neverland for the first time.

The story of the father and mother going to work while Michael did laundry for the boy doesn’t have a leg to stand on as the family Victor Gutierrez is talking about is Evan and Natalie Chandler with whom Michael spent two weekends at the most – with the parents being in full presence and a maid attending to their needs. All the details are found in the book by Jordan Chandler’s uncle Ray Chandler who by the way is also so disgusted by Gutierrez that calls him names (sorry I forgot which ones, but something very derogative).

If you want to know more about Gutierrez’s lies and in whose home Michael really spent several weeks and why please go to this post.

VICTOR GUTIERREZ LIES IN HIS BOOK

Victor Gutierrez accumulated all his fictional stories about Michael Jackson and Jordan Chandler in a self-published book called “Michael Jackson was my lover”. He claims that this filthy piece of complete falsehood is based on a diary allegedly kept by Jordan – however it was Jordan’s own uncle Ray Chandler who refuted it by saying that no such diary ever existed.

Roger Friedman has probably read the book and says that it is much more pornographic than anything the police ever found in Neverland. He says that Victor Gutierrez is “rumoured” to have made up most of the material by stitching together bits and pieces of speculation from one of the maids who sleuthed on Jackson:

“The book was not published in the U.S. because Jackson won a libel suit against the author. Gutierrez’s writing is much more pornographic than anything the police say they found at Neverland. Gutierrez, it is rumored, made up a lot of his material after stitching together bits and pieces of speculation from the maid who worked for the Chandlers, the family at the center of the 1993 case against Jacko.” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151774,00.html

One of the reviewers of the book was so impressed by the incredible Gutierrez’s lies and his unashamed graphic fantasies about Jackson that he wrote about his “deepest cynicism about human nature and its innate badness being confirmed rapidly, uproariously and completely“. He called Gutierrez’s manuscript “perfect water closet reading for the closet cases” and was so struck by the book that I initially thought he was praising it until finally realizing that all this praise was mere sarcasm on the part of the reviewer:

“Yippee! Nobody can ever compete. Everyone should at the very least have this book in their toilet for guests as a matter of decadent etiquette. Perfect water closet reading for the closet cases.

Forget the relentless character assassination of Goldman’s Lennon book. Or any Elvis expose. Here we have achieved a nirvana of the gratuitous. Thank you Victor, Oh, thank you Victor!

All my life I hoped that a book that proclaimed it told you “the whole unexpurgated, shocking story” would really do it. 50 years after my birth, here it is. This is the most perfectly fabulous and amoral book about the excess and undeserved privilege accorded the celebrated, successful and rich in America ever to be inked onto dead trees. Everything it claims to contain is contained within its hallowed bowels, and more, and more.

Fantastic. I can’t believe that it’s not exposed prominently in every cornershop Bodega, supermarket and bookstore chain across America and number one in the best sellers lists everywhere!

As the back says: “The Boy Reveals how he got to know Jackson (and sex); Trips to Foreign countries with Jackson (and sex); What he saw when Jackson got naked in front of him (and sex); the sexual games he played with Jackson (and more sex). There are snapshots, love notes, depositions, even spindly drawings of Michael’s malodorous and “smelly” penis by the boy; (oh, “the boy”, by the way, is Jordie Chandler who rather surprisingly is credited with having co-written the screenplay for “Robin Hood-Men In Tights” with his father at age 10. Go figure!)

This kind of shameless self-corruption is what made America great; and I for one am deeply grateful. There is something calming, and infinitely reassuring about having ones deepest cynicism about human nature and its innate badness confirmed so rapidly, uproariously and completely.

I can sleep better now, safe in the knowledge that the poor scum get banged up, but that the rich and famous scum are, and will always remain, pillars of the community in any truly democratic, and free, society. All hail the American dream.

Genesis P-Orridge

Well, we’ve also managed to read a few chapters of this masterpiece and also reaped a generous harvest of lies, delusions and inventions of Gutierrez’s perverse mind. Below is a report of only some of his lies and please let me remind you once again that we are talking about the best source of information Diane Dimond ever had.

GUTIERREZ LIES ABOUT WADE ROBSON

In a chapter devoted to Wade Robson and his mother Joy the author claims in full earnest that in the summer 1992 he met the family in the street where Wade was earning a dollar or two by dancing to the crowd and going rounds with a hat begging for money. The reason why they found themselves in these dire circumstances was that the boy’s mother had allegedly said she didn’t want Michael “to sleep with her son” and Michael allegedly got enraged with it and this is how they found themselves in the street – homeless and begging for money to have “bread on the table” as Gutierrez puts it!

Quote from the book:

  • “As I approached Joy, Wade ran up to her and said that he had only got three dollars from his latest performance. He took two one dollar bills and some coins out of his hat.
  • At first, it did not seem that they were poor. But after some time it became apparent to me that they were homeless. They once had a rich life with one of the most famous people in the world. Now they were in the street without money, without friends, and hoping that Wade’s dancing would put bread on the table.”
  • “If there was something I learned, [said Joy], it’s that I shouldn’t have gone against Michael. He was enraged. It was because of this that we left the ranch. He didn’t give us any money. He left it up to us to contact him, but he never took our calls. We were calling because we needed money. We didn’t want to leave the country…This is why we are in the street trying to earn money.”

Well, when Victor Gutierrez was writing his fiction stories there was no way of knowing that in 2005 Joy and Wade Robson would be testifying for Michael Jackson, would still be great friends with him and would say under oath that they stayed in Neverland whenever they wanted, as often as they wanted and usually when Michael wasn’t even there. I wish every “homeless family” could enjoy such comfort… This is what Joy Robson said at the trial:

23 Q. Are you still Michael Jackson’s friend?

24 A. Absolutely.

10 Q. And do you consider yourselves

11 friends of the family of Mr. Jackson?

12 A. We consider us very good friends, if not

13 family.

Q. You testified that you’ve been out at the

6 ranch on an average of about four times?

7 A. Four times a year, but Michael was never

8 there.

11 Q. He’s never there when you go there?

12 A. Very rarely. I can only remember four times

13 in 14 years that we’ve been there with him since we

14 have lived here.

20 Q. How many times do you think you visited

21 Neverland when Mr. Jackson wasn’t even there?

22 A. Maybe 40, 50 times.

The wildness of Gutierrez’s imagination is such that it makes me even thankful for the trial in 2005 as all the people mentioned in Gutierrez’s fantasy world (excluding the Chandlers who refused to testify) could tell their real stories at the trial and thus refute the lies which Gutierrez spread about Jackson never knowing that there would come a time for checking them up.

Now what about this lie about Joy Robson “objecting to the boy sleeping with MJ”? At the trial Joy said that, firstly, it was her children who insisted on staying with Michael (and not Michael) and secondly, the only thing she and her husband were bothered with was whether it would be okay for Michael if the children stayed with him. They knew Michael well enough to trust him without any reservation as by that time they had spoken to him for several years on the phone from Australia:

18 And then it was getting late, and my

19 children said to me, both Chantal and Wade, my

20 daughter, said, ‘Can we stay with Michael. ‘

21 And my husband and I sort of looked at

22 Michael, and said, ‘Well, if that’s okay with you ‘.

23 And he said,  Oh, absolutely. If they’d like to

24 stay, that’s fine.’

25 Q. And did you allow your son and daughter to

26 stay in his room?

27 A. Yes.

… 10 Q. Why were you letting Wade spend those

11 evenings with Mr. Jackson?

12 A. Those evenings just happened because they

13 were having fun together. They would play till all

14 hours of the night. They would watch music videos.

15 They would watch cartoons. And they’d basically

16 just go to sleep.

Victor Gutierrez goes on to explain to the reader that Michael Jackson “manipulated” Wade Robson and immediately turns his conclusion into a generalized concept saying that the “same games and manipulations” concerned all children who knew Michael Jackson.

QUOTE from the book:

  • “Joy needed to talk, and she continued “Michael manipulated my son,  that was what I didn’t like about him. He always made my son feel guilty if he didn’t do what he wanted. “
  • I interrupted her to ask her the obvious, as I needed to hear her say it. “Manipulate your son? What was it that Michael wanted with a boy like your son?” Joy looked at me. She was upset and disgusted with what I had asked. She said: “I think that both of us know what we’re talking about. Michael was obsessed with my son. When I asked him why he wanted to sleep with my son, he replied that we would talk about it later. It never happened.
  • … I didn’t press her further for specifics about her son’s friendship with Jackson. I now knew that the statements taken before from other boys were true. The stories agreed with Joy’s. The same games. The same manipulations.”

Thank God Joy Robson was cross-examined in 2005 exactly on the idea of manipulations! If it hadn’t been for her true words said under oath, how on earth could we prove that Gutierrez’s words are complete fabrication? It all sounds so real! By the way Joy Robson did say she was afraid of manipulation – only it was not on the part of Michael Jackson but on the part of the police!

28 Q. You felt that your son could be manipulated 9257

1 easily?

2 A. No, but I wasn’t going to take that chance.

3 He was ten.

4 Q. You weren’t concerned about the fact that

5 the defendant in this case, Mr. Jackson, might

6 manipulate your son?

7 A. No concern at all that he would manipulate

8 my son.

9 Q. But two law enforcement officers, you

10 thought they would?

11 A. Possibly. I don’t know them. I know Mr.

12 Jackson. …I’ve known Michael for a long time. I

16 know him very well. I’ve spent many hours talking

17 to him about everything. I feel like he’s a member

18 of my family. I know him very well. I trust him.

19 I trust him with my children. …he’s just a very unique personality. He

25 loves children. And he has a very pure love for

26 children. And to know him is to love him and to

27 trust him.

20 Q. Were you ever concerned about Mr. Jackson

21 manipulating you?

22 A. Never.

23 Q. Did you ever tell anyone you were concerned

24 that Mr. Jackson was manipulating Wade?

25 A. No.

Victor Gutierrez goes on singing his songs and now his tune is about Michael being interested “in boys only”. Michael allegedly spoke to Joy Robson only about boys and got upset if the conversation turned to another subject.

QUOTE from the book:

  • “Joy told of her experience in trying to talk to Jackson about subjects other than her son.  She spoke to Jackson about their life and now they were going to reach their goals. During these conversations, Joy would get upset because Jackson would turn the conversation to boys.”

And this is what Joy Robson really said about it at the 2005 trial and this is how she refuted Gutierrez’s lies without knowing that she was actually doing it:

6 But particularly in the two years when we

7 were living in Australia before we moved here, and I

8 talked to him every day. We had very long

9 conversations about everything that was going on in

10 his life and my life and my children’s lives. And

11 you get to know someone very well when you talk to

12 someone several hours a day over a two-year period.

13 And then once we moved here, too, we

14 continued that. We’ve always been able to talk

15 about just about anything.

Joy Robson explains why Wade Robson was so much interested in Michael Jackson and always stayed by his side – he was learning from him a lot about recording, dancing and entertainment business. And Michael always supported Wade, often checked on his progress and advised him on his career:

12 Q. To your knowledge, did your son spend a lot

13 of time with Michael Jackson at recording studios?

14 A. Often, yes.

15 Q. And why was that?

16 A. Because Wade was interested in being a

17 recording artist, he was interested in being a

18 producer. He was learning. He loved to be around

19 that and absorb that. He was like a sponge. And

20 he — that was the relationship that he and Michael

21 had. It was — a lot of it was a working

22 relationship and Michael was teaching him.

13 Q. Did you allow your son to

14 spend time with Michael Jackson learning the

15 entertainment business?

16 A. Absolutely.

17 Q. Why did you do that?

18 A. Because he was learning from the best.

19 Michael offered to teach him everything he could.

…His interest was because he saw Wade’s potential. And Wade loved

3 everything that Michael did and wanted to learn as

4 much as he could.

5 Q. Did you ever lose your trust in Michael

6 Jackson during any point in time that your son was

7 with him?

8 A. Never.

23 Q. And to your knowledge, did Mr. Jackson help

24 Wade with his career?

25 A. Yes, he’s always very supportive. He’s

26 always very interested in what Wade did with his

27 career. He would check on him. He would ask him to

28 send him — keep him in touch and send — when he 9281

1 was doing music production, he would ask him to send

2 him demos of the music that he was producing so that

3 he can listen to it and encourage him and teach him

4 what he was doing correctly and not. Always very

5 supportive, always very interested.

So much for the poor “homeless” family “abandoned” by Michael Jackson after some “awkward” questions asked by his mother which led to them having to “beg  for money” in the street….

Michael’s detractors often call his supporters “crazed  Michael’s fans”. However I don’t know who is crazed here – Michael’s supporters who believe a testimony told under oath by the direct participants in the events or Michael’s haters who buy all sorts of dirty pornographic gossip told by someone completely insane, completely corrupt and completely fixed on the idea of slandering an innocent person.

For more on Victor Gutierrez lies about Wade Robson please go to this post.

GUTIERREZ LIES ABOUT LISA-MARIE PRESLEY

In one of the chapters Victor Gutierrez tells unspeakable lies about Michael Jackson and Lisa-Marie Presley. He naturally presents himself as the greatest expert on their marriage and propagates the idea that their relationship was a sham devised with the only goal of covering up for Michael true interests “in boys”.

QUOTE from the book:

  • “Jackson and Lisa Marie began to make public appearances together. The reason? We can imagine. The press had reported that Jackson had spent a weekend alone with a minor boy, Wade Robson, who was photographed getting in a limo which took him to Jackson’s ranch. Where was Lisa Marie? In her house more than 50 miles away living separately with her two children! On other occasions Lisa Marie was seen vacationing with her ex-husband.
  • The fact that Lisa Marie was romantic with her ex-husband and not with Jackson was becoming more obvious each day. The King of Pop continued to receive young boys at his ranch, while Lisa Marie enjoyed the company of her true love.”

Frankly, I am lost for words at the audacity with which Victor Gutierrez speaks of things he hasn’t the slightest idea of. But if I can’t say a word here, let Lisa Maria Presley speak for herself. On the day Michael Jackson died she wrote in her blog that their marriage was real and that was very much in love with him:

June 26, 2009

….14 years later I am sitting here watching on the news an ambulance leaves the driveway of his home, the big gates, the crowds outside the gates, the coverage, the crowds outside the hospital, the Cause of death and what may have led up to it and the memory of this conversation hit me, as did the unstoppable tears.

All of my indifference and detachment that I worked so hard to achieve over the years has just gone into the bowels of hell and right now I am gutted.

I am going to say now what I have never said before because I want the truth out there for once.

Our relationship was not “a sham” as is being reported in the press. It was an unusual relationship yes, where two unusual people who did not live or know a “Normal life” found a connection, perhaps with some suspect timing on his part.

Nonetheless, I do believe he loved me as much as he could love anyone and I loved him very much.

…The hardest decision I have ever had to make, which was to walk away and let his fate have him, even though I desperately loved him and tried to stop or reverse it somehow.

After the Divorce, I spent a few years obsessing about him and what I could have done different, in regret…….. LMP

It later turned out that Lisa Marie Presley was so much in love with Michael that she chased him round the world in hope that their marriage would be resumed. She recently admitted to Oprah that she wanted him back for some 6 years after the divorce.

And Michael Jackson said in his highly confidential conversations with Rabbi Shmuley that she had written him letters promising him nine children if he took her back – only since she had already deceived him once on that matter Michael didn’t believe her and had children by his second wife instead.

Poor Gutierrez, I even feel sorry for him. It must be a great disappointment when the natural course of life refutes the lies you’ve taken so much trouble to invent…

For more of Gutierrez’s lies about LMP please go to this post.

GUTIERREZ LIES ABOUT LARRY FELDMAN

You wouldn’t believe it but Victor Gutierrez couldn’t resist making lies even about the man he sat in the same boat with – Larry Feldman! Larry Feldman was the attorney retained by the Chandlers in 1993 who filed a civil suit against Jackson and managed to reach a settlement with him and his lawyers.

In case of Larry Feldman Victor Gutierrez’s imagination takes him so far that he tells us in full earnest that Feldman couldn’t do with Gutierrez so much that he looked for him through a private investigator for whole three months before finally making a settlement with Jackson in January 1994.

To refute this piece of sheer craziness let me remind you that when the allegations against Michael Jackson broke out in 1993 Victor Gutierrez was one of the first to present himself to the police and therefore there was absolutely no need to look for him through a private investigator and for three months too, because Gutierrez was available to anyone who would be willing to talk to him – only no one wanted to, even the police …

However Gutierrez wants to present himself as someone really important so his imagination inspires him to tell the following lie about Larry Feldman:

  • Tuesday,  January 11, 1994 (the date of Jordan Chandler’s birthday)That same afternoon I met with Jordie’s attorney Larry Feldman, to find out more about the status of the case.”

What a wonderful statement which is supposed to tell us that Larry Feldman was freely informing VG about the case. However who knows? Probably he was….

  • Feldman told me that he had been looking for me for three months through a private investigator, Sandra Sutherland (bravo, Gutierrez!). During our conversation, Feldman expressed to me his uneasiness about the difficulty of finding more children to testify against Jackson.”
  • “Feldman, for his part, said he was ready to end Jackson’s career. “You have my word that we will put Jackson behind bars,” he promised, slamming his fist down on the table.”

This is a marvelous sample of Gutierrez’s lie. The truth of the matter is that even if Larry Feldman did want to put Michael Jackson behind bars he couldn’t do it because Larry filed a civil suit against him and civil suits are settled by money only and it is only the amount which can be the subject of negotiation between the parties.

Poor Victor Gutierrez doesn’t even know that in civil suits defendants cannot go to prison in principle as civil law does not presuppose imprisonment as a type of punishment at all  (for details go to this post please).

To be able to put a person behind bars one has to take the defendant to a criminal court but this is exactly what Larry Feldman didn’t want to do as he made every effort to push the civil suit before the criminal proceedings and his success in doing so was the major factor that decided the matter in favor of a settlement.

However the muse of invention takes Victor Gutierrez so far that he tells the following lie about the possibility of a money settlement:

  • “When I asked him if Jackson’s lawyers had offered him money to end the civil and criminal cases, he emphatically responded “no one has offered me a cent to negotiate”. He was lying to me, because he was then negotiating with Jackson’s legal advisors to cut a deal”.

Oh, I see, so this is why Larry Feldman was so angry – because “no one offered him a cent to negotiate” and this was clearly going against all his plans. Money was their primary goal from the very beginning of the case and Michael Jackson was stubborn enough not to offer a cent and insist on criminal proceedings instead  (see this post for details, please).

Well, when the accused is vehemently insisting that the case should be taken to a criminal court and is willing to take the risk of being put behind bars – instead of quietly closing the matter by paying money demanded of him by the accuser – anyone will grow angry, I agree.

As to Gutierrez’s ramblings about Larry Feldman lying to Gutierrez and negotiating a deal behind Gutierrez’s back, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry here – the pathological lies of Victor Gutierrez would indeed be laughable if it weren’t for the people who are ready to believe them.  How on earth Diane Dimond could consider this madman her “best source” is absolutely beyond my understanding – unless both of them are slightly gaga, of course?

For more about VG’s lies about Larry Feldman please go here.

Since our reading of Victor Gutierrez’s book is not finished yet, my colleagues and I hope to go on telling his crazy stories as soon as we are finished with reading this filth.

But now let us turn to Victor Gutierrez himself and have a closer look at what kind of insect it is.

Our earlier reviewer has already shared some impressions of Gutierrez’s manuscript, saying that” “everyone should at the very least have this book in their toilet for guests as a matter of decadent etiquette’ and calling the book “perfect water closet reading for the closet cases”.

Well, we also noticed a couple of things about Victor Gutierrez writings though we’ve read only several chapters of them. The filthy language he is using, his total obsession with specific issues like feces, enemas, diarrhea, tampons up the ass and c#cksucking (I can’t believe I am saying this) and all other details which he under no circumstances could be a witness to, led us to believe that such things could be told only by a professional who has first hand information on the subject. No third party – even a very well informed one – can relate details of pedophilia in such a way…

THE SECRETS OF VICTOR GUTIERREZ

Gutierrez claims that he has read all those intimate details in Jordan’s diary, but we know for a fact that no such diary ever existed. If it had it would have become number one evidence in the 1993 case and prosecutors Tom Sneddon and Jill Garcetti would have never parted with it if they had ever, ever had access to it.

How comes Victor Gutierrez had something which wasn’t available even to the prosecution? Even if it the police didn’t initially have the diary they would surely have obtained it from Victor Gutierrez during their criminal investigation in 1993-1994?

The Los Angeles Times of the period when the case was opened (Aug.28, 1993) says that Victor Gutierrez was interviewed on two days running but it is clear that the police didn’t believe his stories and surely never got the “diary” from him as those interviews ended with nothing as a result. Victor Gutierrez later even complained that he was “a nobody to them”:

One of those interviewed was Victor Gutierrez, a Southern California free-lance journalist who has been working on a book about Jackson for several years. Gutierrez spoke to LAPD officers for two hours Thursday and was interviewed again Friday.

He would not disclose what transpired during those sessions, but he told The Times that he has interviewed for his book some of the same youngsters being sought for questioning by the LAPD.

Source: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/la-times-article-august-28th-1993-enter-victor-gutierrez/

No diary is mentioned either by the police or the newspaper, however what the above article does mention is that Victor Gutierrez had worked on a book about Michael Jackson for several years before the first allegations broke out. And to do so he had interviewed numerous children (and their parents) in Michael’s surrounding.

How did he do it I wonder?

The key to his method of interview is found in Victor Gutierrez’s chapter on Wade Robson. Let us read carefully Gutierrez’s own account of the conversation with Joy Robson and we will see that he actually admits to telling them what he thought about Jackson rather than asking them questions about MJ.

Yes, under the cover of a free-lance writer “doing research” for a book he was just spreading rumors about Michael and who knows for how many years he had been doing this subversive work against Jackson?

The way he opened up conversation with people is described by him as follows:

Quote from the book:

  • “I introduced myself to the mother [of Wade Robson] saying that I was a journalist and that I was writing a book about Jackson which concerned his relationship with minors, including his being a pedophile.”

So this was the way he opened a conversation with them! The first thing he declared about Michael Jackson was that he was a “p-le” and this was said with so much confidence that people could easily think it to be an established fact…

  • “When I explained that I was not from a tabloid or newspaper…. Joy asked me what I wanted to speak about. I told her that the basic idea of the book was to speak about Jackson’s friendship with minors, and to listen to all sides and versions regarding this issue. When I finished speaking Joy exclaimed “It’s not true!”
  • I told her that the truth was going to come out one day. I asked her to at least let me explain what I had found out up until now, and then ask her if there was anything that she wanted to add. If not, I would understand.
  • She silently listened as I told her about the cases involving other young boys and about the several statements made in Hollywood about Jackson’s sexual preferences for boys. I gave details about how he went about persuading minors. ”[as if Gutierrez knew it].
  • “Now that she knew the details of my investigation, Joy sat down on the grass and began to confide in me. Wade was reading a magazine, but was close enough to hear his mother’s story. She expressed her amazement at hearing that other minors had experienced the same story”.

Due to the chance luck of having Joy Robson’s and her son’s testimony at the trial in 2005 we know for a fact that Victor Gutierrez story about Wade Robson is a complete fabrication –  but isn’t Gutierrez’s own account of how he spread dirt about Michael amazing to say the very least?

Gutierrez persuaded people to listen to him and told them his fabricated stories the true worth of which we already know by now. I can imagine what impression an opening statement about MJ being a p-le could make on Evan Chandler when Victor Gutierrez was “interviewing” him in the same manner! And this makes you wonder if it wasn’t Victor Gutierrez who sowed the first seed of suspicion in Evan Chandler’s mind…

A PRECIOUS FIND

My co-ed Lynette found an article in the May 2006 issue of British GQ which took our research of Gutierrez’s deeds a great leap further and provided details which, even if we assume them to be only half-true, are still so striking that this find turns into a precious gem.

The article from the GQ May 2006 issue

For the sake of analysis I’ve retyped it and grouped its pieces together if they cover one and the same subject:

“Gutierrez began his investigation in 1986 when he went undercover with the LAPD. While attending a secret conference held by a suspect organization LA, Gutierrez heard many references to Michael Jackson. So far as the world knew at the time, “Wacko Jacko” was just an eccentric. The fact hat he liked the company of young boys seemed no more suspicious back then than his hanging out with a chimp called Bubbles.”

“The book that Gutierrez finished after the first phase of his research never came out. Publishers thought it too hot to handle and although Gutierrez sent a copy to the LAPD they took no action either. “Because I was a nobody, just a Latino reporter in LA”.

The first fact that catches out attention here is a confirmation of the earlier revealed news that Gutierrez started working against Michael Jackson long before the first allegations broke out in 1993 – in 1986 or seven (!) years before the events.

The second fact we learn is that Victor Gutierrez says he went undercover for the LAPD to make his investigation of MJ, however later he admits that when the first phase of his research was over he sent a copy of his report to the LAPD and they took no action, because he was a “nobody to them, just a Latino reporter in LA”.

Thus we face a vivid discrepancy in his story – first he encourages us to think that he worked undercover for LAPD and was on their mission and then he says the police did not pay attention to his findings as “he was a nobody to them”.

So which way was it? Was he a nobody to the LAPD or was his sent on a mission by them? Let us make a mental note of how uncertain Victor Gutierrez is about whether he did or didn’t do anything for the LAPD and move further.

The secret conference held by a suspect organization in LA which Gutierrez says he attended can’t be anything else by the NAMBLA conference of ped-les as Gutierrez implies they discussed Michael Jackson and he “heard many references to him” there.

This is top important information as:

–   firstly, it shows that ped-les were very much interested in MJ (why, I wonder?) though he was completely disinterested in them and never associated himself with any of those despicable creatures,

–    and secondly, because Gutierrez’s attendance of the conference raises questions about the capacity in which he presented himself there. Oh, we remember, he was working there undercover for the LAPD and was on a mission there… No, wrong – he could not be on a mission there as he was “nobody to them”. But look here, if he was nobody to LAPD and wasn’t there undercover then what was he doing there at all?  Let us put aside this mind-boggling question for a time being

and proceed with the article as it has a lot more to tell us.

“For the next five years Gutierrez tracked down as many of Jackson’s current and former associates as he could. Being Latino himself helped – it was relatively easy for him to strike up friendships with Jackson’s El Salvadorean maid, Blanca Francia, who left Jackson’s employment in 1991, and the star’s Costa Rican PA, Orietta Murdock, who sued him for unfair dismissal in 1992. They told of a steady stream of young boy visitors to the ranch, all of them white, Asian or Latino. Jackson’s staff suspected that his “friendships” were more than friendly, not least because young guests to Neverland usually slept over in Michael’s quarters rather than in one of the 36 guest bedrooms.

As soon as Gutierrez’s investigation became known, he received a visit from one of Jackson’s legal representatives who abused and threatened him. “Just before he left” Gutierrez recalls, “he said, “We’ll be back. Consider yourself dead”.

A pariah in the celebrity- sucking world of freelance entertainment journalism, Gutierrez was forced to give up his writing and for a while supported himself by selling satellite dishes. Then, in 1993, his interest was reawakened when he heard about a boy called Jordie Chandler with whom Jackson was appearing at huge media events, such as the World Music Awards in Monaco”.

Over here Victor Gutierrez admits that being a Latino it was easy for him to befriend Michael’s maid Blanca Francia and personal assistant Orietta Murdoch, who are said to have been suspecting (only suspecting!!!) that Michael was more than friendly with his young friends.

Blanca Francia left her employment in 1991 well before the Chandlers’ allegations started and there was absolutely no talk of any “tickling” of her son or seeing Michael “in a shower with a boy” at the time – no, there was nothing else but suspicions only…

The lie about 36 rooms speaks volumes about the wildness of Victor Gutierrez’s imagination  – according to Lynette’s plan enclosed with her post about the GQ article, there were only 4 bedrooms in the two guest units and 5 bedrooms in the main house at Neverland which was barely enough for Michael, his family and the nannies –  so 36 rooms is really blowing the facts out of every proportion.

If Gutierrez made such exaggerations over the number of rooms at Neverland I am afraid even to think what heaps of lies Gutierrez could tell those Latino women whom he befriended in Michael’s home.

However even despite all Gutierrez’s brainwashing the “testimonies” he collected this way and presented in the form of a manuscript did not interest the police and Gutierrez was forced to do something else for a living, allegedly forgetting about Michael Jackson for a time being (which is a statement I don’t believe even for a second).

He never stopped sleuthing on Michael Jackson and Gutierrez proves it himself by giving the date of his interview with Wade Robson and his mother – he says he met them in summer 1992 or a year before the allegations started, and this means that Gutierrez never gave up following Michael and spreading dirty stories about him.

Okay, now that we have come close to 1993 and the Chandlers’ allegations against Michael, so how did the events develop according to Victor Gutierrez?

“Thanks to the intervention of somebody he will only identify as “a very good source within the house”, Gutierrez was able to arrange meetings with Jordie while the terms of the legal settlement were being hammered out. He obtained a copy of a diary, as well as legal papers. In many cases, these were supplied by the police, who started referring back to Gutierrez’s original manuscript after the Chandlers had come forward with their allegations in August 1993.”

This marvelous piece discloses to us that Victor Gutierrez had “sources” not only in Neverland but in the Chandlers’ home as well and the apparent candidate for it is the Chandlers’ maid. The same fact was mentioned in Roger Friedman’s article which said that Gutierrez had largely made up his material by stitching together bits and pieces of the speculations of the maid working for the Chandlers.

The article claims that Gutierrez met Jordan Chandler (probably he did), obtained a diary from him (impossible, as it never existed) and got some legal papers from the police, who – the way he describes it – supplied him with the documents instead of taking “Jordan’s diary” from him. It is indeed very strange that the police didn’t get interested in that crucial document, if it ever existed of course…

It would be clear even for a baby that if the diary had ever existed, Michael would have been locked up for life then and there and without any further investigation whatsoever. However the investigation lasted for about a year and two grand juries looked into everything presented to them by the police and never found a reason for Michael Jackson’s indictment –  so the “diary” was clearly not among the evidence presented…

“With no charges forthcoming after the police investigation – and no moves from Jackson’s lawyers against his book – American publishers still didn’t want to know. So, in March 1996, Gutierrez eventually put it out under his own imprint. Sadly for Gutierrez, his ability to satisfy growing demand for the book was hampered by his bankruptcy after a court action in 1997”.

Could I remind you at this point that the court action was taken because of Gutierrez’s slander against Michael over the video tape story and that Gutierrez had to file for bankruptcy to avoid paying the $2,7 mln. in damages to him?

“His reputation in media circles as an expert on Jackson had secured him regular work with the tabloid TV show, Hard Copy”.

This surely made you choke – his reputation?  What reputation can we talk about in case of Victor Gutierrez? However for some TV shows  (of Diane Dimond’s standard, for example) the reputation Gutierrez enjoyed was most probably just right – birds of a feather flock together, you know….

However the question still remains – if they did officially employ Gutierrez why didn’t they deduct part of his earnings in repayment of the debt to Michael Jackson as they should have?

“In the second of his reports for the show Gutierrez referred to a video tape he had been shown, but not loaned, by the mother of one of Jackson’s other young pals, who was herself negotiating with Jackson. Jackson’s lawyers struck, suing Gutierrez in a civil action for $110m. Unlike Jordan’s diary, Gutierrez couldn’t prove the existence of this tape and damages of $2,7m were awarded. The effect of this judgement was doubly helpful to the Jackson camp. Not only did it bankrupt the publisher of a highly unflattering book, it also reinforced the belief that it was the book, rather than the author, that had fallen found of the libel laws.”

Though somewhat misplaced in time the fabricated story of a non-existent video tape is already well known to us – only this time it has some additional embellishments like the mother “showing” the tape to Gutierrez (but not loaning it) and her “negotiating” with Jackson over that tape – while as you remember there was no tape, no negotiations and no contact between mother of the boy and Victor Gutierrez whatsoever.

“Since that case, Gutierrez has mainly returned to investigative journalism in Chile. His most significant foray back into Jackson’s world came when he was engaged to work on Martin Bashir’s TV interview in 2003.

The new film, Gutierrez says, “is like payback time”. He has been dismayed to see chunks of his research recycled, uncredited, in other books on Jackson. Gutierrez hopes that in the wake of the movie, he will be able to get his book back in print. “Because in America they only wanna read the book after they’ve seen the movie”. But the idea of sitting around in meeting discussing cuts to his text with latte-sipping publishers does not appeal. “All I really want”, he says, “is the credit I deserve. The film is not enough for me”.

Well, this is really fantastic news! Victor Gutierrez claims that he was engaged to work on Martin Bashir’s TV interview in 2003? Lynette even checked Bashir’s documentary but didn’t find Gutierrez’s credits there, alas. However they were not obliged to disclose all their “sources” and if all this is not mere bragging on Gutierrez’s part the news that Bashir and Gutierrez worked together on the film or at least knew each other at the time is reason enough to see the plot thickening around Michael Jackson and all the main vilifiers grouping together for the final strike – Bashir, Gutierrez and Diane Dimond (as she was Gutierrez’s inseparable part who surfaced each time Gutierrez was around).

I hope you will agree that the news of Bashir and Gutierrez cooperating on the 2003 film definitely added a new dimension to that story…

VICTOR GUTIERREZ IS A MEMBER OF NAMBLA?

But it is high time we returned to the secret conference of NAMBLA which Victor Gutierrez attended undercover while allegedly working for the LAPD. Since later he admitted that he was nobody for the LAPD this made us wonder in what capacity Victor Gutierrez could have infiltrated the highly secretive organization of North American Men-Boy Love Association.

The search for an answer brought us to an incredible find made by Louise about Victor Gutierrez  – she found him saying that he had attended a NAMBLA conference as a “reporter”. This fact was published in a German paper Tageszeitung dated April 2005 (for details of it please go here )

Here is the short of the story told by Suzy who translated the article from German:

“Victor Gutierrez obviously lies about why he was at that NAMBLA conference. It’s proven by the fact he changes his story about that. In the Tageszeitung they say he was sent by the newspaper he worked for. Or to be more precise they write this: “He quickly finds a job at a Spanish newspaper in L.A., he becomes a police reporter (ie. a criminal reporter for the paper, not someone who works for the police, otherwise they would have said so). In 1986 he reports from a congress of NAMBLA.”

In GQ he claims he was sent by the LAPD. In the Tageszeitung it isn’t even mentioned.

So which one is true?

NAMBLA doesn’t welcome journalists to report from their congresses. And the GQ story is even more ridiculous. Why would the police send a no-name journalist to spy on NAMBLA? The police does such actions with their own, trained people, not with outsiders! And obviously from his Tageszeitung interview Victor Gutierrez has a big sympathy towards NAMBLA and the pedophile “case” so he would never spy on them for the police.

The reason why he lies about why he was there is obvious: because he was there as a member. It’s not only clear from his lies, but also from the way he talks about “man-boy relationships” either in his book or in the Tageszeitung article and elsewhere.

And the German newspaper (Die Tageszeitung) which conducted and published the interview with Gutierrez has a history in advocating pedophilia! Look what I have found about them:

“In 2010, an article emerged on the website Spiegel Online titled “The Sexual Revolution and Children: How the left took things too far”.

The article mentions Tageszeitung’s promotion of Children’s sexual liberation during the 1970s. A series in Tageszeitung titled “I Love Boys” featured interviews with men who described “how beautiful and liberating sex with preadolescent boys supposedly was”.

The article goes on to mention that those who opposed sexual experimentation with children, such as the magazine’s then editor Gitti Hentschel were accused of being “prudish” by others who accused them of inhibiting freedom of expression and children’s sexuality.“

So the Die Tageszeitung newspapers is clearly on a sympathetic side for pedophiles and it was to this newspaper that Victor Gutierrez gave his interview in April 2005 (when Michael Jackson was still on trial). The article is named “It was love” and one of its chapters tells us that Victor Gutierrez was allegedly sent to a NAMBLA conference to report news about it:

“He works for a paper in Santiago where he writes about politics and human rights. He first came to the USA in 1984 as a photographer for the Olympic Games in LA. He didn’t go back to his land where Pinochet ruled. „The American Dream was too attractive”, he says. He finds a job at a Spanish paper in LA and becomes a crime reporter.

In 1986 he reports from a congress of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). NAMBLA was founded in the 70s. It „supports relationships between generations”. It was supported by prominent names like Gore Vidal and Allen Ginsberg. It got quickly isolated from the rest of the gay movement. Gutierrez claims he heard at this congress that „Jackson was treated like an idol there, as a hope for social acceptance.” 

Guiterrez quit his job at the newspaper and started talking to employees of Jackson and interviewed the first boys. He was soon out of money, he sold his car, he tried to save money on food.

Quote: „He learns that there are several types of pedophile. Pedophilia is as old as the human race. Not every game they play is a terrible crime… In a hundred years maybe such relationships will be socially accepted’, says Gutierrez”

(for the full story on that article please go to this post)

The last sentence made me immediately recall that exactly the same idea was declared by Victor Gutierrez in Peretti’s film – over there Gutierrez also said that “Maybe in a hundred years such relationships will be socially accepted”.

Even when I watched this episode for the first time it sounded to me as a very strange statement – it looked more like a hope rather than a horror scene every sane person would be appalled with if any such prospect were looming ahead.

And now he repeats the idea again, in exactly the same wording and in a conversation with a journalist representing a paper sympathetic to pedophiles? Oh no, it can’t be just a usual slip of the tongue on the part of Victor Gutierrez – it sounds more like propaganda of this idea and a hope that the future society will eventually accept it….

But the main bombshell the German article provides us with is the fact – which is disclosed by Victor Gutierrez himself – that in the year 1986, which is the year he started following Michael Jackson, he worked for a newspaper as a criminal reporter and “reported from the congress of NAMBLA”.

To see how ludicrous the idea of free reporting from the congress of NAMBLA is we should get familiar with the way this highly secretive organization goes about its business.

The covert way NAMBLA arranges its meetings is very well described in the article published by SanDiego.com http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20050217-2208-manboy-daily.html . From this text you will learn that they do not welcome any reporters to cover their activities at all and it is simply impossible for anyone who is not “one of them” to attend any of their meetings. Each assembly is organized in the atmosphere of top secrecy and no journalists are ever allowed to attend it.

The only information known before the conference is the host city which will be holding the assembly. The venue is not disclosed to attendees until the very last moment. Even if a journalist manages to overcome these barriers he will be able to see only the surface of what they are showing there. And on the surface they are look like a “trade conference” or scientific congress discussing “relationship between generations”, for example, problems of upbringing children and other innocent issues.

But real talk and illicit activity begin when they break into small groups or dine together where each member knows the other personally. So if Victor Gutierrez actually heard the NAMBLA attendees treating MJ as their idol and hoping he would break ice for their future social acceptance it means that Victor Gutierrez went as far as the closed dining club discussions and was well accepted in those circles!

The fact that Michael Jackson’s name was mentioned at the conference should not be regarded as a sign of him having anything to do with these guys. Michael was always disgusted by them, fought tooth and nail any ped-le allegations against him and cried out publicly against the attempts to throw him into their bad class (as he sang in “They don’t care about us” song).

No, instead of incriminating Michael the news of Gutierrez’s reports from a NAMBLA conference told by Victor Gutierrez himself proves that it was Gutierrez who is one of the bad class, because if he weren’t one of them he would have never been able to attend any of their meetings!

To see how nearly impossible it is to infiltrate the NAMBLA circles we need to carefully read the article below.

The FBI has been following this organization for years but since they are very cautious and are broken into small little-known groups the FBI was successful to infiltrate their agent into the organization only recently. This enabled them to make a few arrests and interfere in their planned criminal activities. Here is the article in its slightly abridged version:

FBI targets pedophilia advocates

Little-known group promotes ‘benevolent’ sex

By Onell R. Soto UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

10:08 p.m. February 17, 2005

On its Web site and newsletters, the North American Man/Boy Love Association advocates sex between men and boys and cites ancient Greece to justify the practice.

It goes by the acronym NAMBLA, and the FBI has been following it for years, linking it to pedophilia and recently infiltrating it with an agent successful enough to be asked to join the group’s steering committee.

Law enforcement officials and mental health professionals say that while NAMBLA’s membership numbers are small, the group has a dangerous ripple effect through the Internet by sanctioning the behavior of those who would abuse children.

San Diego police Sgt. Dave Jones, who oversees a group of investigators working on Internet crimes against children, says NAMBLA’s Web site often pops up in computers on which they find child pornography.

A national network

NAMBLA is based in New York City and San Francisco.

The organization’s sexual advocacy is protected by the First Amendment.

“Everyone has the right to assemble and espouse whatever belief they want,” said Dan Dzwilewski, head of the FBI’s San Diego office.

Dzwilewski said undercover agents got involved not by targeting NAMBLA, but through a molestation investigation. Later, he said, “we knew we were interfering in planned criminal activity.”

On its Web site, NAMBLA says it opposes abuse and coercion of young people and does not advocate illegal activity.

It also says children should have the right to have sex with older men and that such relationships are “benevolent.” The 26-year-old organization wants to overturn statutory rape laws and free molesters from prison, and encourages members to send Christmas cards to jailed molesters.

In California, it is illegal for an adult to have sex with someone younger than 18, but many other states set the age of sexual consent at 16.

Critics say NAMBLA’s public face hides a network of child molesters who trade seduction techniques and child pornography and organize overseas trips for illicit sex.

“It is, in fact, a trade school for pedophiles,” said Patrick Gillen, lawyer with the Thomas More Law Center, a Christian legal advocacy group that has sued the organization’s leadership and made that argument in court.

San Diego’s was among eight police departments across the nation that helped the FBI in last week’s sting, he said.

Jones said local law enforcement gives a high priority to identifying and prosecuting child molesters and works with federal and international authorities to find collectors of child pornography, who often are molesters as well.

Repeated efforts to contact NAMBLA’s leaders were unsuccessful.

“There is never anyone here who can take your calls,” a man’s voice says on the group’s New York answering machine.

Membership costs $35 a year, according to the NAMBLA Web site. Prison inmates can join for free and get a subscription to the monthly newsletter that includes articles such as “Is Harry Potter Gay?” and “Letter from a Twelve-Year-Old.” The organization links itself to the gay-rights movement, but mainstream gay organizations disavow such a parallel.

NAMBLA holds annual national conferences and monthly meetings around the country. It made headlines in San Francisco 12 years ago when a television station discovered a local chapter meeting monthly in a public library.

“There are bylaws,” a Virginia police detective who infiltrated the group said. “It’s just a well-run little organization.”

Among topics discussed, attorney Gillen said in court papers, is how to start a relationship with a boy without drawing suspicion by parents and law enforcement and how to avoid getting caught.

The American Civil Liberties Union

The American Civil Liberties Union has come to the defense of the group’s leaders and publications.

“There is nothing in them which is unlawful, which is outside the bounds of what is normally protected by the First Amendment,” ACLU lawyer John Reinstein said in an interview.

As distasteful as most people find the group’s views, those opinions are protected by the Constitution, he said.

“If the standard by which First Amendment protection is judged is whether enough people agree with it, we would be deprived of speech which is either controversial or opposed to the majority view,” he said.

Gillen said the ACLU has blocked efforts to get information about the group. “We haven’t been able to get a firm fix on how many members, who they are, where they are,” he said.

The lawsuit is pending, and the ACLU has asked a judge to toss it out of court.

About 10 years ago, NAMBLA counted about 1,100 members, said Fairfax County, Va., detective Tom Polhemus, who went undercover and joined the organization’s governing board.

Polhemus said the group had a San Diego chapter at the time. Jones, the San Diego police sergeant, said he doesn’t know if one still exists.

A former member of the organization’s leadership said in court papers filed in Boston that in the mid-1990s, the group discouraged establishing local chapters to avoid police infiltration.

‘Like a trade conference’

The annual meetings, Polhemus said, were hush-hush affairs. Attendees were told to go to the host city, and the venue was not disclosed until the last minute.

“They don’t want press and they don’t want the cops showing up,” he said.

After the main sessions, Polhemus said, “You break up and you go into different rooms,  . . . like a trade conference.”

The networking for illicit activities occurs later, in private conversations over drinks or dinner, he said.

That’s what happened in November at a conference in Miami, FBI agents said in court documents.

An undercover agent dined with several NAMBLA members at a burger joint where they discussed trips abroad to abuse children. After the convention, he contacted them by telephone and e-mail and set up the sting by promising the boat trip to Mexico.

The arrests made

Saturday, the FBI arrested three NAMBLA members at Harbor Island as they waited for a boat that undercover agents told them would sail to Ensenada for a sex retreat over Valentine’s Day with boys as young as 9. The FBI said four NAMBLA members were arrested in a Los Angeles marina where they also planned to set sail to the bogus rendezvous.

The seven men represent a cross-section of America: a Dallas dentist, a Pittsburgh special-education teacher, a South Carolina substitute teacher, a New Mexico handyman, a Chicago flight attendant who is also a psychologist and two Florida men, a worker at a paper company and a personal trainer.

A Fullerton chiropractor who was also an assistant pastor at his church was arrested on child-pornography charges as part of the sting, and bail was set at $100,000.

He admitted taking an Encinitas boy to Balboa Park and molesting him, the FBI said in court documents. Prosecutors have not charged him in connection with those allegations.

Friends, relatives and co-workers of the men expressed shock at the arrests, but the FBI said in court papers that most of the men told the undercover agent they had been sexually involved with children in the past, including boys they met through the Internet and others abroad.

The FBI says at least one of the men is a member of the group’s national leadership, a second organized the group’s national convention last year and a third said he had been a member since the 1980s.

The NAMBLA investigation is part of a crackdown on people authorities have termed sex tourists, those who cross state and national borders for illicit sex.

For the full version of the article please go to:  http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20050217-2208-manboy-daily.html

So why is Victor Gutierrez is so evasive about the reason why he attended a NAMBLA conference? First he says he went there undercover for the LAPD, then we find they didn’t pay attention to him as he was a nobody to them,  and later he admits that he went there as a reporter of a newspaper to tell the news of their conference – which is an event impossible in principle, as we’ve just learned it….

The reason why Victor Gutierrez changes his story in each consecutive article is because he feels the need to explain why he was at the NAMBLA conference at all. He can’t admit that he was and probably still is a member of it and is therefore freely experimenting with all these versions knowing that no one will ever compare them with what he said before.

1)     The version of reporting a pedophile congress for a newspaper is no good as such conferences are arranged in top secrecy and no journalists are allowed there.

2)     The version of being there undercover from the LAPD is no good either as up till now only professional detectives have been able to infiltrate the organization. Detectives say that “It’s a well-run little organization,” “There is never anyone here who can take your calls,” and “the group discourages establishing local chapters to avoid police infiltration.”

So in what other capacity could Victor Gutierrez attend a NAMBLA conference?

Only as a MEMBER of it.

And this strongly suggests that VICTOR GUTIERREZ IS A PED-LE.

He has already told us that he is homosexual though the way Victor Gutierrez puts it, “it is his partners who are gay, not him” –  but now his unstoppable bragging has revealed to us that most probably he is a member of the NAMBLA organization too.

And it was most probably on a mission from NAMBLA that he started following Michael in the year 1986 and had been weaving a plot around him for so many years – by telling fabricated stories to anyone who would be willing to listen to his dirt.

The discovery that Victor Gutierrez has a different agenda than the family of the alleged victim explains why the initial “friendship’ with the Chandlers was followed by a fall-out with them. Suzy writes about it:

“There are certainly signs in Gutierrez’s book which tell us that he was in contact with the Chandlers and up until a point they were supportive of his book. Otherwise they wouldn’t have given him pictures of Michael those were shot by Jordan and also private pictures of Jordan himself.

What made them turn on each other?

Probably that Gutierrez had a different agenda than them. His story is not that of a victim. His story is a “love story” (as much as I want to puke from this idea) that was ruined by the “evil prejudice” of society and the greed of the parents. Gutierrez used them and then went with his own ped-lic agenda. They didn’t like that”.

Surely the Chandlers didn’t like the news that their chief consultant and instigator against Michael Jackson turned out to be a highly suspicious guy himself….

I wonder whether Diane Dimond will like the news that her “best source” on whom she relied so heavily all these years is a suspected member of the NAMBLA organization.

And whether she will like the news that the false stories about Michael prompted to her by Victor Gutierrez were actually the fruit of imagination of a person whose mind is sick, perverse and probably insane.

I wish somebody told her that the anti-Jackson fabrications of a liar and a suspected NAMBLA member Victor Gutierrez  were actually embellished by details Gutierrez most probably derived from his own activities with boys.

I wish somebody reminded her that a journalist is obliged to check on her sources of information and should not believe every word of the ped-lic stuff said by her “best source” as if it were Gospel truth.

I hope she dies of shame when she learns that her right-hand man in her alleged “fight” against this abominable crime may be a pedophile himself. However something tells me that she knows it…

I wonder whether those who will be watching Peretti’s film will see the true worth of the “facts” presented there by the two main characters of the film, now that they know who they really are.

I hope the viewers will also see the true worth of this Peretti clown who thinks he had won himself fame by making a film of the century about MJ – while all Peretti has won for himself is shame, shame and again shame because the film he has made is nothing but a lie of the century.

However it was this lie which triggered off our little investigation and enabled us to learn what really happened to Michael Jackson and who were the people who did it to him .…

* You understand that this post is giving only a fraction of information about Peretti’s film. For more about the film please go to David’s post here: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/07/fact-checking-the-documentary-michael-jackson-what-really-happened-by-jacques-peretti/

204 Comments leave one →
  1. June 23, 2013 1:12 pm

    “But what concerned me was about the trail documents indicating stains on MJ’s bed of 3 men. Do you have a blog regarding this story that indicates that it’s a lie?” – Angie

    Why are people always so concerned about things which do not matter? Yes, we have numerous posts about this burning issue. And a hundred of comments. One was added, for example, when we found that prior to the Neverland raid Michael had been away from it for more than three weeks, and all this time Omar Bhatti who was 18 or 19 then was staying at Neverland with his Norwegian friends. When the raid took place he was still there.

    From the fact that the police also found empty bottles in Michael’s room it seems that these youngsters were having parties there. When the police realized that Michael could not be drinking and leaving empty bottles in Neverland (while he was in Las Vegas) the matter of those bottles and someone staying in Michael’s room was somehow swept under the rug.

    Yes, the police tore Michael’s mattress into pieces looking for male’s stains (women’s were not even looked into) and some male DNA was found – out of these three DNA one was Michael’s. Whether it was semen or saliva or even urine no one knows. Police had to admit that none of it belonged to the Arvizos and that was it. How those stains appeared there I have no idea. All I know is that Michael’s room was a place where any of his friends could stay and sleep, even when he was away. By the way they could also find whatever they wanted on computers.

    After two years of discussing this matter Lynande made an excellent comment on it: “I’m afraid that all that bed showed was that Michael needed a new mattress’.

    If you are still thrilled by the subject you can have a look at the post made by Lynande: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/first-look-at-dna-part-1-the-mattress-and-mattress-pad/

    I also looked into the Neverland dirty laundry which was for some reason kept by the maids for the police to come and pick it: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/dirty-laundry-and-cocaine-in-michaels-home-it-was-a-set-up/ and
    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/dirty-linen-in-michaels-home-and-common-understanding-of-the-need-to-find-it-there/

    Actually we have much more than that. The subject is constantly raised by concerned citizens, so some time ago we again discussed it in the comments and I wrote:

    The documents state that besides Michael’s DNA there were only two more male DNA found there and one more was found on the bed sheets which came from a totally different building on the premises, the Video Arcade, where they found a bag with some dirty laundry stored in a closet.

    Is it much to speak about? Considering the number of guests who stayed there on a constant basis?
    Here is the respective excerpts from the documents discussing those stains (item 13 in the debated list of evidence to be submitted to court):

    The Defense: 13. DNA of Anyone other than Mr. Jackson

    There are two DNA reports in this case. The first DNA report says 3 male DNA were found on Mr. Jackson’s mattress. Of these 3 males, one was identified as Mr. Jackson, aka “male 1”. The remaining 2 males were not identified. However, the report says that these 2 males are not the alleged victims in this case, i.e. Gavin Arvizo and Star Arvizo.
    The second DNA report says a fourth male DNA was found in bed sheets. The bed sheets presumably were found in a laundry bag, along with underwear. The fourth male is unknown, but is not the alleged victim, i.e. Gavin Arvizo or Star Arvizo.

    The Prosecution: Item 13. DNA of Anyone Other Than Defendant

    Several semen stains were recovered from defendant’s bed mattress and from a pair of underpants seized from his home, from which DNA was extracted. The profile identified as “male 1” is the defendant’s. The other profiles found on the bed and the underpants are not his. The sources are unidentified. The DNA on the bed will not be referred to by the People.

    Like

  2. Angie permalink
    June 22, 2013 9:16 pm

    Helena, I truly thank God for people like you. I mean, how many people make all these blogs to vindicate MJ? You’re God sent, lol. Whenever I have doubts about MJ, I just come here to find the truth.

    With that said, Helena, I have a very important question. I was on Youtube, searching for unreleased songs of MJ’s, and then this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9btfQUWctY popped up about Jason Pfeiffer, regarding him having a relationship with MJ, which is a complete lie. I don’t believe it at all. But what concerned me was about the trail documents indicating stains on MJ’s bed of 3 men. Do you have a blog regarding this story that indicates that it’s a lie?

    Like

  3. Hilary permalink
    May 17, 2012 9:42 am

    I watched “What Really Happened”. I was channel surfing and saw a big clock in grass and knew it was Neverland so I paused to watch. They claimed Jordan’s description was accurate. Diane Dimond said Michael still being around children was his way of saying “Who’s gonna stop me? I’m Michael Jackson”. And then getting a call in 2003 saying “We’ve got another one, this one’s got cancer”. It was all just people COMMENTING on what they THOUGHT rather than what actually happened. Ha, I just noticed how ironic my last sentence was.

    Like

  4. shelly permalink
    May 3, 2011 11:18 pm

    “Orietta Murdock, who sued him for unfair dismissal in 1992.”

    Why did he fired her?

    Like

  5. shelly permalink
    April 10, 2011 1:11 pm

    I think it’s Janet who wanted to meet MJ. She went lawyer shopping 6 months she met him in order to accuse him of something. According to Carol Lamere, she first wanted to blackmail him, she wanted to publicly accuse him of showing porn to kids.

    Like

  6. April 10, 2011 10:07 am

    Actually the info on the settlement coming from his insurance came out in 1994 and it was mentioned both on tv and newspapers. They also named the insurance company

    Like

  7. lcpledwards permalink
    April 10, 2011 3:02 am

    @dialdancer
    I believe that Sneddon was able to get the statute of limitations extended because MJ was out of the country for many months at a time during the HIStory tour. I don’t know how long he was able to get it extended though.

    Yes, there is a lot of credibility to the theory that someone told Gavin to ask to meet MJ, and it very well could have been Louise Palanker, who is currently good friends with Dimond, and may have known her back then. Who knows? And I’m sure that they offered to pay the Arvizos for their silence, or they’re extorting them for money with the threat of going public if they stop getting paid.

    Like

  8. Dialdancer permalink
    April 10, 2011 2:30 am

    This comment first. It is not my place to forgive any of the family, but I will never ever ever forgive LaToya. Nothing is smarter than a dumb Blond.

    @ Lynette,

    “(Sneddon had gotten an extension due to Michael not being in residence so much of the time). The limit on the extension would have been August of 2002. Am I the only one cynical enough to question why he asked to meet Michael in the first place? It is kind of a jump from all of those comedians to Michael Jackson isn’t it? My only question now is I wonder how much Wheezy and the others are still paying the Arvizos.”

    1) I had asked that question once, why go from comedians to Michael?

    2) I’d say they are still paying them. There are many forms for payment.

    2) Please explain how do you go about having the statue of limitation extended. How did Sneddon make this happen. Dag something else I missed.

    Like

  9. visitor permalink
    April 9, 2011 11:52 pm

    @Carm

    You are right of course about Diane Dimond and Orth but to me what Bashir did is worst than anything those two women have done because of this: Bashir spend time with Michael,talked to him, Michael opened his house and heard to Bashir, he showed him his children. Bashir got to know Michael, hear about his dreams, see what man he was. But what he did next? He back stabbed him and betrayed without any hesitation and in the most coldblooded and cruel way. I don’t want to sound melodramatic but that’s the truth. And the fact that this man is still working as a journalist is amazing. Are his employers aware of what kind of a man this person is or they don’t care as long as he brings them ratings? This man is no better than the Arvizos but like the Arvizos he didn’t face any consequence for what he did, on the contrary. He got a better job and he was called a hero and a good journalist. On the other, Michael, the true victim of this people, abandoned his own country even after he was found not guilty and he had to travel the world like a nomad because his own country, thanks to people like Bashir, despised and hated him. I often wonder does he have a conscience? Does his conscience ever bother him for what he did to Michael? But i guess that is a stupid question.

    As for Taraborelli. He changes his tune according to the general attitude of the world. If the general attitude is pro Jackson then his tune regarding Michael is positive. If the majority of the public opinion is against Jackson, then he will not hesitate to put down Michael, critisize him in the worst way and even imply that he was a pedophile. For me Taraborelli is an irrelevant human being, someone without personality and basically a coward.

    Like

  10. April 9, 2011 11:12 pm

    @Carm

    The info on the settlement coming from his insurance came out during the trial in 2005.

    Like

  11. April 9, 2011 11:10 pm

    @Maral

    Yes, he’s good friends with Diane.

    He’s a flake, he goes whichever way the wind blows, then make it look like he was on that side the whole time. He was 100% behind Bob Jones when he printed his book, said he hoped for a second one.

    Like

  12. Carm permalink
    April 9, 2011 10:57 pm

    Thanks David and Maral. I guess the heavy editing and omissions would explain a lot of things, although his use of words like “emboldened” do make me scratch my head. I guess in 2007 he didn’t know the insurance company paid the settlement and that MJ was actually against it.

    Like

  13. lcpledwards permalink
    April 9, 2011 10:30 pm

    @ Carm
    JRT’s comments were heavily edited by Paretti in that documentary, and were easily misconstrued because everything he said wasn’t included. JRT has been on the record about supporting MJ’s innocence since the beginning, even though some of the things he has said over the years could be misinterpreted otherwise (such as saying MJ acted reckless after the settlement.)

    In a few weeks I will post the transcript to “Michael Jackson’s Secret World”, which was Bashir’s second documentary. It aired right before the trial, and JRT made the following quote about MJ:

    “He should know better. He’s made a lot of mistakes. He’s done a lot to himself, he’s his own worst enemy when it comes to some of his decisions. But he’s not a child molester.”

    Like

  14. Maral permalink
    April 9, 2011 10:19 pm

    Randy Taraborelli is one of those guys you never know where he stands. like oxmen and some of the Jacksons his words and actions doesn’t add up. i also hear he is buddy buddy with diane dimond.

    Like

  15. Carm permalink
    April 9, 2011 10:07 pm

    Bashir isn’t the only one. What about Diane Dimond and Maureen Oarth. These people haven’t changed their tunes and are still enjoying lucrative careers. Absolutely shameful. Something I’ve always wondered. Why did Randy Taraborelli betray Michael in Peretti’s “documentary”? He states in the documentary that Michael’s settlement emboldened him to do whatever he wanted and get away with it. In other words, suggesting that he did wrong. I realize he was pissed off at Michael but that isn’t a good enough reason to lie–surely his character is above that. In real life he is 100% certain that he was innocent, especially in light of new information made available in recent years. What is it with this guy? He is a friend of Charles Thomson who supports Michael’s innocence all the way. Hasn’t RT’s friend told him he should apologize and do the right thing? Maybe you can give me some answers, David.

    Like

  16. visitor permalink
    April 9, 2011 4:51 pm

    @Truth Prevails

    From what i understand when it comes to Michael those journalists or tv hosts loose whatever ethical credential – or whatever is it call – they have, if they have one. Same thing that happened with that sleaze ball Martin Bashir. Is it possible that Mesereau didn’t know the content of the Paretti program and when he found out, it was to late? Who knows with those “journalists”. Look what Bashir did to Michael. He framed him with that “documentary” and he basically was the reason that Michael almost went to jail but Bashir didn’t face any consequence for lying ,deceiving and framing an man to the point that he almost loose his freedom. Bashir is still working as a journalist and in fact lots of people believe that he is a good journalist because he exposed Jackson when Bashir is the one that should be vilified and crucified for what he did. People like Paretti and modern day Judas-Bashir are the proof of what is going wrong with journalism and society today. I am sorry for the rant but i was reading a piece about Bashir. I can’t believe that this individual is still working and hasn’t face any kind of consequence for what he did to Michael. And i can’t believe that people continue to believe that he was a “hero” for “exposing” how dangerous Michael was. When there are people out there who consider Bashir a hero, then you know that something is totally wrong with the world today.

    Like

  17. lcpledwards permalink
    April 9, 2011 4:07 pm

    @ Truth Prevails
    Peretti is a man, and if you watch the documentary you’ll see him featured throughout. The link is included at the end of the post.

    T-Mez was in the documentary because he thought he would be given equal airtime as all of MJ’s haters, but that obviously wasn’t the case at all. Oxman wasn’t included at all.

    Like

  18. Truth Prevails permalink
    April 9, 2011 1:41 pm

    Is PERETTI male or female can someone tell me and is T-Mez In this documentary and oxman if so why did they contrbute to it?

    Like

  19. March 23, 2011 12:52 pm

    “i can’t believe his own family is selling him like they obviously are” – Maral
    “there are situations where they should have sued certain people’s ass off” – Suzy

    I have a slightly different feeling about the Jackson family. Most of them seem to me just intimidated by everything that happened to Michael. They are probably thinking: “If this is what they did to him, what can they do to us?”. Considering that all the remaining Michael’s money was spent on innumerable law suits – of which he had more than 1500 according to Thomas Mesereau – the family is probably fearful that fighting all those liars in court is impossible or useless.

    Those who are more or less familiar with the history of my country will probably know that during the Stalin purges most families had to disown their loved ones who were considered “internal enemies of the people”. Those who refused followed suit and one day just disappeared. But there were many who cooperated with the authorities to save their own lives.

    In some way Michael’s brothers and sisters remind me of those frightened people.

    Like

  20. March 23, 2011 12:31 pm

    “And at least Randy got T Mez on board. That’s the best and most useful thing he ever did in his life.”

    Suzy, I’ve heard that Randy also mortgaged his house to get money for the trial. If this is true, then Randy has already done his part of the vindication job for Michael.

    Like

  21. March 23, 2011 11:58 am

    “It’s times like this that I wonder why I even bother trying to vindicate MJ. If his family doesn’t care, then why should I?”

    David, dear me – because there is no one else to do that!

    Like

  22. March 23, 2011 11:55 am

    Helena, yes it was big news at the time and they had a fight in the court’s parking lot. Mesereau was furious at Oxman and he wanted him out

    Like

  23. March 23, 2011 11:04 am

    “there’s more information about Stacy/Rebbie here: http://www.lipstickalley.com/f227/fuckery-around-michael-jackson-278542/ – Rockforeveron

    “i can’t comprehend why the hell is Mike’s family so close to people like SB or VG. don’t they know who this people are or they simply don’t give a damn about the fact that this people have hurt their relative in the worst possible way. Their attitude is more shocking to me than that of the haters” – Ares.

    Guys, thank you for the information – I am shocked to see what was (and probably is) going on among the Jacksons. I doesn’t suprise me that Michael stayed away from most of them.

    Like

  24. March 23, 2011 10:47 am

    “Oxman is not the smartest person in the world and his stupidity doesn’t surprise me anymore. No wonder why Mesereau kicked him out of Santa Maria.”

    Thetis, I didn’t know the fact of Thomas Mesereau firing Brian Oxman was well-known already. This was complete news to me.

    Like

  25. March 23, 2011 10:43 am

    “Why is this man (who never met a camera he doesn’t like) taking pictures with Gloria Allerd? Oxman is very low and I don’t trust him at all.”

    Gigi, I’ve found that Brian Oxman was fired by Thomas Mesereau from the defense team at the end of April 2005. He wouldn’t have done it with no reason at all:

    Monday 25 April: 2026 local time (0426 BST Tuesday)

    The Jackson family lawyer Brian Oxman has been taken off the case

    Now Mr Jackson’s lawyers are bickering between themselves. An intriguing subplot to this extraordinary trial has been developing all day.
    Jackson family lawyer Brian Oxman has been sacked by the singer’s lead attorney, Thomas Mesereau.
    The first sign that something was amiss came when Mr Oxman was publicly humiliated in the courtroom.
    He was ordered by the bailiff to leave the lawyers’ area in the well of the court and take a seat in the public gallery.
    Then, at close of play, in the car park, he was subjected to what looked like very public dressing down by finger-wagging Mr Mesereau.
    A short time later, a document announcing Mr Oxman’s “Notice of Disassociation” to the case was posted on the court’s website.
    We do not know why they have fallen out – but it has been obvious to any courtroom observer that the two lawyers have been at loggerheads for weeks.
    Mr Oxman, who was forced to sit behind his colleagues, was often dismissed by a flick of the hand when he tried to get in on a conversation.
    But he always had the ear of Michael Jackson and appeared to be close to the singer’s parents.
    It looks like the beleaguered pop star has lost a friend in the courtroom.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4405641.stm

    Like

  26. Maral permalink
    March 22, 2011 2:59 pm

    [i] Yes. It reflects badly on him too because when they do come to his defense, nobody believes them. How can you take Jermaine talking about MJ’s vitiligo seriously after Word To the Badd? How can people really believe LaToya’s insistance on his innocence after what she did to him in 1993? How can people listen to anything Joe has to say full stop? It’s like Arnold Klein, nobody believes him about anything, not the vitiligo or the lupus, when Michael really did have vitiligo and lupus.

    [/i]

    this is exactly what’s bothers me. fans may know but the general public will have doubts because of what you stated above.

    Like

  27. March 22, 2011 2:01 pm

    But when it’s about the money, they are very vocal and fighting like hell, filing ridiculous lawsuits against the Estate, Ortega etc. Sometimes I think this family would make a pact with the devil against Michael if they saw a chance to cash-in on that….

    Yes. It reflects badly on him too because when they do come to his defense, nobody believes them. How can you take Jermaine talking about MJ’s vitiligo seriously after Word To the Badd? How can people really believe LaToya’s insistance on his innocence after what she did to him in 1993? How can people listen to anything Joe has to say full stop? It’s like Arnold Klein, nobody believes him about anything, not the vitiligo or the lupus, when Michael really did have vitiligo and lupus.

    One of the things about the Jacksons that’s abundantly obvious is how short sighted they are. They do things and then seem to have no idea that these actions have consequences that won’t help them. They don’t seem to think anything through. They seek immediate goals.

    Another thing is they seem woefully uninformed. Do they understand how vitiligo works? Do they really know what happened in the court case and the first allegations? Saying he’s innocent isn’t enough, they need to explain why. Jackie said he didn’t even know who Frank Cascio was when the album dropped, how could he not have known about someone so involved in the court case and in Michael’s life for over 25 years?

    Prince and Paris currently both have twitters… the family seem to know this and don’t seem to realize what the long term effects this might have. Some fans think it’s adorable, I’m worried about what this is setting up for the future.

    Like

  28. Maral permalink
    March 22, 2011 1:56 pm

    i seriously fear for those kids.

    Like

  29. okunuga permalink
    March 22, 2011 1:22 pm

    I have been saying for a long time now that the fans should treat MJ like an orphan because the family has almost never stood up for him when it matters most because they are all thinking and doing things to better their lives at MJ`s and his kids expense,I guess its true the saying you can choose your friends but not your family and people are supprised that michael chose diana ross over the family in the event of his mother`s passing,Pu-lease.

    Like

  30. lcpledwards permalink
    March 21, 2011 4:38 pm

    @ Stacey2
    Yes, I definitely want to write a rebuttal to her Vanity Fair articles, but I’ve had to put it on the backburner due to other MJ projects that I’m working on. The only people who believe her trash are ignorant people who don’t know how to properly research the truth. Everything that she has said in those articles has already been utterly refuted, especially with respect to the allegations. It will probably be a few months before I can get to Orth, unfortunately.

    The fact that Rep. Peter King has to use Orth’s articles as “proof” of MJ’s guilt shows how gullible and pathetic he really is. Orth merely told him what he wanted to hear, so of course he took it all in hook, line, and sinker. I’d love to ask him to shoot a second video that states the facts, and explains exactly who MJ molested, and how he was able to get away with it. His first video was devoid of any facts, and filled with his worthless opinions which were based on his prejudices.

    Like

  31. stacey2 permalink
    March 21, 2011 4:29 pm

    This was a very nice read about Victor Guiterezz..I just wanted to make a quick suggestion..There are many haters out there who worship Maureen Orth and think that everything she says is gospel..In fact, republican Peter king stated on Bill O’reily that he read Maureen orth articles and that’s what convinced him that Jackosn was a pedophile. Could you guys write an article about her?

    Like

  32. Maral permalink
    March 21, 2011 11:23 am

    what i have learnt about the family upsets me very much. i’m afraid people will look at all of this as a notion of Mj’s guilt. it will not matter how many people who knew him say he didn’t do it. the public will go “hey, if it warn’t true how come his sisters……..”

    if i didn’t know better i’d say the family set him up to be able to control him. but then i can’t see why Randy would bring TMez in? we all KNOW where his loyalty stands.

    when MJ died i heard Rebbie was helping out with the children. and thought it was sweet. now i fear what lies those angles are going to hear and believe.

    at that time i was a converted “hater” and knew nothing except Joe used to abuse Michael. my perspective of Michael changed the moment i saw the leaked video of him being interviewed by the police. he looked anything but guilty. and his honesty in the bashir fiasco, on oprah and all of his inteviews convinced me even more. i can’t believe his own family is selling him like they obviously are. no wonder he turned to others for love.

    Like

  33. Suzy permalink
    March 21, 2011 8:33 am

    The more you learn about the Jackson family the more you understand where Michael’s problems were coming from. With a family like that who needs enemies? And this family has the nerve to go to the media and talk about how they were trying to intervene with Michael’s drug problems and all. Michael was even very patient with these people! I would have disowned them long, long time ago. It breaks my heart to see how Michael really couldn’t trust anyone.

    @ David

    I have always wondered why this family never protects Michael’s image in the media. You cannot fight every rumour and gossip and claim that is made by the media, but there are situations where they should have sued certain people’s ass off. At those times they are silent.

    But when it’s about the money, they are very vocal and fighting like hell, filing ridiculous lawsuits against the Estate, Ortega etc. Sometimes I think this family would make a pact with the devil against Michael if they saw a chance to cash-in on that….

    Thing is, noone is interested in them on their own right (except for Janet). If people and the media show interest in them it’s only because of Michael. For the last 30 years or so they lived off Michael’s money and fame. And they continue to use him after his death. And do we wonder why Michael couldn’t feel himself loved all his life?

    @ rockonforever

    I have to say – Jermaine has been one of the most vocal during the trial and in the last 2 years and considering everything else, and I’m grateful for that at least.

    And at least Randy got T Mez on board. That’s the best and most useful thing he ever did in his life.

    Like

  34. March 21, 2011 3:10 am

    That was my exact response. Complete disgust. I used to not understand why there was so much animosity towards his family… now I understand completely.

    You start putting things into perspective. If you go through LaToya’s book, Katherine’s book, the interview she gave in December 2003 after his arrest, the fact that throughout everything Stacy Brown has spoken very highly of her (when Stacy Brown trashed the Jacksons in 2008 saying Marlon was now a check out boy, he spoke of how Rebbie was doing very well for herself; when Stacy Brown went online “anonymously” during jury deliberations to talk about Mike’s creepy relationship with kids, he made sure to say Rebbie was a great talent that should have had more attention – it could’ve been Bob who did this, but the fact that he praised Rebbie is too consistent with Stacy’s MO).

    In 2010 there was an auction for some of Mike’s thing and some people in Mike’s family were involved but preffered to remain anonymous. Rebbie sold an ipod that had come from the mansion Michael died in. It just seemed tacky.

    Right after the memorial Toya and Janet seem completely crushed, but Rebbie smiles for the cameras.

    It’s hard not to see an ulterior meaning to everything now.

    This is why the fans are so important and MJ knew that. But it’s an uphill struggle when so many members of that family are so concerned about how they come across and about their own status and celebrity that they don’t like to defend him too vocally.

    Why do people think MJ was drawn to strong women like Diana and Liz? They defended him when he couldn’t. They were the lions willing to fight for him. On the Glenda tapes he talks about an older woman he loved and one of the things he loved about her was that she stood up for him against Joe.

    I have to say – Jermaine has been one of the most vocal during the trial and in the last 2 years and considering everything else, and I’m grateful for that at least.

    Like

  35. lynande51 permalink
    March 21, 2011 3:07 am

    I have a theory about Wheezy. I think her $20,000 checks to the Arvizos were a down payment to start this whole mess up again. She is friends with DD do we know when they met? How long did she know Zonen before the trial? Was it a set up from the beginning. Since 1993 the only way to get to spend time with Michael Jackson was if you were a sick child.Enter Gavin with an “unknown” cancer. I can tell you that in the year 2000 there is no such thing as an unknown cancer. From his descriptions in his Grand Jury and trial tesimonies Gavin Arvizo had a Wilms Tumor. Look it up and then watch the queen of melodramatic mothers on Larry Nimmers you tube. They had to get Michael soon because the statute of limitations would run out in 2002 (Sneddon had gotten an extension due to Michael not being in residence so much of the time). The limit on the extension would have been August of 2002. Am I the only one cynical enough to question why he asked to meet Michael in the first place? It is kind of a jump from all of those comedians to Michael Jackson isn’t it? My only question now is I wonder how much Wheezy and the others are still paying the Arvizos.

    Like

  36. lcpledwards permalink
    March 21, 2011 2:51 am

    @Rockforeveron
    I’m absolutely DUMBFOUNDED at Rebbie’s actions! How on earth can she associate with Stacey Brown? It just totally leaves me at a loss for words, and it’s another stab in my back! As far as I’m concerned, she’s nothing but a two-faced hypocrite! After MJ’s memorial, she told fans how much she’s “extremely grateful” for all of our support, yet she works with someone who is indirectly responsible for killing her brother! (As far as killing his career and vilifying him in the media, thus forcing him to leave the country after the trial, and return, and eventually sign up for the tour).

    I’ve always wondered why the Jackson family isn’t more vocal in their defense of MJ, but now I see why. Thanks for those links; they were very informative, and confirm that Brown hasn’t changed his tune on MJ (especially his tweet from Jan. 2010 about MJ having “pedophile art”). I wonder if Brown has introduced Rebbie to Dimond, Zonen, or Palanker?

    It’s times like this that I wonder why I even bother trying to vindicate MJ. If his family doesn’t care, then why should I?

    Like

  37. hana permalink
    March 21, 2011 12:18 am

    Louise Palanker and Jay Leno were both caught on tape talking trash about the family, but when it came time for them to testify, all of a sudden their stories changed..How suspicious.

    Like

  38. March 20, 2011 11:16 pm

    They’re not forgiving.

    Observe Rebbie’s past actions about other things.
    Observe Jermaine’s.
    Randy’s.
    Joe’s.

    There was a reason Michael Jackon wrote down “Diana Ross” over anybody else and that was in 2002.

    Like

  39. ares permalink
    March 20, 2011 11:14 pm

    I agree with someone here who said that there were people in ΜJ’s life acting and making decision on his behalf for which the man probably didn’t have a clue. I am now totaly convinced that some of the negative things that happened in Mike’s life were not only his fault but also result of bad advising, indifference or incapability of the people who were hired and their job was to protect his best interests. T.Mez. said it best.
    By the way ,i can’t comprehend why the hell is Mike’s family so close to people like SB or VG. Is it in the Jackson blood to be so forgiving, don’t they know who this people are or they simply don’t give a damn about the fact that this people have hurt their relative in the worst possible way. Their attitude is more shocking to me than that of the haters.

    Like

  40. March 20, 2011 10:50 pm

    Yup, 100%

    Rebbie vouched for Stacy Brown against Michael’s camp back in 2004 or 2005.
    It was when his lawyers said that Stacy Brown didn’t speak for him or his family.Rebbie made a phone call in a TV and said he spoke for the family

    After June 25 2009 Stacy Brown wrote this:
    Mr. Jackson’s brother-in-law, Nathaniel Brown, called and said, “Stacy, I’m putting my wife (Rebbie) on the plane so that she can go say goodbye to her brother.”
    During Rebbie’s show:

    During one of her tour shows in 2009 she had him honoured at one of her shows, fans speak of meeting him backstage:

    Times-Tribune staff writer Stacy Brown, the show’s emcee, received a character recognition plaque from Mayor Chris Doherty as thanks for his contributions to the community.

    “Stacy, tonight we honor you,” Mr. Doherty said.

    Here are his tweets about Rebbie’s concert where he was honoured:

    Another tweet from him at that time

    Him being her current manager:

    http://www.socialworkersspeak.org/media/socialworkersspeak-talks-mental-health-with-singer-rebbie-jackson.html

    Jackson’s manager Stacy Brown contacted….

    Like

  41. March 20, 2011 10:44 pm

    It’s all about power and fame for people like Oxman.

    It wasn’t seen as a good thing that Brian did that, they felt he compromised anything there.

    Just like this:

    Masada accused one of Jackson’s attorneys, Brian Oxman, of “unethical” behavior by having investigators call him and visit the homes of several comedians who work at his camp.

    Oxman said a court-imposed gag order prevents him from responding to the allegations.

    Nope, there’s more information about Stacy/Rebbie here:

    http://www.lipstickalley.com/f227/fuckery-around-michael-jackson-278542/

    Like

  42. ares permalink
    March 20, 2011 10:43 pm

    @rockforeveron
    THE Stacy Brown?Are you sure?

    Like

  43. Maral permalink
    March 20, 2011 10:41 pm

    “Rebbie’s current manager is Stacy Brown.”

    pleas tell me you are joking……

    Like

  44. Maral permalink
    March 20, 2011 10:38 pm

    what kind of game was he playing? aside from his children TMez was the best thing ever happend to MJ.

    and i think Jordan signing a paper would feed the haters more. i can see it now “Jackson payed the boy again to sign”

    Like

  45. March 20, 2011 10:34 pm

    Rebbie’s current manager is Stacy Brown.

    Jermaine Jackson is currently using Matt Fiddes as a bodyguard in England.

    They’re currently more angry at the estate and people like Kenny Ortega than Howard Mann, Oxman, Melissa Johnson, Matt Fiddes, Stacy Brown and the other leeches they’re currently feeding.

    Randy said he fired Oxman last year and was upset that Joe was still working with him. That still doesn’t explain why Oxman was reporting to the papers that Randy and Mark Lester were still friends in late 2009 after what Lester had said about Michael.

    And now the kids are surrounded by all of that. I don’t even know what to say anymore.

    Like

  46. Maral permalink
    March 20, 2011 10:28 pm

    i know. i just can’t understan why the Jacksons don’t shut these people.

    Like

  47. March 20, 2011 10:27 pm

    Oxman also wanted to have TMez fired during the trial. It’s crazy.

    Quote:
    QUOTE(Admin2 @ Apr 5 2005, 10:56 AM)
    Okay I don’t know if anyone remembers this conversation Brian Oxman was having on the phone the other day. The one that was recorded and parts of it later played on Court TV.

    Well, the guy who recorded the conversation contacted me and confirmed that it was in fact Thomas Mesereau [who] Oxman was complaining about and wanted to get fired.

    I can’t say much more about this right now but maybe there’ll be more later.
    [snapback]82362[/snapback]

    Quote:
    Here is part of the script:

    “Michael wanted to can [INAUDIBLE] a week before the opening statement. He said, “Brian, please, I want to fire him.”

    “This is going to get intolerable. There is going to be harmony, or there is going to be shi*t.”

    “Make your choice. Which is it? Bottom line, he will be fired; I will make sure of it.”

    “People treat one another with respect. I have no alliances; I want to be treated with respect. You can tell him that Brian is very upset. I didn’t yell at him.”

    “Susan Yu told me I wasn’t important enough to have a place to sleep. No one is going to pay for anything anymore, I guess.”

    “Is that how it works? It means that somebody has to pay the bills here. [INAUDIBLE] You know what I think? I’ll just go home. You figure out how to pay the bills.”

    “And the point is Bob, I will not sit here for six months as I feed everybody else really good stuff. I won’t do it.”

    He was also reported to have personally gone to Jordie Chandler to get him to sign a letter stating he wasn’t molested.

    Like

  48. March 20, 2011 10:20 pm

    The only brain parts destroyed are Oxman’s

    Like

  49. Maral permalink
    March 20, 2011 10:09 pm

    @ shelly i don’t remember exactly but it was something like parts of Michael’s brain was destroyed due to drug abuse.

    Like

  50. shelly permalink
    March 20, 2011 10:02 pm

    @Maral,

    What did he say?

    Like

  51. Maral permalink
    March 20, 2011 9:11 pm

    oxman is an idiot. pardon my language but he is. during Murray’s hearing he said some horrible things about MJ to fans.

    “What’s the point of working pro bono to vindicate MJ if the people around him will openly fraternize with the enemy?”
    i think your work is more essencial with all this going on. Michael need some one to defend him

    Like

  52. March 20, 2011 8:31 pm

    David, Oxman is not the smartest person in the world and his stupidity doesn’t surprise me anymore. No wonder why Mesereau kicked him out of Santa Maria. As for LaToya, given what we know for decades about her, I am sure she has no clue who VG is.

    Like

  53. lcpledwards permalink
    March 20, 2011 7:55 pm

    @ Gigi
    yes, it’s VERY DEMORALIZING to see Brian Oxy-moron with Gloria Allred, the notorious MJ hater and ambulance chaser! Both she and her daughter Lisa Bloom played a huge part in convicting MJ in the court of public opinion with their biased and deceptive “legal analysis”. Same thing with Jane Velez Mitchell, who Oxman was also photographed with at that party.

    I can’t say that I’m surprised, consiering he has done so little to defend MJ in public, especially when he used to appear as a guest on the Nancy Grace show. Grace and Dimond would pile up on MJ, and he would just sit there and nod his head and let them go unchallenged. In fact, listen to him kiss up to Grace on the day after MJ died! He said he “adores” her, and when she says that the allegations are now between MJ and God, he doesn’t even refute her. Disgusting!

    In between this, and seeing Latoya hug Victor Gutierrez, and seeing her tell Joy Behar how much she “loves” her show, it’s enough to make you want to just give up sometimes. What’s the point of working pro bono to vindicate MJ if the people around him will openly fraternize with the enemy?

    Like

  54. March 20, 2011 7:39 pm

    I find it really strange how all these people are so interconnected. I had posted this on friday under the Veritas post don’t know if everyone here has seen this.

    gigi PERMALINK
    March 19, 2011 12:00 am
    Ok has everyone seen this nonsense today? Brian Oxman just keeps hitting that head of his. I really don’t understand his malfunction. Why is this man (who never met a camera he doesn’t like) taking pictures with Gloria Allerd? Oxman is very low and I don’t trust him at all. smh…sigh

    Like

  55. visitor permalink
    March 20, 2011 2:54 pm

    Here is something from Louise Plonker’s testimony…

    Direct exam

    3 THE WITNESS: She started by saying,
    4 “Wheezy, if you have caller I.D., this is not a safe
    5 line. Don’t call me back here. They’re listening
    6 to everything I say.”
    7 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did she go on to tell
    8 you more.
    9 A. She said, “These people are evil. They’re
    10 keeping us.”
    11 I would say, “Where are the children.”
    12 “The children are with me.”
    13 I said, “Are the children in school.”
    14 She said, “No,” and that’s when she started
    15 crying.
    16 I said, “Can I come and see you.”
    17 She said, “No.”
    18 She wanted me to come and get them and meet
    19 them at —
    20 THE COURT: Just a moment. Now you’ve gone
    21 beyond the proposed —

    Objections and stuff…

    14 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Were you concerned
    15 after this phone call.
    16 A. Yes, I was concerned enough to call my
    17 lawyer immediately following the phone call.

    Further down on direct

    10 Q. Did you call anybody after this phone call.
    11 A. Just my lawyer.
    12 Q. Why did you call your lawyer.
    13 A. I felt that they were being held against
    14 their will.

    Doens’t that makes sense???

    She was concerned so she calls a lawyer!!!!
    What??? What dya mean the police??? She didn’t have the number!

    Cross Exam

    6 Q. Did you know you were being tape-recorded in
    7 this discussion.
    8 A. No, I don’t think I did.
    9 Q. Do you remember telling them that, “I know
    10 that Janet’s unbalanced. I think she’s totally
    11 bipolar”.
    12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Improper
    13 opinion.
    14 THE WITNESS: Do I answer.
    15 THE COURT: Overruled.
    16 (To the witness.) I’m thinking.
    17 (Laughter.)
    18 THE COURT: You may answer.
    19 THE WITNESS: I’m not a psychiatrist, but
    20 she — she’s very excitable.
    21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: But do you remember
    22 telling the sheriffs the following: “I know that
    23 Janet’s unbalanced. I think she’s totally bipolar.
    24 Something — the behavior from the children from the
    25 family was so over the top all the time”. Do you
    26 remember saying that.
    27 A. Yes, I do.
    28 Q. Okay. Do you remember telling the Santa 3063

    1 Barbara sheriffs when you were talking about letters
    2 you received from the Arvizos, “You don’t just get
    3 one letter from them. You get five letters from
    4 them. You don’t get one phone call. You get five
    5 phone calls. A message from Janet on your answering
    6 machine can last five minutes.’ She mimics types of
    7 messages on the phone.”
    8 You mimicked for the sheriffs her messages
    9 on the machine. Do you remember that.
    10 A. Yes, I do.
    11 Q. Is that something you said.
    12 A. Yes. I was exaggerating. I didn’t know I
    13 was being taped.
    14 Q. Do you remember telling the Santa Barbara
    15 sheriffs, when you didn’t realize that you were
    16 being recorded, “Janet would sell them at the
    17 benefits, then sell them at the hospital, and David
    18 was never at The Laugh Factory when the children
    19 were coming”.

    17 Q. Okay. So you don’t think you told the
    18 sheriffs, “Janet would sell them at the benefits,
    19 then sell them at the hospital”.
    20 A. No, I don’t.
    21 Q. Okay. Do you remember telling them that
    22 Janet was never at the hospital.
    23 A. Yes, I do. I think it may have been
    24 “seldom,” now that I’m thinking of how they would
    25 have mistyped it
    26 Q. Do you remember being asked if Janet had
    27 ever approached you for money in that phone
    28 conversation — excuse me, in that interview. 3066

    1 A. Say it again. I was just thinking about my
    2 last thought. I’m sorry.
    3 Q. Okay. In that interview on January 7th,
    4 2005, with the Santa Barbara sheriffs, do you
    5 remember being asked if Janet had ever personally
    6 approached you or asked you for money.
    7 A. I told them she hadn’t.
    8 Q. No, you have to answer my question, please.
    9 A. Okay.
    10 Q. Do you remember being asked that question.
    11 A. Yes, I do.
    12 Q. Do you remember responding, “It was always
    13 David or it was the children being coached to ask me
    14 for a laptop”.
    15 A. I felt that Gavin had been coached to ask me
    16 for a laptop.
    17 Q. Did Gavin ask you for the laptop.
    18 A. He would go like this (indicating), because
    19 I had promised him one, so he was reminding me.
    20 Q. So you were asked by the officer, “What do
    21 you mean by coached.” Do you remember that.
    22 A. Yes.
    23 Q. And you said, “being coached to tell me that
    24 they hadn’t gotten any Christmas presents
    25 (inaudible)”.
    26 A. Star had told me that, yes.
    27 Q. Did you believe Star when he told you they
    28 hadn’t gotten any Christmas presents. 3067

    1 A. I didn’t, really. I wasn’t sure. A lot of
    2 people were giving them gifts at that time.
    3 Q. Did you think Star was being coached.
    4 A. I did.
    5 Q. Okay. And how do you know a lot of people
    6 were giving them gifts around the same time that
    7 Star said, “We don’t have any Christmas presents”.
    8 A. I don’t know. I just know that people
    9 visited them, comedians visited them, and it was
    10 Christmastime, so I felt that he — they probably
    11 would have gotten something.

    4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Well, but just not
    5 recalling things doesn’t make you a pathological
    6 liar, right.
    7 A. I’m not in a place to really make that
    8 diagnosis, so —
    9 Q. Well, you told them, “I think Jamie’s (Jamie Masada !?!?) a
    10 pathological liar,” right.
    11 A. I may have said those words.
    12 Q. Would it refresh your recollection to look
    13 at the transcript.
    14 A. No, I may have said those words.
    15 Q. I’m trying to find out if you did, okay.
    16 A. I probably did. But I was exaggerating.
    17 Q. Okay. You talked about Jamie Masada and
    18 David, and you said that Jamie told you David wanted
    19 to set up a committee to get more money, right.
    20 A. Yes.
    21 Q. And you said, with respect to Jamie and
    22 David, “One of them is telling the truth. The truth
    23 is somewhere in the middle,” right.
    24 A. Yes, I did.
    25 Q. And the officer said, “Who do you believe to
    26 be the truth.” And your response was, “I think
    27 Jamie is a pathological liar,” right.
    28 A. Well, it’s difficult to say in that 3075

    1 situation. I still don’t know the truth, so it’s
    2 difficult to say.
    3 Q. Well, let me ask you this, if you recall the
    4 conversation. I know you didn’t know they were
    5 recording you.
    6 You could have responded, “I think David is
    7 a pathological liar,” but you didn’t. You said,
    8 “I think Jamie’s a pathological liar,” right.
    9 A. Right.
    10 Q. And then the officer said, “Jamie is.” And
    11 you said, “Yes.”
    12 Now, that’s not just hyperbole, is it.
    13 A. Sometimes he confuses incidents.
    14 Q. Do you remember after you said, “I think
    15 Jamie is a pathological liar,” the officer said,
    16 “Jamie is.” And you said, “Yes”. Do you remember
    17 that.
    18 A. Yes.

    Like

  56. Maral permalink
    March 20, 2011 2:06 pm

    that’s interesting hana.

    Like

  57. hana permalink
    March 20, 2011 12:36 pm

    Palanker and Zonen are now engaged..They are set to marry next year. She posted that on her blog.

    Like

  58. shelly permalink
    March 20, 2011 2:31 am

    Palanker is or was the girlfriend of Zonen. She has pictures with him, Dimond, Brown and another guy, the whole gang.

    Like

  59. March 20, 2011 2:21 am

    Ares,
    If you consider the likelihood of Leno having some sort of “professional” relationship with Louise Palanker-comedian and witness for the prosecution-his “jokes” are no big surprise. I am pretty sure there is a post about Palanker’s link to one of the prosecutors involved in the 2005 trial, AND it looks as though she is also in a radio broadcast partnership with Diane Dimond on Talk it Over Radio. Palanker goes by the name “Weezy”.
    Looks as though Jay has the “inside” scoop from THE sources!!

    Like

  60. visitor permalink
    March 19, 2011 6:17 pm

    Here in my country one week after Michael’s death of the most serious tv station broadcasted one of the most despicable program concerning not Michael’s life but the allegations. I would expect that from a channel that includes gossip in their program but i didn’t expect it from a tv station that has built a reputation on being serious and reporting the truth. They do exactly the same thing as they did with his skin disease. They don’t even bother to research the truth and they broadcast the same rumors again and again because they know that even if they report lies or inaccuracies, no one is going to do anything about it.

    Like

  61. shelly permalink
    March 19, 2011 5:10 pm

    I don’t think there is a conspiracy, they are doing that for ratings, that’s all and it’s a shame because Arte is a very good and interesting channels.

    I am very surprised by their attitude, even a channel like TF1, where you finf gossips and real TV show, did a very positive and respectful documentary about him.

    Like

  62. Suzy permalink
    March 19, 2011 4:15 pm

    Last time someone (maybe it was Helena) posted what kind of films this Peretti used to produce. Among them lots of perverted sounding titles like “the World’s biggest penis” and things like that. He is also an advocate for pornography. So I’m slowly starting to wonder about his connections with Gutierrez and whether they serve the same cause (or at least a similar one). And who knows what’s on Arte’s agenda regarding this “documentary”?
    P-les are in the media and everywhere.

    Like

  63. ares permalink
    March 19, 2011 1:36 pm

    I wonder too why they keep airing the Paretti show. I mean even the most stupid person in the world can realize that that program is not objective at all.I’m not a conspiracy theorist believer but the persistence of the media with all this negative things about MJ’s life which most of them are false, is strange. Do they do it because they don’t know the facts or are there other reasons?
    I’ve been reading the Cutting edge blog this days and i found this little entry about Jay Leno. Like the media Leno was one of those commedians whose jokes about MJ made few people question his motives.

    We have noticed that Jay Leno has gone out of his way to bash Michael Jackson. I mean, we know that Jackson is the pariah of the moment right now for comedians but Leno seems particularly bent on villifying Jackson, especially after Leno had Geraldo Rivera, one of the few media types who is vocal about the REAL nature of this case. So we want to know:

    1. Who do you owe a big favor to Jay?
    2. Who is putting the squeeze on you for your “air time”?
    3. Who is whispering in that big ear of yours about Jackson?
    4. Who is responsible for those lame behind jokes you keep torturing your audience with?

    Inquiring minds like us want to know.

    Like

  64. shelly permalink
    March 19, 2011 12:42 pm

    @Maral,

    I don’t think they should show the Peretti film at all, but since they decided to show several times, they should at least show the other side of the story.

    Like

  65. Maral permalink
    March 19, 2011 12:39 pm

    what two sides? these accusations are UNTRUE so why show the documentary?

    Like

  66. shelly permalink
    March 19, 2011 10:16 am

    @suzy,

    The last time, they didn’t. I don’t know why they are doing that. At the very least, they should play the A Jones documentary after that. I really don’t understand.

    Like

  67. Suzy permalink
    March 19, 2011 5:26 am

    Do they play the other two documentaries again and again? I wonder what’s the purpose of playing it so much? It’s not showing the darkest side of MJ. It’s simply lying about him.

    Like

  68. shelly permalink
    March 18, 2011 10:07 pm

    By the way, I found Arte’s answer to the public in 2009. Lots of french tv viewers were very angry after the 1rst airing and wrote lots of negative comments. This is what they answer

    “Communiqué de la direction des programmes (10/07/2009)
    Nous avons pris bonne note de vos critiques et regrettons que cette émission vous ait déplue. Toutefois, nous aimerions attirer votre attention sur le fait que ce documentaire s’inscrivait dans le cadre d’une soirée thématique sur Michael Jackson, dont l’objectif était de présenter, par le biais de trois programmes différents, toutes les facettes de cet artiste d’exception.

    En tant que chaîne publique, nous considérons qu’il était de notre devoir, non seulement de célébrer son œuvre, mais aussi de parler des aspects plus sombres de sa vie.

    Nous n’avons pas un seul instant cherché à discréditer Michael Jackson.

    Bien au contraire ! Ainsi, pour rendre hommage au « Roi de la pop », nous avons modifié notre grille à la dernière minute et diffusé, en plus des deux documentaires « Doctor Prince & Mister Jackson » et « Michael Jackson – En quête de vérité », le film « Moonwalker ».”

    http://www.arte.tv/fr/Echappees-culturelles/TV-dos-80s/A-l-antenne/2616674,CmC=2601818.html

    They said they are very sorry that people didn’t like the documentary. According to them, their goal was to show everything about MJ including the darkest side of his life and it’s why, in 2009, they had 3 differents programs, the Peretti films, a documentary about him and Prince and Moonwalker. They said they never wanted to discredit him but they thought that as a TV Channel they had to speak about everything.

    Like

  69. shelly permalink
    March 18, 2011 9:42 pm

    I don’t know if it’s true or not but I found this article

    http://www.lepost.fr/article/2011/03/10/2430867_behind-the-mask-la-suite.html

    “Malgré les coups de téléphone et les mails de nombreux fans, Arte a diffusé le film de Jacques Peretti pour la deuxième fois. Une troisième date de diffusion est prévue en août !”

    It means that the peretti documentary will be on TV again on Arte in August.

    Like

  70. SupaFly permalink
    March 15, 2011 4:00 pm

    Yo,

    Ask Brett Barnes on his view of Jordie Chandler, I think they used to hang around Neverland at the same time. There’s some info on other fan forums that maybe Jordie was not such a special friend after all and he wasnt happy that there were other kids there and his mom june was tryin to be ‘queen bee’.

    Like

  71. March 14, 2011 10:21 pm

    “In arguments with these people you’ll always end up having to discuss plastic surgery, vitiligo, his sexuality, his marriages, his children… they start throwing everything in there, like all of it is part of the criminality of Michael”

    Rockforeveron, your post is indeed excellent and I hope you don’t mind that I’ve made you an author in this blog – this way the post is made in your name, not mine. You’ve contributed so much to this blog that becoming an author here is a simple statement of the established fact. If you don’t like the title please feel free to change it. If you don’t wish to be an author I can delete your name again hoping that it will stay at least in the post.

    Like

  72. March 14, 2011 5:45 pm

    “Why do Michael’s detractors always pretend that they used to be huge Michael’s fans?”

    Probably they think they sound more credible that way

    Like

  73. March 14, 2011 5:28 pm

    “I’ve resigned myself to the fact that a certain proportion of people will always believe he’s guilty, even if Jordie were to come out tomorrow denying it.”

    Rockforeveron, your observations are awesome. And the correspondence all of you guys had over that Leigh issue is completely remarkable. Please allow me to turn them into a post in your names – which I will try to make immediately as I am afraid that such a gem will be lost in the comments.

    Just a small addition to what you have already said – there is one thing which is absolutely false about Leigh and here it is:
    “I used to be a huge MJ fan/supporter but I can’t help but shake my head…”

    Why do Michael’s detractors always pretend that they used to be huge Michael’s fans? If they were huge Michael’s fans in the past, in the midst of that media circus when those horrendous allegations were made against him, why would they lose their love for Jackson now – after he was found an innocent man, raised three beautiful children, retained his great talent and love for people as the film of his rehearsals showed it and died a practically healthy man with no bad habits except his insomnia for which doctors could find nothing else but that damned propofol?

    What has changed since the times when these “fans” adored Michael? Only that all insinuations against him have started to be slowly refuted one after another? Doesn’t Leigh understand that any movement in the attitude towards Michael can go in one direction only – towards his full acquittal – not only in court, but in the public eye too?

    @Leigh, pretending that you were a “huge fan” who turned into a doubter was a mistake. It showed to us that you had never been a supporter of Michael Jackson. In case of MJ only the opposite transformation is possible…

    Like

  74. March 12, 2011 3:04 am

    @Anna

    I feel like people have just had it ingrained in them that Michael Jackson was just sinister. This person tied up the balcony incident with the sexual molestation – all these things are the same to them. In arguments with these people you’ll always end up having to discuss plastic surgery, vitiligo, his sexuality, his marriages, his children… they start throwing everything in there, like all of it is part of the criminality of Michael, a big grand master plan of pedophilia he was undertaking, first his nose job, then dangling kids off balconies, then molesting kids, then birthing kids too white for him… he was a “creep” with a game plan!

    The video about Ronaldo is great, isn’t it? I got all welled up seeing him with those kids in the hospital. Someone posted that on a forum when news of his baby came about and I was surprised. I’d always thought of him as a jock womanizing footballer… it’s interesting to realize how your perceptions about things can be so clouded based on gossip.

    But of course if allegations came about about Cristiano that same clip would be played in slow motion with dramatic pauses, with the colour warped and faded all sepia, accompanied with sinister forebording music in the background, just like Peretti and “Michael’s Boys” were so fond of…

    Like

  75. Anna permalink
    March 12, 2011 2:41 am

    @rockforeveron

    Interesting isn’t it? Whether it’s the allegations or not MJ always gets held to a different set of standards than most people whether they are famous or not. Thanks for the link though! It’s very heartwarming to see the good things people do for children and for others.

    Like

  76. March 12, 2011 2:30 am

    @Anna

    There are many creepy men in this world. Here are some quotes from another very very very famous man (at least for South Americans and Europeans):

    “I have always felt like I was different from others.”

    “Already that young (when I started to work)… it’s not easy.”

    “Leaving my family and going to another city. It was complicated. It was the most difficult moment in my life as a person.”

    “Most of the time I had to deal with things by myself. Already doing things at that age that a regular kid didn’t do. Or things a kid shouldn’t even have to worry about. Normally kids have someone to do that kind of stuff for them.”

    “I grew a lot, I was basically forced to mature quickly and become a man.”

    “What do I miss the most from back then? Maybe not enjoying my childhood as much as I should have.”

    “If you could do anything anonymous for a day what would it be?”
    “Go shopping to a mall with my (young, preteen) nephews. Sit at a cafe and have an ice cream together.”

    (Holding his young nephew) “It’s amazing. Whenever I have time I like to come here and visit them.”

    “I have 4 nephews and it’s amazing. Homes are always better when there are kids. They like spending time with me. I feel great joy when I’m with them.”

    Then footage of this person visiting a hospital and kissing kids, talking to them, cuddling them…

    This is from Cristiano Ronaldo, a superstar international footballer worth millions and millions.

    Now has a baby in circumstances similar to Michael…

    People also made fun of Mike for his nose job (like he’s alone in that), the balcony incident (read up about Britney Spears’ incidents with DCFS), having a monkey named Bubbles (Elvis had a monkey named Scatter) and Usher has recently been seen befriending a 12 year old boy and performing onstage with him…

    Like

  77. Anna permalink
    March 12, 2011 2:29 am

    @visitor

    I think you are probably right, if he/she really feels that way though then it’s time for him/ her to move on from this site. It does not serve a purpose for him/ her and that’s fine, but it serves a purpose for others and that’s what it here for. We can’t change everyone’s viewpoint but people like Leigh have to understand that we’re not going to stop just because of the people whose viewpoints won’t change. All we can do is present facts and at times offer another perspective on certain issues, if people don’t like it or agree with it then they are free to disagree or ignore it but just realize it’s not going to stop us from participating in vindication efforts.

    Like

  78. shelly permalink
    March 12, 2011 2:26 am

    Thank you rockforeveron

    Like

  79. Anna permalink
    March 12, 2011 2:09 am

    @rockforeveron

    Your assessment for why you think people need to believe MJ is guilty is spot on! I feel the exact same way!

    Like

  80. visitor permalink
    March 12, 2011 2:08 am

    @rockforeveron

    “I truly don’t understand the point of reading up about it at all then”

    I think she is trying to say to us to stop waisting our time with him because according to her Michael was wrong and deserved all the negative things that happened to him regardless if he did or didn’t do something to those children.

    Like

  81. Anna permalink
    March 12, 2011 2:05 am

    @Leigh It’s interesting that you refer MJ’s devotion to children as an obsession. His devotion to children is obviously very disturbing to you, I suppose b/c of the allegations.

    Would it have been better for him had he been indifferent about children like too many people in the world are? It may have been better for him, but the children that he did end up helping would have been out of luck.

    However, MJ is not the first person or the last person to feel a strong devotion for children.

    My former boss was a Pediatric Psychiatrist, and she actually specialized in counseling children had been physically and sexually abused. She was having a talk with me one day about my future when told her I might go back to school and she was encouraging me to do something that I loved and felt passionate about. She told me it was her love for children that lead her to her profession. She lived for it, it was what drove her in life. I never found it creepy or weird even when she would say things “I love children so much” or “I love the work I do for children” I also had a friend who was an early childcare teacher. She worked with 2 – 4 year olds, she always told me about how those little ones would inspire her and give her the energy she needed to get through the week, b/c her job wasn’t always easy.

    I realize that neither of these people didn’t have the same growing up issues or social isolation and constraints that MJ had, so it is different.

    My point is if you or anyone is going to say that MJ’s love for children was creepy or weird b/c of he way he expressed it and his devotion to help children then there are other good people that you will have to hold to those same standards. Every devoted pediatric physician or nurse, childcare instructor, nun or missionary doing philanthropic work for children, counselor etc. that feels driven in their chosen profession or charity that they support because of their love for children will have to be considered “creepy” and “obsessed with children.”

    Like

  82. March 12, 2011 1:56 am

    @Shelly

    http://deargavinarvizo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Janet-Arvizo-Cross-Examination.txt

    @Visitor

    That’s likely true unfortunately but…

    I don’t care if there was NOTHING going on, it’s just wrong period.

    I truly don’t understand the point of reading up about it at all then. If she believes it’s all wrong regardless of the lack of abuse and he should have had that trial anyway, then what’s the point of even looking out for websites like this? It’s strange to me…

    Like

  83. visitor permalink
    March 12, 2011 1:49 am

    I think that Leigh is just saying what most people feel about Michael and will always feel. She actually is honest about her feelings and is not trying with fake names to divert our attention. If she has read both sides of the two cases and still believes that Michael was guilty of something, then there is nothing more for us to say. People will always have difficulty understanding Michael’s behavior and the way that he lived simply because it was so different from the standards of society on how a man should behave. What they tend to forget though is that the way that Michael was raised wasn’t normal too.

    Like

  84. shelly permalink
    March 12, 2011 1:45 am

    Speaking about Orth, does anyone has the link of the testimony where Sanger spoke about the Spielberg letter.

    Like

  85. lynande51 permalink
    March 12, 2011 12:31 am

    My only question for Leigh is why there are 2 different IP addresses for her/him to comments made within minutes of each other?

    Like

  86. lcpledwards permalink
    March 12, 2011 12:08 am

    @ rockforeveron
    I’ve resigned myself to the fact that a certain proportion of people will always believe he’s guilty, even if Jordie were to come out tomorrow denying it. (Considering the evidence and Jordie’s behaviour I honestly don’t even believe it’s necessary. Anyone who looks at the facts can see what Jordie’s feelings are. Remember when that hoax about Jordie went around the internet saying he denied it right after MJ passed? Isn’t is interesting that Evan killed himself shortly after?)

    I agree with that statement! If Jordan, Jason Francia, and Gavin Arvizo all held a joint press conference to deny the charges, haters would say that they were paid by the Estate (which wouldn’t make any sense for Jason and Jordan, since they already received multimillion dollar settlements). Or, they would say that MJ molested other boys who have not spoken out against him. They’ll cling to those tired arguments to justify their prejudices against MJ. They did not want justice when MJ was accused, they wanted a conviction, and there’s a big difference! They were disappointed when he was acquitted, so they had to make up excuses to undermine his acquittal such as “Just because he’s not guilty, it doesn’t mean he’s innocent!”, “OJ Simpson was acquitted too!”, “Those 2 jurors said he was guilty!”, etc.

    That behavior is reinforced by those 2 liars Maureen Orth and Diane Dimond, who each claim to have spoken to parents whose kids were molested, but were afraid to press charges.

    http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2009/06/michael-jackson-is-gone-but-the-sad-facts-remain.html

    Orth: I spoke to hundreds of people who knew Jackson and, in the course of my reporting, found families who had given their sons up to him and paid dearly for it.

    http://dianedimond.net/the-enigma-that-was-michael-jackson/
    Dimond: And from my years of reporting on the case I can tell you there were other young boys with eerily similar stories of abuse by Jackson, sons of parents too reticent, too embarrassed or scared to press charges.

    The way I see it is this: nobody will EVER say “I think MJ is guilty because I’ve done the research, read books, the court transcripts, and watched documentaries on him!” Their belief in his guilt is rooted in prejudice, and not in a credible allegation or hard evidence. So if Orth, Dimond, and the rest of the haters have to rely on imaginary, “phantom” victims who are too afraid to press charges, then as far as I’m concerned, WE’VE WON! We have refuted and debunked every allegation, no matter how bogus or specious it is, and if the worst thing you can say about MJ is that he let kids sleep in his room, then WE’VE WON!

    Like

  87. March 11, 2011 11:23 pm

    @rockforeveron

    “Michael has taught me a lot about arguments, critical thinking and why people believe what they believe”

    That’s how I feel too. We had the greatest mentor. I began question everything because of him.

    About the ps research finding, the reason is the high correlation between belief and desires. That research was very old and it has been repeated many times (test-retest reliability) with the same result. It is linked to emotional factors (aka somebody’s personal reason) and the correlation between belief and objective measures is always low. It is considered to be very reliable and it is one the concepts in social psychology.

    Like

  88. March 11, 2011 10:45 pm

    @thetis

    people who are fixated with this “concept” for their own personal reasons will never see the truth because their whole world will collapse.

    Yup yup yup.

    Like the same people who have been proven wrong about his vitiligo and his children – they still insist he hated being black even though their entire foundation for their argument was… his skin and his children.

    Michael has taught me a lot about arguments, critical thinking and why people believe what they believe. I used to think belief rested on facts and that once people became aware of facts they would enjoy being illuminated and progress with their thoughts. It’s how I’ve always behaved, though obviously when you get proven wrong about something it’s embarrassing, but the need to cling to it would be even more embarrassing to me.

    It reminds me of this, from a recent paper about the psychology of belief:

    One of the strongest, most-repeated findings in the psychology of belief is that once people have been told X, especially if X is shocking, if they are later told, “No, we were wrong about X,” most people still believe X.

    Like

  89. March 11, 2011 10:37 pm

    @rockforeveron people who are fixated with this “concept” for their own personal reasons will never see the truth because their whole world will collapse. There are others who were simply misinformed and never bothered to look at the facts themselves, relying only on the media soundbits. The second category is more likely to give it a try because there is nothing personal there.

    Like

  90. March 11, 2011 10:25 pm

    I’ve resigned myself to the fact that a certain proportion of people will always believe he’s guilty, even if Jordie were to come out tomorrow denying it. (Considering the evidence and Jordie’s behaviour I honestly don’t even believe it’s necessary. Anyone who looks at the facts can see what Jordie’s feelings are. Remember when that hoax about Jordie went around the internet saying he denied it right after MJ passed? Isn’t is interesting that Evan killed himself shortly after?)

    They’d still say Mike shouldn’t have slept in the same room with kids, that he shouldn’t have been friends with kids, yada yada yada. They seem to believe this alone is a criminal act worthy of destroying his entire life for and they refuse to feel any remorse about any treatment of MJ – he might not have been a pedophile, but he deserved this treatment.

    I’ve seen some people on other forums change their opinions about things regarding MJ. But so many people here seem to need to believe the things they do about him, it seem like they just don’t want to let go. They’re mad at MJ and they have to be pissed at him about something.

    I’ve seen people accept that he isn’t a pedophile – but then they are very adament that it was creepy and wrong and weird for him to let kids share his bedroom and even be friends with kids, even though none of the kids involved say it was creepy, so it’s basically just their own views that they’re projecting on MJ to say it was creepy.

    Don’t they think it was even worse that he was hounded for his entire life on a lie? But no, they don’t want to feel guilt or remorse about that; he should have been hunted to death just for having sleep overs and for having child friends (sorry “obsessions”). They seem to think this is a rational and fair minded view to have.

    Maybe this isn’t enough for some people – in order to continue to believe their original beliefs were grounded and they should feel no remorse I’ve even heard people say (this is very true) “Okay MJ didn’t molest those kids, but it’s likely he was a pedophile just because of how he behaved, so it was right to put him to trial.” Try and think that one through. (“It’s likely he was a murderer, just because of how he behaved. It’s likely he was a rapist, just because of how he behaved.” Who cares if there aren’t any victims, if nothing happened? So long as their prejudice against their fundamental idea of a person can persist.)

    Just like people saying “there’s no smoke without fire” – so we shouldn’t bother with any criminal trials. Everyone involved in any legal trial must be guilty of something or they wouldn’t be up there.

    I’ve noticed that when challenged with serious conflicts in what they’ve chosen to believe is fact, most people downplay anything that outright contradicts their beliefs, shrug indifferently at the value of facts and evidence themselves, and try and move on to another topic, so that the goal post is continuously moved and they don’t have to resolve the discussion and reconcile their original opinion versus all the evidence against it.

    It’s like a cartoon where at the end of every episode, everything goes back to how it was at the start. They seem to learn and gain nothing.

    When it turns out that you may be wrong, people can either feel stupid and hate themselves (this is rare), or they can resist this and continue to justify their original belief – no matter how ungrounded – because they refuse to have to feel any compassion or remorse for their original judgement on someone.

    Like

  91. March 11, 2011 10:14 pm

    I am his fan since my childhood. My childhood dream was to meet him and of course sleep with him in his arms at Neverland after he would read me a bedtime story. If I had the chance, I would jump on his bed and beg him to stay there. I completely understand how the kids around him felt and don’t forget that they were the ones that asked him to stay there.

    Like

  92. lcpledwards permalink
    March 11, 2011 9:59 pm

    @ Leigh
    You say that you’ve read all of the links that I gave you, but are you sure? I find it hard to believe that someone who didn’t know much about the allegations could supposedly read all of those links and NOT have anything good to say about them! I gave you links that debunk ALL of the allegations, clear up many misconceptions about him, and show the way the media LIED to the general public in order to turn them against MJ, and the only thing you have to say is you don’t “agree” with him letting kids or adults sleep in his 2 story bedroom that was bigger than most apartments? Are you kidding me? And you still list the allegations as something that troubles you, so do you think he was guilty after reading those links?

    Well Leigh, you are entitled to your own opinions, and it’s easy for you to say that you’d never let anyone else sleep in your bedroom because you’re not famous, and people aren’t so infatuated with you that they want to be around you 24/7. He did not “force” anyone to sleep in his bedroom, people WANTED to be there because they wanted to be around him, they often stayed up late into the night watching movies and playing video games, and (most importantly) they felt comfortable around him. Personally, I don’t drink alcohol, but I don’t judge anyone else who chooses to drink! I’m sure you like to enjoy a cold beer every now and then, like when you’re watching a football game or out socializing with your friends. What if I told you that I think you’re “wrong”?

    It seems like you’re judging him, and when we refuted the allegations and other misconceptions about him, you chose to latch unto him letting FAMILIES sleep his bedroom? It’s NOBODY’S BUSINESS who he lets sleep in his bedroom, so I don’t know why you’re even harping on this trivial issue. You claim that you “used” to be a “huge fan/supporter” , well, I’m sure if you had the chance to form a close friendship with MJ the same what the Chandlers, Cascios, Barnes, Robsons, and Culkins did, you would have slept in his bedroom too! (And of course if you didn’t want to, he wouldn’t have forced you to!) So to end this subject, while it’s your choice to not let people sleep in your bedroom, there is NOTHING “wrong” with others who choose to do so.

    Next, you made the critical mistake of “comparing” MJ to other child stars, when there IS NO COMPARISON! MJ actually turned out BETTER than most child stars! How can you say that the other child stars “seem to know what is right and wrong”? First of all, just because they didn’t say in an interview that they shared their bedroom, that DOES NOT mean that they did NOT share their bedroom! It only means that they were never ASKED about it! Second of all, MJ did NOT go into a life of crime, or party nonstop at strip clubs, or abuse recreational drugs (such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroine) for pleasure! When you look at this list of child stars gone bad, I’ll take MJ any day of the week! http://gawker.com/#!5490140/a-field-guide-to-child-stars-gone-bad/gallery/1

    As for Blanket, the “baby dangling” incident was a momentary lapse in judgment that he surely regretted. He apologized for it and it didn’t happen again. End of story. It’s no different than a parent who talks on their cell phone while driving a car; it’s dangerous, and not only are they putting their kids at risk, but other drivers as well! And don’t say that you’ve NEVER talked on your phone or sent a text message while driving, because we ALL have, including me! That’s why I didn’t judge MJ then, and I don’t judge him now, because I would be a hypocrite for doing so! You have that ambulance chaser Gloria Allred who wanted to have MJ’s kids taken away because of it, yet she would NEVER suggest that parents who drive while using a cell phone should have their kids taken away, because nobody would tolerate it! She used the baby dangling incident for her own self promotion!

    I’ll end this comment with this question, and I want you to be honest: are you coming here because you want to have a civil conversation about the misconceptions you have about MJ, or because you want to troll and distract us? Like I said earlier, you claim that you read all of those links, but you had nothing complimentary to say about them. People who genuinely want answers usually thank us for the hard work that we do, and offer substantive questions or comments about the articles we post here. They don’t read the articles and then come back and JUDGE MJ based on the how they feel he should have lived, as if he was a puppet or something.

    We will answer any questions you have, as long as they are constructive and substantive, but if all you’re going to do is come here and say what MJ should and should not have done, then I’ll ask you not to leave any more comments. We don’t have time to have these petty discussions. Thank you.

    Like

  93. Suzy permalink
    March 11, 2011 8:48 pm

    Thanks, rockon. This was the interview I remembered.

    Like

  94. March 11, 2011 8:24 pm

    @Suzy

    Sean also recently posted a pic of him and Mike together in the 80s on his tumblr. 🙂

    Here’s the Riley thing:

    Riley Keough interview, larioja.com, May 3, 2009

    Q: Have you recently seen your former stepfather, Michael Jackson?
    A: No. I have no contact with him.
    Q: What about bad memories?
    A: No, no, oh no. All good.

    And I added other things about Riley/Mike:

    http://lacienegasmiled.wordpress.com/category/mjs-female-kid-friends/

    She was the one who attended the funeral with Lisa and she visits Mike’s tomb with her mother too

    Her brother was seen wearing an MJ shirt in 2008 (I think it’s 2008) too

    You’re right – interviewer’s do that loaded questioning all the time with Mike, like Oprah and her “improprieties”. They did it with Mike too. Like when Sawyer was going at him, “Do you miss being Black?” There’s no possible way for anyone to answer that. “Yes” and it’s saying he no longer believes he’s black, “No” and it’s saying he doesn’t miss it.

    It’s disgusting how journalists are trying to get people say something bad about Michael!

    It’s worth so much money…

    Like

  95. Suzy permalink
    March 11, 2011 8:11 pm

    @ rockonforever

    This type of questioning, when the interviewer tries to put words in someone’s mouth and makes an insinuation already in the question hoping that the other will nod in agreement, reminds me and interview some journalist did with Riley Keough, Lisa Marie Presley’s daughter. Unfortunately I didn’t save it at the time but it was done at the beginning of 2009, so before Michael’s death, not after. She is working as a model and she was interviewed for this but at one point the interviewer asked her a question like this: “What about all the bad memories you have had with your ex-step-father, Michael Jackson?”

    Insinuating already in the question that any memories Riley might have about Michael must be bad! Incredible! Fortunately Riley wasn’t having it and she answered: “No bad memories at all. Just good ones!”

    She said although she hasn’t seen him for a while but when he and her mother were together she liked him a lot.

    It’s disgusting how journalists are trying to get people say something bad about Michael!

    Like

  96. March 11, 2011 7:27 pm

    @Leigh

    If the children and the parents say nothing happened and they’re the least affected by it, why is it such a problem for you?

    He didn’t force anyone to be anywhere or do anything. The fact that you list “child molestation allegations” as part of the reasons why you think it’s wrong, suggests you still believe them. The fact that Mike never again let himself get in a position like that speaks volumes about how he’d learned from his mistakes in 1993 – Gavin Arviso testified on the stand that he slept on Michael’s bed and Michael slept on the floor with Frank Cascio.

    @Suzy

    I’m the worst, when it comes to staying over at other people’s house. I crash at my best friend’s house all the time and I always sleep in his bed. He’s gay, I’m a straight girl, nothing ever happens. But I sleep much easier with him than alone in the guest room. He doesn’t mind either, heh.

    A random Sean Lennon interview someone found which I think is nice, an interviewer was trying to get him to say something bad about Mike…

    Q: Well, like, what was it like having Michael Jackson, speaking about masturbation, you know, hang out with you when you were younger?

    Sean: Michael Jackson. Listen.

    Q: That must have been a traumatic experience.

    Sean: Look, I resent any accusations that you might be implying about Michael Jackson because he is a really good guy.

    http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/sean_lennon/index.html

    1998

    It’s just the same over and over again, everyone who knows him defends him.

    Like

  97. Maral permalink
    March 11, 2011 5:55 pm

      
    It is hard to explain what a lost childhood can mean . due to my disability I have experienced that. most people don’t understand but MJ did.  Leigh I’m sorry that you can’t understand. it’s actually simple, Michael made up for the childhood he did not have . When you think about it his adulthood was also taken from him. And the bedroom? Not strange at all. In MANY cultures it’s normal! 

    Like

  98. shelly permalink
    March 11, 2011 5:55 pm

    @leigh,

    I think you forget the size of his bedroom, he had 3 bathrooms in it.

    Like

  99. hana permalink
    March 11, 2011 5:50 pm

    When people hear “bed” they automatically think about sex. I wonder how people would react if Michael said he slept on the couch with children.

    Like

  100. Suzy permalink
    March 11, 2011 5:34 pm

    @ Leigh

    If nothing happens why is it wrong? Do you realize that not everybody may share your opinion about what’s wrong and what’s right? Do you realize just because your bedroom is off limits to anybody else, other people may live in a different way and may have different views and that’s not necessarily “wrong” just because it’s different to how you live or what your views are?

    Like someone pointed out earlier, in other cultures and other countries (and in other ages) it is perfectly normal for people to share a bedroom or a bed without it having to do anything with sex. It’s a touchy subject, because I don’t want to say parents should let their kids sleep with anybody. I’m well aware there are predators out there (Michael was NOT one of them) so parents better be careful. On the other hand, in itself, without it being sexual, it’s not wrong. What’s wrong in sleeping or in watching TV together and then fall asleep? I can understand when someone is uncomfortable with MJ saying he shared his bed with kids – especially if you don’t know much about him. But you now say it’s not only wrong to share your bed with kids, but also with other adults. June Chandler said she too slept in Michael’s bedroom. Other adults said this too. Can you explain what exactily is wrong in that? What’s wrong in staying in a room, talk, watch TV, whatever and then fall asleep in the same room? Maybe it’s because I’m not from the US (are you?) but I can see nothing wrong in that. In fact I have shared a bedroom with friends.

    Like

  101. Leigh permalink
    March 11, 2011 5:28 pm

    I used to be a huge MJ fan/supporter but I can’t help but shake my head and question his motives/behavior, etc, especially around children.

    His obsession with children; him mentioning he would kill himself if there were no children on this earth.

    The child molestation allegations

    Having children/adults/whatever sleep in HIS bedroom/bed as they please. (I mean, weren’t there guest rooms/housing?)

    The balcony/Blanket incident

    Like

  102. Leigh permalink
    March 11, 2011 4:56 pm

    I’ve read all the comments and read all the links…

    I still think it’s wrong for MJ having children/adults sleep in his bedroom (and I don’t care about the size of the room). Why was there people in his bedroom to begin with? My bedroom is off limits to other people who come over, but somehow MJ thought it was ok for anyone and everyone to just come and go as they please in his room?

    Sounds creepy, sorry but that’s just my personal opinion. I don’t care if there was NOTHING going on, it’s just wrong period.

    Plus, MJ isn’t the ONLY person who has worked at such a young age in show business, yet they seem to know what is right and wrong and having people sleep in your bed, especially children is wrong.

    Ok, MJ wanted normal people in his life but in his bedroom?

    Like

  103. hana permalink
    March 11, 2011 1:39 pm

    @yo

    what’s the link to the fan page?

    Like

  104. hana permalink
    March 11, 2011 1:19 pm

    @yo

    what’s the link to the fan facebook?

    Like

  105. March 11, 2011 10:51 am

    I just sent a request to Wade Robson. Let’s see what happens. He is on FB too

    Like

  106. shelly permalink
    March 11, 2011 9:19 am

    I already send him a request but do we a proof that it’s really him. I know I already asked that question but it’s Internet, everyone can create a false account.

    Like

  107. March 11, 2011 3:22 am

    Did Victor claim to have spoken to Brett in his book?

    I remember something about him claiming to have encountered Wade Robson and his mother as they were both homeless in LA because of Michael… LOL

    I feel bad for all of them.

    Like

  108. March 11, 2011 3:16 am

    i’ve got news for you, i asked him if he ever spoke to Victor Gutierrez, guess what he never did neither his mother or sister.
    and yes Brett is on facebook just send him a request to the fan facebook the one where he’s got the picture of him and MJ, not his personal facebook.

    Like

  109. March 10, 2011 10:23 pm

    IF it is really Brett ask: How’s life?

    Like

  110. March 10, 2011 10:20 pm

    @Yo & lcpledwards

    Is he on Facebook as Brett Barnes?

    Like

  111. hana permalink
    March 10, 2011 8:13 pm

    I feel bad for Brett. I remember reading the prosecution’s closing argument where Ron Zonen told the jury that MJ was in a sexual relationship with Brett Barnes and that he loved the boy like a man would love a woman.

    Ask brett if he has spoken to Michael since the trial..

    Like

  112. lcpledwards permalink
    March 10, 2011 3:00 pm

    @ Shelly
    Yes it’s him. I’ve seen his facebook page, as well as a message that Yo received from Brett (which he copied and forwarded to me).

    Like

  113. shelly permalink
    March 10, 2011 2:38 pm

    Are we sure it’s him

    Like

  114. March 10, 2011 10:45 am

    “I contacted Brett Barnes, and if anybody has questions for him, please leave a reply in the comments here. I will ask him about Victor Gutierrez, and other topics. He has promised to reply to me on facebook.”

    Yo, I am thrilled by the opportunity to talk directly to Brett Barnes! Of course we have numerous questions to him, only we don’t know how much Brett will want to be involved in this discussion. Ask him whatever you are interested in first and please give him a link to this blog so that he knows that he is talking to friends. He could probably even check some of our findings here and point to our mistakes if any.

    Thank you very much in advance!

    Like

  115. March 10, 2011 3:35 am

    I contacted Brett Barnes, and if anybody has questions for him, please leave a reply in the comments here. I will ask him about Victor Gutierrez, and other topics. He has promised to reply to me on facebook. Thanks!

    Like

  116. Suzy permalink
    March 9, 2011 5:19 am

    @ Hana

    Was this really written by Chacon? How poetic, LOL!

    Yes, and besides him, Abdool and McManus, Blanca (and Jason) Francia and the Chandlers too were “inspired” by VG. It’s so clear he was holding the cords behind all this!

    I’m just amazed at the fact the prosecutors were this stupid/blinded by hatred.

    Like

  117. hana permalink
    March 9, 2011 1:17 am

    @suzy

    Chacon, Mcmanus, and Abdool’s testimonies were heavily influenced by Victor’s book. Oral sex, vaseline, kissing, etc all comes from that disgusting book. The prosecution was obviously using it, as well as other tabloid sources to build their case. Here’s something Ralph Chacon wrote about MJ on a fan blog:

    Ralph Chacon
    Sep 10, 2006 at 1:04 am

    OH! I have seen one evil magical glove and a mask of deception inside a menagerie of children who are lost in a neverland of dreams and sexual exploitation.

    As the black widow spider who is patiently spinning its web for the unsuspected innocent prey so is this evil black pale spirit, wondering the world spinning a web of love for humanity and for its innocent little children who are supervisor only by his weeping spirit who sings songs of imaginings?

    Singing, come unto me oh little ones for I’m the king of the worlds populous, I shall save you from your families’ hate, which compensates you without love.

    Woe unto you deceived and manipulated souls of humanity, for you don’t know the hour of your demise. Your innocent little children have been captivated to a web of a wonderland of sexual abuse, beyond the span of your imaginations; this smirking evil mask that captivates their minds with its evil white glove and gestures of sexual exploitation, feeds his dreams with allusions of pubescences?

    Like

  118. Carm permalink
    March 9, 2011 12:41 am

    Thanks VindicateMJ for setting the record straight on the sleepover subject. Well done. I agree with you 100% that this has been exaggerated way out of proportion. The truth is the sleeping arrangements were of no concern to the people who were actually there. The only people to make a really big deal out of this are opportunists (like Bashir, Dimond, Bill Reilly etc. etc.) Boy, you could really manipulate the facts to your advantage with this one!

    I have something for skeptics. The infamous Diane Dimond wrote an article for the Daily Beast Blog entitled “The Feds Jackson Whitewash” about the released FBI file. I won’t waste our time explaining the article (Guess what–Diane knows more than the FBI!!)
    One of the comments was from a child psychologist withe over 20 yrs. experience in the area of crisis and abuse. He writes about ped#ph*les and how MJ didn’t fit the profile at all.
    He states “Contrary to what most people assume about pedophiles, the overiding personality trait they demonstrate is not their interest in children–but their spectacular disinterest.” He goes on to explain that their victims are merely objects for their gratification, that’s all. I got the information from the “Reflections on the Dance” website. The comment is on the left hand side of the page. Another wonderful find is the audio interview with David Nordahl, Michael’s personal artist who knew him well for over 20 yrs. He clears up much of the mythology surrounding Michael and even talks a bit about the 1993 extortion. It’s on the same website. Enjoy! (Sorry if it’s already on this blog somewhere.)
    http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/The-accusations.html#anchor_134

    Like

  119. March 8, 2011 10:01 pm

    “what really bothers me is MJs insistance of having Jordan in his hotel room? i wonder if that’s even true?”

    Maral, we haven’t really got down to June Chandler yet but I’ve done some preliminary study on her and have reasons to believe that she was lying in that testimony. Her lies are probably not really lies but heavy exaggerations and distortions of the truth. I hope to get down to her testimony one day and examine it in full earnest.

    In the meantime you can have a look at these posts which touch upon June Chandler:

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/peretti%E2%80%99s-film-about-michael-jackson-what-really-happened-story-1/

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/perettis-film-about-michael-jackson-what-really-happened-the-monaco-1993-ceremony/

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/the-chandlers-the-history-of-lies-and-distortion/

    Like

  120. March 8, 2011 9:42 pm

    “So while I believe it was partly social isolation and lack of convention that originally influenced how Michael thought about his behavior around children I believe it was the parents of those children (well intentioned or not) who helped to reinforce this way of thinking which I think made it harder for Michael to realize how the general public/skeptics would see his behavior.”

    Anna, you’ve made an excellent point about the parents. And it made me think of one other thing.
    Most of the parents evidently felt that Michael was utterly lonely and was in desperate need of his own children. Knowing that he was not capable of harming a fly they probably allowed their children to stay with him seeing the joy it gave to the whole team and being subtly aware that he needed it.

    I remember when the prosecution asked Brett Barnes why he stopped sharing Michael’s bed (and Brett openly admitted he had), Brett said, “well, he had his own children by then” – which sounded like he felt sorry for Michael and just wanted to give him some company and a feeling of a family. Probably this is how Brett’s parents felt too..

    So you are right in saying, “the parents of those children (well intentioned or not) helped to reinforce this way of thinking which made it harder for Michael to realize how the general public/skeptics would see his behavior”.

    Like

  121. March 8, 2011 9:06 pm

    “I don’t read just tabloids. I’ve seen countless times over and over, of MJ putting himself in such position, despite his innocence. I’m sure he had people telling him, how his innocence would get him into trouble and it did. He can love children, be inspired by children, help children, do all those things for children but not to the lengths he did. It was an obsession of his.”

    Leigh, I understand your doubts – because you are now where we all came from. I also doubted a lot. But I came to understand several things about Michael.

    First, the stories about him sharing a bed with children are highly exaggerated. When you really look at all those “sleeping in his bed for half a year” stories they turn into “sometimes”, on “several occasions” and things like that – you just have to read the testimonies of these people to see how it really was.

    Second, he didn’t invite anyone into his bed – and this is really important to understand. He allowed children (and their parents) to hang around in his room, watch TV from his bed, play games, etc. late into the night (which was awful discipline, of course) and then he found them fall asleep there. So instead of taking the child into his arms and carrying him into his own room he just allowed the children to stay there. And he himself either took a couch nearby or slept on the floor.

    This is what Macauley Culkin described very vividly in his testimony at the 2005 trial. Corey Feldman said he was once staying in one hotel room with Michael and Michael impressed him greatly by being “such a gentleman” that he gave his bed to Corey and he himself slept on a couch (though Corey didn’t ask for it). Well, some might call it an invitation…

    The third thing we should always remember about Michael is that he was raised in a big family with lots of brothers sleeping in one room – and some of them probably sharing one bed too. In his interview with Ed Bradley Michael says:

    BRADLEY: As we sit here today, do you still think that it’s acceptable to share your bed with children?

    MICHAEL JACKSON, SINGER: Of course. Of course. Why Not? If you’re going to be a ped-le, if you’re going to be Jack the Ripper, if you’re going to be a murderer, it’s not a good idea. That I’m not. That’s how we were raised. And I didn’t sleep in the bed with the child, even if it I did, it’s OK. I slept on the floor. I gave the bed to the child.

    ”That’s how we were raised”? If I ever had a chance to talk to Katherine Jackson I would ask her how they were raising their children that Michael regarded sleeping in one bed with others as a routine thing which should be happening in every family (he didn’t know any other families and couldn’t compare). It is not happening in every family – but he thought different…

    All this behavior is highly unusual of course and cannot be recommended as an example for others – but what we absolutely must understand about Michael is that his whole life was totally different from anything any of us are used to – different background, different upbringing, different circumstances for a professional and general start in life…

    Beginning work at the age of five and bearing the burden of a breadwinner at this gentle age? When most of us start working after school or college or university at around 20?

    This alone must have had a tremendous impact on Michael which we cannot even imagine – because we simply DON’T KNOW what it is like to work at the age of five. I don’t even remember myself at the age of five… so how can I imagine working and earning money for the family at this age?

    It was probably this unique experience which made Michael so keen on taking care of other children and being so over-protective of them. He probably regarded himself responsible for every child that came his way. He probably considered himself as a sort of a parent for them – especially when he saw that parents were making mistakes in upbringing their children. He probably wanted to correct and show an example of a truly parental and loving behavior.

    We don’t know what he thought – he was not very good at explaining himself. But what we know is that all children without exception flocked to him and children usually know who is who.

    Ped-les have to lure children into their traps by sweets, presents, etc. because children don’t go to them without these baits.

    And Michael was a natural attraction to children because he evidently had something which all the rest of us are evidently lacking.

    And this should be the starting point for all of us to try and understand him and his behavior.

    Like

  122. March 8, 2011 8:42 pm

    @Maral there was NEVER a criminal complaint. They went to Rothman first NOT to the police. Wait for my post and you will see the story and how it developed

    Like

  123. Suzy permalink
    March 8, 2011 8:41 pm

    @ Maral

    You said it yourself: June contradicts herself (and facts) a lot. So why should we trust her about MJ’s alleged insistance on having Jordan in his hotel room? Do we ever have any other child telling a story in which it was MJ who insisted on them staying in his room? No! It’s always the kids who insist on this. Except for June’s hotel room story.
    Even in Evan’s story about when MJ slept in his house he says he placed Michael in Jordan’s room (and before that Evan drugged MJ up BTW).
    So I’m pretty sure June is either exaggerating or/and twisting facts here. Just like in many other issues during her testimony.

    Like

  124. shelly permalink
    March 8, 2011 8:40 pm

    @Maral,

    Rothman was hired way before Jordan said he was molested. Rothman is mentionned in the Chandler tape.

    Like

  125. Maral permalink
    March 8, 2011 7:41 pm

    ok now i have read junes testimony and am bit confused. first of all she seems to condrict herself ALOT. english is not my first language so i don’t get what paper they were implying MJ insisted she’d sign and how it would help him…… if anyone can explain to me i would appreciated. also, did they report the abuse before going to the lawyer as she implied? i thought it was clear that Jorden was taken to the Psychologist after Even got contact with a lawyer….. but June says otherwise.

    and what really bothers me is MJs insistance of having Jordan in his hotel room? i wonder if that’s even true? but then again if Jordan was abused wouldn’t he want to be AWAY from MJ?

    Like

  126. March 8, 2011 3:07 pm

    @Suzy

    Not only that, but from Brett Barnes’ mother:

    15 Q. When did you first meet him?
    16 A. 19 — December 1991.
    17 Q. And how did you meet him?
    18 A. Well, actually, when I met him personally
    19 was in December of 1991, but I had spoken to him for
    20 several years prior to that.
    I — he invited us to
    21 his home in December 1991, and that’s when I met him
    22 for the first time.
    23 Q. Okay. Now, you said you’d been speaking to
    24 him for a while before that?
    25 A. Since 1987.

    26 Q. And why were you speaking to him?
    27 A. Because he had called — my son had written
    28 a letter to him when he was very young, when Michael 9344
    1 was touring Australia. And he received the letter
    2 and he — well, he pulled out a letter out of the
    3 bag, that’s what he told me, and it was Brett’s, and
    4 he decided that he’d call him to thank him for the
    5 letter. And he spoke to all of us, and we developed
    6 a friendship, and he continued calling us and
    7 speaking to us.

    8 And then one day he decided to invite us
    9 over to his home, and since then we’ve been regular
    10 visitors.
    11 Q. Do you still consider Mr. Jackson to be your
    12 friend?
    13 A. Oh, definitely.

    18 Q. And how about you, have you ever been in his
    19 room?
    20 A. Yes, I have. And I have been invited to
    21 stay over because we were watching videos and
    22 talking, and he just suggested, “Well, why don’t you
    23 stay; stay here,” because it was raining outside.
    24 And he said, “Well, you can stay here.” And I
    25 stayed for a little while, but then I went back to
    26 my room. It was just more comfortable.

    And he’s always had this sleepless walking around problem Lisa and Debbie spoke about

    11 Q. Was Mr. Jackson on the bed?
    12 A. No. He was just in the room, sitting on one
    13 of the chairs, walking around. He likes walking
    14 around.
    15 Q. He walks around?
    16 A. Uh-huh.

    It’s funny that Debbie was the first on to mention it in 1997 when a reporter from Star got some scoop from her, but nobody could really believe that info could be real because she spoke about their active sex life…

    Like

  127. ares permalink
    March 8, 2011 1:12 pm

    @Anna
    You made a very interesting observation there and i think you are absolutely right.

    Like

  128. Susanne permalink*
    March 8, 2011 12:06 pm

    @Maral: This is June Chandlers testimony:
    http://deargavinarvizo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/June-Chandler-Testimony.txt

    @Suzy: Thanks for answering. I missed somehow that you already had posted this paragraph of the article in English. But it’s definitely an article 0f 2005, so we are not sure if Ingrid means a different article of 1993 or if she cannot remember the date.

    Thanks everybody for answering to Leigh. I agree: To understand Michael it’s very important to put oneself in his position -” to walk in his moccasins”. This is difficult for all of us because his life was totally different from ours. But Carm and Anna made good points.
    I also think that Michael’s attitude towards children is not seen as critical in many countries on earth as it is seen in the U.S. or in Western Europe. In many countries it is normal to sleep with children in one bed or in one room, even if they are not family members, just for example due to a lack of enough beds. And nobody would think bad or dirty about it.
    We simply often make the mistake to see things from our own personal point of view or from our own experiences instead of stepping into the position of the other person.
    And @David: This is a great summary post we can use for many “doubters”.

    Like

  129. Maral permalink
    March 8, 2011 10:32 am

    I remember a part from June Chandler’s testimony, where she was asked if she slept in Michael’s bedroom. And she was like: “Of course!” And the person who asked her (I don’t remember if it was direct or cross exam): “Why?” And she was like: “I am Jordan’s mother, I can go into the bedroom whenever I want to.”

    Suzy that’s interesting. as far as i’ve read she seems to be defending MJ even if that’s not her intention. can I find the whole testimony somewhere?

    Like

  130. Suzy permalink
    March 8, 2011 5:23 am

    I remember a part from June Chandler’s testimony, where she was asked if she slept in Michael’s bedroom. And she was like: “Of course!” And the person who asked her (I don’t remember if it was direct or cross exam): “Why?” And she was like: “I am Jordan’s mother, I can go into the bedroom whenever I want to.”

    So parents were able to go to Michael’s bedroom whenever they wanted, they could sleep there whenever they wanted. Clearly it was an open-door policy and the door wasn’t open just for children. Would that have been the case if Michael had wanted to molest kids? I doubt that.

    Like

  131. Anna permalink
    March 8, 2011 2:57 am

    @Carm

    “Also, you cannot judge MJ by your own standards. The context is important–he did not and could not have the same normal life that you and I have, a life he desperately yearned for. He wanted “normal people” in his life (as opposed to other show business people). How can you relate to”

    I think that’s an excellent point, to look at the context of MJ’s life. His life was never conventional really, from the time he was 6 years old. I also think it’s important though for the skeptics to see another point. If his bed sharing was so inappropriate then the parents of the children who allowed it were enablers of this inappropriate behavior. I’m not giving my opinion about the appropriateness of it all here but from a purely psychological standpoint the parents were participating in positive reinforcement of this so-called inappropriate behavior by continuing to let Michael spend time with their kids in his room or even sleep in his room or bed. So while I believe it was partly social isolation and lack of convention that originally influenced how Michael thought about his behavior around children I believe it was the parents of those children (well intentioned or not) who helped to reinforce this way of thinking which I think made it harder for Michael to realize how the general public/skeptics would see his behavior.

    Like

  132. Carm permalink
    March 8, 2011 12:20 am

    Leigh,

    @Leigh

    Regarding Michael’s sleeping arrangements, here is a link where Tom Mesereau does a great job explaining Michael’s bedroom and who slept over and where they slept. Michael’s “bedroom” was more like a two storey condo, and people were always wandering in and out, much like in a hotel room. Also, you cannot judge MJ by your own standards. The context is important–he did not and could not have the same normal life that you and I have, a life he desperately yearned for. He wanted “normal people” in his life (as opposed to other show business people). How can you relate to that?

    [video src="http://www.mj-777.com/LenoMesereauInterview.mp4" /]

    Like

  133. lcpledwards permalink
    March 7, 2011 9:06 pm

    @ Leigh
    Thank you for your comments. I understand your feelings, and you have a right to be suspicious. That’s why we run this site; in order to dispel the suspicions of people like you, who don’t necessarily “hate” MJ, but rather feel suspicious and uncomfortable. I’ve met many people, mostly casual fans, who simply cannot comprehend how he could put himself in a position to be accused again after the 1993 scandal, which was itself preventable. I guess we all make mistakes in life, and MJ himself stated in 2005 that he would never “put himself in so vulnerable a position again”, so that was a tacit acknowledgement of his past errors. I’m sure that Mesereau told him to say that in his January 2005 video statement in order to reassure his fans that this would be the last time he was falsely accused.

    But the thing about the 2003 case is that, had it not been for Martin Bashir’s deception of MJ, there would not have BEEN a case! The Arvizo’s visited Neverland several times in 2000, but didn’t visit at all during 2001 due to MJ’s hectic travel schedule. They didn’t return until 2002, when MJ was filming the documentary, and wanted to include Gavin as an example of someone who was helped by MJ. Prior to filming that infamous scene, Bashir told Gavin to hold MJ’s hand and rest his head on MJ’s shoulder, and then during the interview he ambushed them into talking about where Gavin slept. So in essense, he set the scene up to trap MJ! He reneged on his promise to allow MJ to review the documentary before it aired, and instead he added his negative commentary in order to make it seem like he was geniunely concerned about the safety of children at Neverland. However, when MJ died, Bashir said on national TV that he “never saw any wrongdoing”, which was a tacit admission of his fraud!

    I don’t know how knowledgeable you are about the allegations, so I’m going to give you a few links to read that cover the core issues. Hopefully these posts will help allay your suspicions, but if they don’t please feel free to ask us any questions you have. We can answer any and everything you ask!

    Did you know that Evan Chandler committed suicide in Nov. 2009? He was the father who extorted MJ in 1993 after he refused to make him a business partner. Journalist Charles Thomson talks about how the media didn’t accurately report his death, and he also gives succinct summary of the 1993 case:
    http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2009/11/evan-chandler-suicide-higlights-media.html

    Here is a post on how Bashir was able to trick not only MJ, but also Princess Diana, into doing interviews, and how he obtained the questionable reputation that he has: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/thanks-to-you-bashir-nobody-will-ever-see-mj-perform-again-because-you-killed-him-by-d-edwards/

    This article, called “The Veritas Project”, is an exhaustive report that was published in January 2005, right before the trial. It details the timeline of the 2003 allegations, the background of the accusers, Tom Sneddon’s corrupt history, and the media hacks (like Diane Dimond and Victor Gutierrez) who did everything they could to spin a conviction in the court of public opinion. It’s a must read for people searching for the truth behind the trial! http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/

    Here is a summary that Charles Thomson wrote about the trial, which he published on June 13th, 2010, the 5 year anniversary of MJ’s righteous acquittal. https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/charles-thomson-the-2005-trial-media-coverage-was-one-of-the-most-shameful-episodes-in-journalistic-history/

    Here is a post we did on MJ’s “bedroom issues”, i.e. why he continued to let kids sleep in his room after 1993. In his mind, he didn’t need to make a change in his behavior since he was totally innocent in 1993, and he would never abuse a child, so as long as he had a third party in the room, and didn’t sleep in the same bed with the child, it was OK. Make sure you read all of the comments, too! https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/on-some-peoples-skepticism/

    Many people who are misinformded about the allegations, and who lack a basic understanding of law, will often ask “If MJ was innocent, then why did he settle the lawsuits?” This 2 part post thoroughly explain what happened with those settlements, and how they were NOT signs of guilt:
    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/analyzing-the-media’s-hypocrisy-in-reporting-on-michael-jackson’s-settlements-vs-the-settlements-of-other-celebrities-part-1/

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/analyzing-the-media’s-hypocrisy-in-reporting-on-michael-jackson’s-settlements-vs-the-settlements-of-other-celebrities-part-2/

    I hope that these posts will give you a better understanding of the allegations, and that you will no longer be “on the fence”. Many of us were also “on the fence”, but after thorough research, we can emphatically say that MJ was 100% innocent, and we stand behind all of our research. Thanks!

    Like

  134. Maral permalink
    March 7, 2011 7:49 pm

    Leig, sadly not long ago i thought the way you do. but the fact is MJ did not invite any child in his bed. contrary to what it has been implied he did have ADULTS as friends. it is evident that he was as much friends with the parents of these children he hang out with as with the children. if someone wants to hide something they will go to extreme to hide it. Michael was very open about his relationship with children. i do not believe he needed help when it came to his relationship with children.

    Like

  135. Leigh permalink
    March 7, 2011 5:38 pm

    This is how I look at it, Michael Jackson was accused of molesting children. The worst crime of mankind to ever be accused of.

    It was easy for people to think the worst, questioning his motives, etc and think he was guilty, just simply of the fact that he would always surround himself around children, how he preferred children, mentioning he shares his bed with children, etc and that Bashir documentary didn’t help/or the 93 case.

    I’m not suggesting that MJ did anything wrong or that he molested children, but to a lot of people, it raises HUGE suspicion and people are not going to be that forgiving and look past the ‘lies’ spread about MJ for years by the media/tabloids. A lot of people who wrote him off are not even aware the ‘lies’ are lies, they take it as truth.

    MJ’s love for children was twisted and turned ugly by the media, I get that, and people bought into it and got disgusted.

    Being accused of such, ruined his reputation, career, life.

    Now, anytime one mentions MJ, they link him to the child molestation cases and think of him as a ped-le.

    I go back and forth on this all the time:

    MJ’s love for children was pure and innocent and I have this feeling/and believe if Michael Jackson was a woman, none of this filth would be spreading around as much as it has. Yes, I know women can do bad, harmful things but I don’t think it would be to this degree.

    It’s like a man like MJ can’t love children in a pure, innocent way without getting backlash, raising suspicion, etc and turning that pure love into something ugly, sinister, sexual, etc.

    Like

  136. Leigh permalink
    March 7, 2011 4:39 pm

    Thanks for the response.

    I don’t read just tabloids. I’ve seen countless times over and over, of MJ putting himself in such position, despite his innocence. I’m sure he had people telling him, how his innocence would get him into trouble and it did. He can love children, be inspired by children, help children, do all those things for children but not to the lengths he did. It was an obsession of his.

    I’m on the fence. Sometimes I believe he was innocent and another I think ‘something’ had to be going on. That’s just how I feel.

    I’m not suggesting he was a bad person. I just think his love for children was extremely obsessive.

    And yes, sometimes, I do consider him ‘weird’ or eccentric because most geniuses aren’t considered normal. They think outside of the box. So of course, MJ wasn’t normal, by society standards.

    And yes, he was treated unfairly by the media and by society because he was a man who loved children and most think something sinister and think something sexual was going on. But I still think MJ could’ve handled his love for children a different way, so he wouldn’t have to endure so much hatred in his life, especially from the press.

    Even if NOTHING was going on, I’m still baffled as to why he shared his bed with children. Children that were not his. And yes, I know that there were also adults in the same room but Michael needed help, professional help. That’s how I see it.

    Like

  137. Suzy permalink
    March 7, 2011 4:03 pm

    @ Susane

    Yes, this is the article I translated, here is the original translation I made (not a word by word translation, I tried to extract the main points): https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/victor-gutierrez-is-a-link-to-nambla-and-real-pedophiles-was-michaels-persecution-a-big-p-plan/

    This is how I translated the said part:

    “In 1986 he reports from a congress of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). NAMBLA was founded in the 70s. It „supports relationships between generations”. It was supported by prominent names like Gore Vidal and Allen Ginsberg. It got quickly isolated from the rest of the gay movement. Gutierrez claims he heard at this congress for the first time that „Michael is one of us.” He says: „Jackson was treated like an idol there, as a hope for social acceptance.”

    So in this article VG didn’t say “he is one of us”, but he quoted other members of NAMBLA saying that. I wonder if Ingrid has something else.

    Like

  138. March 7, 2011 3:54 pm

    @Susanne thanks for looking at it. Maybe Ingrid can help us by verifying if this is the article she talked about. She said she thinks she read it in 1993 so either it’s a different one or she made a mistake with the year. I am sorry you had to run on sick things for your research. Real p-les will only have their sick dreams. Reality was always a slap in their face.

    Like

  139. Susanne permalink*
    March 7, 2011 3:23 pm

    Guys, being German I wanted to help you with this German article Ingrid told about. But going deeper into this I was so shocked what I found on various German websites that I couldn’t read anymore about this dirt. I am very disturbed for example finding a German p….e website talking about Michael as a p…e even after his death. I had do stop searching, it makes me really sick.
    But at least I think I found the quotation Ingrid was talking about. I think it’s in the same article Suzy had already mentioned. You can find it here (on a German MJ forum discussing this article in 2005):
    http://www.mjackson.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-441.html

    However, the quotation “Michael is one of us” is not quoted as VG’s own statement, but as one VG quoted from the people of NAMBLA.
    This is the translation of the relevant paragraph:

    VG grows up in Chile. For a while he works for a newspaper in Santiago, writes about politics and human rights. He comes to the U.S. for the first time in 1984. The Olympic Games take place in L.A., G. is accredited as photographer. He doesn’t return to his country which is ruled by Pinochet. “The American dream” was too tempting”, he says. He quickly finds work with a spanish newspaper in L.A., he becomes a police reporter.
    In 1986 he was asked to report from NAMBLA (full name). The so-called NAMBLA arose in the late 70ies. Initially the “support group for relations between the generations” was prominently furthered by Gore Vidal and Allen Ginsberg, but than quickly isolated from the rest of the gay movement. At the congress Gutierrez hears for the first time: “Michael is one of us”. A p….e. “Jackson was talked about as being an idol there, as a hope for social acceptance.”

    I hope this is of some help. But even if this is not VG’s own statement I think you guys are right: There is something very wrong with VG regarding p……, and this article published in the TAZ is very, very superficial.

    Like

  140. March 6, 2011 9:42 am

    “my knowledge of MJ has made me be careful to judge people. for a long time i thought he was guilty. now until i find solid evidence i will forever be convinced he was innocent. so i can’t say for sure that VG is p.do. but he sure is a lier because that is proven.”

    Maral, you’ve made an excellent point. Let us agree on the following conclusion then:

    Victor Gutierrez is a proven liar and a suspected member of NAMBLA.

    Actually it would be enough for VG to be only a proven liar as this alone will show that Diane Dimond’s reports made on the basis of his lies were totally false.

    Thank you for correcting me.

    P.S. I must be running now. Hope to join you soon.

    Like

  141. Maral permalink
    March 5, 2011 11:10 pm

    my knowledge of MJ has made me be careful to judge people. for a long time i thought he was guilty. now until i find solid evidence i will forever be convinced he was innocent. that is thanks to sites like this. so i can’t say for sure that VG is p.do. but he sure is a lier because that is proven.

    i’ve often wondered if Chandler kid was indeed molested BUT by someone else. like his father……..

    Like

  142. Suzy permalink
    March 5, 2011 10:48 pm

    That’s interesting Helena.

    The things we have found out about VG maybe made me paranoid, but I was already wondering why somebody would give so much space for this scumbag in his documentary. Like I said before, these journalists are either very lazy and lead by the nose by VG or they know exactly what he is up to and what they are doing when they are co-operating with him. Looking at Peretti’s background, it makes one wonder….

    Like

  143. March 5, 2011 10:46 pm

    “is he actually advertising for pornography on tv?”

    @Maral, well, I don’t know – you can read his article and decide for yourself: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2002/oct/07/broadcasting.tvandradio. Here is a bigger quote from it – this is what Peretti says about the prospects for TV:

    “We still live in a space circumscribed by Mary Whitehouse.

    The content of dramatic sex scenes has changed, with a shift in public acceptance of what can be shown, but the form remains resolutely the same, determined by the push-pull of shame and prurience. It’s the reason sex scenes remain embarrassing 30-second interludes between the action, rather than being integral to that action.

    So what do we normally see when we see a sex scene on TV? We see foreplay, often tender and loving and domesticated, between two not-very-sexy characters (possibly married). There’s soft lighting and a telly in the background showing something totally unsexy and depressing like Newsnight (this is also known as The Patronising Sex Scene).

    Or there’s the frantic ripping of clothes/falling-over-furniture version. This second, rough-sex version equates with infidelity, and TV drama loves infidelity above everything. It is usually also a cue for Alan Davies to tumble about hilariously before bumping his head on a Mickey Mouse alarm clock (The Comedy Debunking of Sex, Sex Scene).

    That ancient heaving duvet cover is next up, revealing perhaps the arched back and the yielding female neck. Alternatively, there’s harsh humping against a cigarette machine or bonnet of a car (The Lakes model of teen sex, because teenagers on television are not allowed to have sex indoors, God forbid, under a nice warm duvet).

    Or there’s the post-coital cigarette moment. A chance to get in some heavy-duty expositional dialogue in order to move the plot along and make us forget about the embarrassing sex scene that preceded it.

    In other words, we have cliché from beginning to end. Formation humping between two bits of “proper drama”. It’s as racy and unpredictable as a Sunday cricket match and is, in essence, as formulaic as soft porn on Channel Five (but minus the Flashdance lingerie fashions).

    Why do we think sex on TV should remain so weirdly unchanging in form – so dishonest? The debate about sex on television reminds me of the scene in Oliver Stone’s Born on the Fourth of July, when Tom Cruise, stuck in a wheelchair, shouts “big erect penis” over and over again at his uptight Christian mother. In Britain, there appears to be an almost comic inability to confront the reality of sex on the small screen. I believe firmly that this is because sex on TV continues to be defined by its enemies of the past.

    It may sound a little odd, but I think the one area of hope for mainstream television in terms of portraying sex is the rise of hardcore pornography, and in particular, real sex recorded by ordinary people.

    In the past decade, TV has done a pretty good job of documenting the wilder shores of sexual exploration. Yet the trussed-up, sado-televisual “extreme” suddenly looks out of date. A fetishised approach to sex on TV no longer seems to chime with the fact that sex (and pornography) is now – dare we say it – mainstream culture.

    This is partly because people in their teens and twenties do not appear to have the same hang-ups: they do not link sex or the consumption of porn with shame. Secondly, as everyone from Irvine Welsh in Porno to Victoria Coren with her porn movie have illustrated, the appetite for real sex – porn made by ordinary people in their own living rooms for their own consumption – has become a major subculture. Yet there is no representation of this culture on TV, and indeed, one could see it as a potential opportunity for a spontaneous outbreak of honesty about sex on TV.

    The time has come for mainstream drama that can be as explicit as porn, and for pornography that can be made with the integrity of a documentary. It’s already being done in living rooms across the country. What are we so frightened of? At the end of the day, it’s only television.

    · “Tipping the Velvet”, Wednesday 9pm, BBC2. Jacques Peretti is series producer of “The Art Show”, Saturday 7.40pm, Channel 4

    Like

  144. March 5, 2011 10:45 pm

    Helena,

    That’s a really disturbing resume of Peretti’s films. I’m right along with you on those ??? at the end of your post.

    He definitely has a warped mind. For the life of me I can’t understand why on earth the public would need a to be “educated” by a “documentary” on the biggest penis? O_o

    Like

  145. Maral permalink
    March 5, 2011 10:35 pm

    wow that is sick…..is he actually advertising for pornography on tv?

    Like

  146. March 5, 2011 10:31 pm

    The Internet Movie Database provides some information about Jacques Peretti. Besides being director of films about Michael Jackson, Tyger Woods and Hitler Peretti also acts as a producer.

    Here is the list of documentaries produced by Peretti, and some look a little strange:

    2007 Kurt Cobain: The Last 48 Hours of (TV documentary) (executive producer)
    2006 World’s Biggest Penis (TV documentary) (executive producer)
    2006 The Perfect Penis (TV documentary) (executive producer)
    2006 Pop Sex: Sex in the 80s (TV movie) (producer)
    2002-2004 The Art Show (TV series documentary) (series producer – 3 episodes)
    Confessions of a Sheepshagger (2004) (series producer)
    How Sick Is Your Art? (2003) (series producer)
    Gursky World (2002) (series producer)
    2003 This Is a True Story (TV documentary short) (executive producer)
    2002 West Side Stories (documentary short) (producer)
    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1412840/

    Peretti also writes articles. Here are a couple of quotes from one of them called “Let’s get it on”:
    *The Guardian, Monday 7 October 2002 07.52 BST

    “Explicit sex is everywhere these days. Except on TV. It’s time to tear up the rule book and let it all hang out”

    “The time has come for mainstream drama that can be as explicit as porn, and for pornography that can be made with the integrity of a documentary. It’s already being done in living rooms across the country. What are we so frightened of? At the end of the day, it’s only television”.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2002/oct/07/broadcasting.tvandradio

    ? ? ?

    Like

  147. Maral permalink
    March 5, 2011 9:37 pm

    i just noticed there’s an idiot on youtube claiming MJ raped his/hers brother. if it was 2 years ago i would believe it. now i’m puzzled by it.

    Like

  148. March 5, 2011 8:36 pm

    @Ingrid if you could find the article it would be great. If you remember the title of the magazine and the year / month we can order it

    Like

  149. Suzy permalink
    March 5, 2011 7:13 pm

    So the media cannot be blamed or criticized for lying? They cannot be blamed and criticized for deliberately making up false stories on someone? They cannot be blamed and criticized for offering money to people to lie on someone?

    Why are the media getting a free pass for this from you, Leigh?

    Like

  150. March 5, 2011 6:53 pm

    Leigh, I’ve answered you in your comment.

    Like

  151. Suzy permalink
    March 5, 2011 6:32 pm

    @ Visitor

    To me the language of VG’s books makes it a pretty clear case. I personally have no doubt in my mind that he is a p-le. Noone who isn’t writes like that about p-lia! His book is basically child porn! (It was even banned in the US for its pornographic content!) I have also read that German article. Noone who isn’t a p-le is hopeful about p-lia being socially accepted in 100 years….

    I can only see only one other possibility about him: that if he isn’t a p-le himself then he is getting paid by NAMBLA for the job he is doing and also getting instructions from them.

    Like

  152. March 5, 2011 5:41 pm

    “The whole article was about the subject of pedophiles and VG as an expert!
    I’m about fifty, but I never forgot the following sentence:
    VG said ich denke, Michael Jackson ist einer von uns ! Michael Jackson is one of us…!? For me, that means, Victor Gutierrez is a REAL pedophile”

    Ingrid, this is very important news. Could you have a look in the web for that article in German, please? If you could only find it….
    And if Ingrid doesn’t have an opportunity to do it could other German Michael’s supporters help please? Now you know what to look for.

    Like

  153. Leigh permalink
    March 5, 2011 5:06 pm

    Leigh: I’m sorry but if these ‘stories’ are always surfacing about MJ for years and these documentaries, wouldn’t there be at least some truth to them?

    VMJ: NO, no matter how many lies are told they do not amount to the truth.

    Leigh: No one can deny that Michael had this sick ‘obsession’ with children, especially young boys. I think it’s only fair for people to be suspicious of what his motives/behavior was around children.

    VMJ: We can deny it all right. There was nothing sick about him, and he didn’t have only boys around him. You’ve read too many tabloid stories – why not read now that Neverland was actually a BLESSING for handicapped children?

    This is what Allan Scanlan who ran Michael’s amusement park remembered about him:

    Allan “Big Al” Scanlan operated the amusement park at Neverland Ranch for over 15 years and says:

    When I am old and gray (not too long from now) I will look back on my time at Neverland and my experiences with Mr. Jackson as some of the fondest and most cherished memories of my life.

    Q: What was it like to run Neverland amusement park for 15 years?

    A: I was hired to run and maintain the Amusement Park which consisted of the rides, trains the arcade and water fort. Prior to working at Neverland, my work had me traveling all over the world. Thanks to that travel and some of my clients, I developed knowledge of high level hospitality. Applying that knowledge of hospitality at Neverland, I ended up wearing many hats as they say. It was a very rewarding and humbling time for me.

    The impact that a day at Neverland had on the inner city children and the children who were dealing with life threatening illness was beyond belief. To represent Mr. Jackson and to help make his dream come true for those children, to be part of that magical day and the memory those children will hang on to … was a blessing.

    During my 15 years at Neverland, sitting at a picnic table under a huge oak tree, I had several long conversations with Mr. Jackson about Neverland. Looking into his eyes and hearing his voice, there is no doubt that the charity work done at Neverland was one of the most important things in his life.

    In time, I believe the importance of those magical days for those sick kids and inner city kids would have found its way back into Michael’s heart.

    The letters from doctors and nurses from children’s hospital and the letters from parents who hang on to the memory of their child and that trip to Neverland, make it very clear how important Mr. Jackson’s charity work thru Neverland was.

    I became very good friends with a kid with Cystic Fibrosis (number 1 genetic killer of children). Jeff visited Neverland once with Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles and twice as my guest during the annual employee family day. One day after taking it (Neverland) all in … he looked at me and said “I don’t know if I like Michael Jackson the entertainer (Jeff was a Lollapalooza kind of kid) but I am sure I like Michael Jackson the person”. Jeff truly understood Michael and the importance of Neverland.

    … and as I write this and hang on to those happy memories of Jeff at Neverland, I understand the importance of Neverland. If Neverland were brought back to its ‘Hay Day’ condition and opened to the public part of the time to support itself and part of the time for invitation only charity events … it would be a win – win situation.

    One more thing … to all the fans … please pass on to the next generation, the greatness of Michael, both as an entertainer and as a kind, compassionate person who truly wanted to Heal The World.”

    http://www.examiner.com/pop-media-in-national/allan-big-al-scanlan-and-brian-friedman-remember-michael-jackson-honored-guests-at-mj-tribute

    Leigh: I mean, Michael shared his bed with children, has been seen/photographed with young boys accompanying him wherever he went. Is it possible that MJ could’ve been a ped-le?

    VMJ: Only very pure people will make such revelations about themselves and get photographed with children these days because no dirt ever enters their minds in principle.
    As to ped-les you will NEVER find a photo of these guys with children. These people may be living next door to you, and you will never know – because they will not give a single clue to their actual activities. The fact that Michael was so open about his friendship with children is the best explanation that he was not one of them.

    Leigh: Why would any grown man want to put himself in that position in the first place?

    VMJ: Because if you know you are innocent, you don’t have to adjust your behavior to the standards of perverse thinking.

    Leigh: “Something” had to be going on. Of course, in MJ’s mind, he doesn’t think there’s anything “wrong” in what he was doing but most ped-les think along those terms anyway.

    VMJ: How pedophiles think we know from opuses like Tom O’Carroll’s and the like – you cannot mistake it for anything else in the world.
    And how Michael thought is clear from the lyrics of his songs, his poems, speeches and every word he uttered. You will not find a single dirty spot in what he said…
    These guys relish discussing all that ped-lic stuff, and Michael could not bring himself even to utter the word “molest” – from the way he looked it was clear he would die if he said it, let alone act upon it…

    Leigh: That’s just how I see it. Yes, everyone knows that MJ loved children, and loved being around them, but to the lengths he did? Something was seriously wrong with him. It is his fault for all this. Not the media.

    VMJ: The only thing wrong with him was that he started work and became breadwinner for the family at the age of five. If we had lived that kind of life we could have turned out much more “weird” than he was. Considering all the burden of his work, fame and numerous illnesses he had to endure (lupus, vitiligo, burns, insomnia, etc.) he was not only top normal but also the toughest and the most stoic of us all.

    He somehow managed to cope even with the media harassment which none of us would have survived. And managed to raise three wonderful children despite all that.

    His children are his best acquittal and the best proof of him being normal, pure and innocent as a baby.

    Like

  154. Ingrid permalink
    March 5, 2011 4:20 pm

    Hallo, many years ago I remember an article about VG in connection with Michael Jackson in a magazin in germany. I think, it was in 1993, when the first accusations were made.
    The whole article was about the subject of pedophiles and VG as an expert!
    I’m about fifty, but I never forgot the following sentence:
    VG said ich denke, Michael Jackson ist einer von uns ! Michael Jackson is one of us…!?
    For me, that means, Victor Gutierrez is a REAL pedophile.
    When VG recognized that MJ was not that way, instead of he protected children from abusing and suffering, he tried to destroy him. But that is my own conclusion.
    Thank you for this blog and sorry for my english, I’m german.

    Like

  155. March 5, 2011 2:57 pm

    VG went to police to involve himself with the story. They didn’t go to him

    Like

  156. visitor permalink
    March 5, 2011 1:56 pm

    @shelly

    “Why was he interviewed by the LAPD for 2 days?”
    I don’t know. Why was he interviewed? And did he provide any helpful evidence to the police since , according to him,he was investigating Michael prior to the 1993 case and he had started to write a book about him?

    @ Suzy

    “Also there is that story about the two Mexican boys in Michael’s FBI files.”

    Do we know when this book author ,aka Gutierrez. made this claim? I was looking hopping to find when he said that, but there is no date. So he could easily have made this claim during his interview with the police in the 1993. As we now know there was no investigation in the 85’ from the FBI about Mexican boys and that the story is a lie. But don’t you think that the police would take him more seriously as a source if he claimed that he had known about Michael all along because he was investigating and writing a book about him?

    I have many questions about Gutierrez and I think that there is something wrong with him .That disgusting book of his for example. But I personally don’t think he was doing a research or writing a book about Michael before the 1993 case and I don’t think he is a pedophile . I mean wouldn’t someone have expose him when he so cynically goes around and state his certainty about Michael being a pe.d? Someone woud have said something.The man is annoyingly provocative.

    I believe that Gutierrez is an opportunist, an attention seeker and he likes to brag about himself and his “achievements” that are all based in lies. Does this remind you of someone? To me it does.He likes people to think that he was the one who first exposed that the most famous man in the 90’ was infact a criminal, that he knew it all along and that he was smarter than the rest of the world who was blinded by Michael’s charm. He saw the Chandler story as an opportunity to become famous like so many people did back then. He was lucky because in 1993 he approached lots of people who worked for Michael and they spoke the same language as Gutierrez did. Now he continues to use Michael as a way to attract attention, have a job, make money like Diane dimond does. I may be mistaken. Let’s hope more evidence come to light.

    Like

  157. March 5, 2011 1:28 pm

    I’ve just amended this post about Gutierrez and tried to make it as politically correct as it was humanly possible for me. It is actually a great pity that though everything we’ve learned about Gutierrez and the style of his writings scream ped-le to us, we can’t actually say it point blank.

    This is a big disadvantage for us. I wonder why the media did not follow any of these restrictions when they were trashing a completely innocent man and for decades too?

    Like

  158. March 5, 2011 12:13 pm

    “Seriously, if you are going to call Victor Gutierrez a ped#phile you need harder evidence. I agree his actions are suspect like his flip flopping story on attending the NAMBLA congress, or his pedophiliac titillating book. However, as I read your articles they lack something…..Victims.”

    Teva, I’ve only just started reading the comments and see that you and others are concerned about safety of the blog. You are right, so to be on the safe side I’ll change it once again for Gutierrez into a “NAMBLA member?” This way it would even more correct from these guys’ point of view – not all of them consider themselves pedophiles and subdivide themselves into pederasts and pedos.

    As to their victims – the paradox is that many of them are probably not acting on their ideas and are keeping to child pornography only. Or are acting in other countries where no one keeps record of their activities.

    By the way watching child pornography is a crime in itself not only because the law says so but because it does involve real victims. These films are ordered by them from other countries and therefore support financially terrible sex crimes committed against children there. It would be better if I didn’t tell you what I’ve read in a serious British paper about films ordered by their and US pedos from my country…

    *“VICTOR GUTIERREZ is a PED#PHILE.” –Obviously the headline has the un-amended spelling”.

    The reason why this word went in its full spelling was because the rule not to use the word applies only to Michael’s name to break the set expression created for him by the media. I always use his name with the word innocent instead (because he was really innocent) and try not to use the word ped-le in the same sentence with Michael’s name. This way search engines will probably not pick them up together.

    However the rule does not apply to real or convicted pedophiles. I see no reason why we should cover up for their sexual likings by using edited spelling for these guys. The only thing I will try to amend is put the word “alleged” if ever I used this word as regards those who were not found guilty of it. On the other hand being a member of NAMBLA seems to me an admission of liking a man-boy love, so why we should call them “alleged” in this case I really don’t understand.

    Like

  159. March 5, 2011 6:38 am

    here you have victor gutierrez twitter
    http://twitter.com/GutierrezNews

    Like

  160. lcpledwards permalink
    March 5, 2011 1:27 am

    @ Teva
    Thank you for your concerns. You made some valid points, and that is why I initially changed the title to “Untrustworthy, which is less inflammatory.

    As bloggers, we have to be careful of what we write, because in this extremely litigious society that we live in, there could be legal repercussions. Calling someone a P. is one of the worst insults you can label someone, and as Teva mentioned earlier we could POTENTIALLY be sued, or WordPress could take action against us. Remember a few months ago when our adversary threatened to sue us for copyright infringement when we “borrowed” her photos? Remember how we had to reluctantly remove the photos after she started crying like a big baby?

    This article is about the number of bloggers who have been sued for various reasons over the last few years, including libel and slander. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124287328648142113.html

    Bloggers are increasingly getting sued or threatened with legal action for everything from defamation to invasion of privacy to copyright infringement. In 2007 — the most recent data available — 106 civil lawsuits against bloggers and others in social networks and online forums were tallied by the Citizen Media Law Project at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, up from just 12 in 2003. There have been about $17.4 million in trial awards against bloggers to date, according to the Media Law Resource Center in New York, a nonprofit clearinghouse that tracks free-speech cases.

    Many lawsuits are thrown out of court or settled before trial, but not before causing headaches for the accused. Though the likelihood of a plaintiff winning a lawsuit is not high, “you could go bankrupt” just from defending against them, says Miriam Wugmeister, a partner at Morrison & Foerster LLP and a privacy and data-security law expert.

    Although I agree with everyone’s opinion of VG, in a worst case scenario, if he was to stumble unto this blog one day, he could go whining to WordPress and say that we “offended” him, or threaten some other cowardly action. I erred on the side of caution when I changed the title, but I think that putting the question mark will suffice, because we are merely posing a question, and giving the evidence to support our conclusion (of course!).

    Like

  161. March 5, 2011 12:55 am

    I still stand behind not calling Victor Gutierrez a ped#phile because if you are going to hold an institution (the media) up to a higher standard then you have to lead by example. My concern is NOT in protecting the character of VG, but journalistic integrity. IMO it is wrong to write a headline that screams “VICTOR GUTIERREZ is a PED#PHILE.”* for something that you suspect, but has not been proven. That is slander. If you think I am wrong, or out of place ask one of the journalists that read this site their opinion. I think it was a good decision that VindicateMJ decided to change the period to a question mark.

    Seriously, if you are going to call Victor Gutierrez a ped#phile you need harder evidence. I agree his actions are suspect like his flip flopping story on attending the NAMBLA congress, or his pedophiliac titillating book. However, as I read your articles they lack something…..Victims.

    *“VICTOR GUTIERREZ is a PED#PHILE.” –Obviously the headline has the un-amended spelling.

    Like

  162. Suzy permalink
    March 4, 2011 7:38 pm

    @ Visitor

    Of course, it can be he made up this whole thing about writing a book, talking to parents and employees before the Chandler scandal. But then what was the police talking to him about in 1993? Also there is that story about the two Mexican boys in Michael’s FBI files. The story goes that the FBI went to check an information from a book author who claimed Michael was investigated by the FBI for molesting two Mexican boys in the 1980s but the FBI quickly closed the investigation and swept it under the carpet because Michael was about to recieve an award from President Reagan. Of course, such a story is ridiculous, since why would the FBI protect Michael like that? If there had been an investigation against him like that they would have informed Mr. Reagan about it and Michael would have never recieved an award from him. Of course, the FBI checked the information and they reported in the files that no record of such investigation in their archives has been found. Of course, there never has been such an investigation and there have never been Mexican boys. But the question is, who was the book author who told them this? I guess it was VG. Was it one of the stories he was about to include in the book he was writing before 1993?

    I also can’t see why someone would lie about going to NAMBLA conferences? It’s not like it would be a big honor for anybody who is not a p-le. This part of his story is consistent through several articles. In the GQ article he does not disclose the name of the organization, he just says it was a secret organization. In the Tageszeitung however (a paper that is traditionally sympathetic towards the p-le “case”) he discloses it was NAMBLA. The thing that is not consistent about this story is WHY exactly he was there. In GQ he says he was sent by the police (yeah right, as if the police sends no-name journalists to carry out such operations), in the Tageszeitung he claims he was sent by his paper to report from the conference. From the fact he changes his story you can see he is not honest about something here: he doesn’t want to tell us WHY he was there and you can only guess why he doesn’t want to tell us…..

    I think it would be great to ask Joy Robson if she remembers talking to VG before 1993 and what he told her.

    Like

  163. shelly permalink
    March 4, 2011 7:29 pm

    @visitor,

    Why was he interviewed by the LAPD for 2 days?

    Like

  164. TatumMarie permalink
    March 4, 2011 7:17 pm

    The book Gutierrez wrote about Jordan being Michael’s lover screams pedophile to me. Who would make a romance novel from a sick innuendo? Diane Dimond might be a pedophile herself.

    Like

  165. visitor permalink
    March 4, 2011 6:55 pm

    @Suzy
    You say “Meanwhile he is working on a book – much like the book of Carl Toms – in which he was to make allegations about MJ being a p-le. Before 1993 no publisher would touch that book, since that would be slander.”

    Yes, but is there any proof that Gutierrez was writing a book about Michael being a p. before the 1993 claims? Is there any publisher who said that “yes, he came to us before 1993 but we couldn’t publish it” Is there any parent or employee who said that Gutierrez went to them before the Ghandler claims? All we have is Gutierrez word, which i don’t trust at all. But proofs of what he is claiming are there? He could have easily made up the stories that he has told, he is a good liar after all.

    Like

  166. March 4, 2011 6:39 pm

    Vindicatemj, you have done a great job.

    I think we should believe VG. Obviously he admits himself that he is a P-le. Who would tell you that he was in a NAMBLA convention? A member of this organization or a moron who does not understand the seriousness of his words. Since we know that VG is not an idiot, there is only one option left.

    I suggest to those who have doubts to do some research. Visitors, your questions are good. Please help to find the answers too.

    “They think a high profile, popular, beloved figure like MJ could make p-lia more accepted by the society.” Exactly Suzy. The reason they chose VG was that he is not American. He could run away if he needed. As we know he did it.

    In our job of vindicating MJ, we need to expose the true nature of ppl like DD, Bashir, Orth, VG … Who do you think they are? Don’t be surprised if their CVs are different from ours.

    Like

  167. Suzy permalink
    March 4, 2011 6:02 pm

    @ Visitor

    The point is that VG was the one who invented the p-le rumours about Michael! I think he really did start to write a book on the subject before the Chandler allegations. It probably went like this:

    1986. VG, who is probably a p-le, goes to a NAMBLA conference. There he talks to people who look at Michael Jackson as “a hope for social acceptance” for p-lia. Of course, Michael is not a p-le, but p-les think he is because he hangs out with children. In the sick mind of a p-le there cannot be any other reason for this than sexual attraction. In other words they are projecting their own sick minds onto Michael. They send out VG to do an investigation on Michael whether he really is a p-le. Or to work on making him one, if he is not. P-les desperately want to make him the poster boy for their “case”. They think a high profile, popular, beloved figure like MJ could make p-lia more accepted by the society.

    1986-1993 VG spends years with trying to find evidence on MJ being a p-le. Unsuccessfully. He talks to parents of children (like Joy Robson) but none of them tells him anything he hopes for. He then changes strategy. If MJ is not a p-le, then let’s make him one! He is talking to parents of children and whispering things in their ears. He is also talking to employees of Michael – first to try to find out something about Michael, later (after the Chandler scandal broke) to tell them to go to tabloids with stories about MJ. VG is behind Blanca Francia – as well as behind Ralph Chacon, Kassim Abdool and Adrian McManus.
    Meanwhile he is working on a book – much like the book of Carl Toms – in which he was to make allegations about MJ being a p-le. Before 1993 no publisher would touch that book, since that would be slander. VG has no luck in trying to make parents of kids make accusations against Michael either – until in 1993 he meets the bipolar Evan Chandeler. And the rest is history.

    Evan made his allegation because VG was in his ears – I’m pretty certain of that by now. The origin of the p-le MJ myth wasn’t Evan, it was Gutierrez! And his goal with it is clear.

    Like

  168. shelly permalink
    March 4, 2011 5:35 pm

    He was interwieved, in August 1993, by the LAPD during the Chandler allegation. He was probably really writing a book about those allegations.

    Like

  169. visitor permalink
    March 4, 2011 5:29 pm

    Gutierrez claims that he heard those rumors about Michael being a pe.d in a NABLA convention and that he then started searching and writing a book about Michael.All this before the 1993 claims. But can we trust him? Is there a proof that what he is saying is the truth? Are there witnesses who have said that they had talked to Gutierrez before 1993 and before Ghandlers make their claims? Yes,he thanks NABLA in his book but he does the same with Joy and Wade Robson who i think he never talked to. But is there an actual proof that he had started searching about Michael and pe.d claims before the Chandler allegations?I am sorry if this is already answered and i haven’t seen it.

    Like

  170. Maral permalink
    March 4, 2011 4:52 pm

    wonder why La Toya was friendly with this guy?

    Like

  171. shelly permalink
    March 4, 2011 3:33 pm

    I agree with you Ares, but I also think we should be better than the people who calls MJ a ped-le and we shouldn’t use that word against who was never arrested or convicted for that crime. He isn’t Carl Tom, even though he is probably the same kind of guy.

    Like

  172. ares permalink
    March 4, 2011 2:54 pm

    @Teva, shelly
    Wasn’t bold for Dimond and Gutierrez to claim that they had a video showing MJ mollesting his nephew,performing oral sex on him with only purpose to further defame him?Where is the video? Oh, yes it doesn’t exist like the love letters. Wasn’t bold for Gutierrez to writte that book where he describes with disturbing details as if he is getting pleasure from fantasizing those scenes? Where are his proof? There aren’t any.Only his fu. up fantasy.

    Like

  173. hana permalink
    March 4, 2011 1:25 pm

    i have this book and i must say that is indeed a very sick and disgusting book..definietly seems to have been written by someone with pedophilia…this victor guy claims in his book that michael had a threesome with brett barnes and jordie chandler and that he also molested emmanual lewis…Victor also claims in his book that michael engaged in masturbation and oral sex with macaulay culkin and that he loved to kiss and touch his lucious “bee stung” red lips..lol

    Like

  174. Suzy permalink
    March 4, 2011 9:16 am

    @ Dialdancer

    I know he thanked Joy and Wade Robson and others who definitely did not “help” him the way he alleges they did. He just added them in his list to seem “credible” with his stories about them. However I can’t see why somebody would thank NAMBLA if he didn’t have anything to do with them . Anyway I do not base my opinion that VG is a p-le alone on that one acknowledgement. The language of his book speaks for itself. His opinions on p-lia in interviews speak for themselves. His admittion in the Tageszeitung interview that he paid a visit to a NAMBLA conference in 1986 speaks for itself.

    Like

  175. Dialdancer permalink
    March 4, 2011 9:04 am

    @ Suzy,

    After having checked into authenticity of some of V.G.’s material in his book I have a feeling there may be many whom he so graciously thanked for their assistance gave none and may not have appreciated being mentioned at all. Overhearing conversations, asking or being asked questions is not the same as collaboration.

    Like

  176. Suzy permalink
    March 4, 2011 5:28 am

    @ Dialdancer

    My suspicion is that VG was more attracted to Jordan Chandler (and other boys in Michael’s environment) and that’s why he was jealous.

    It’s not a proof of anything, nevertheless an interesting piece of information. This is the World of Wonder website that is supposed to make a movie of VG’s book. It’s basically a gay website. This is the article they published after Michael’s death. The writer of the article is lusting after Jordan Chandler:

    http://worldofwonder.net/2009/06/29/Jordie_Chandler_today/?utm_source=wow&utm_medium=permalink&utm_campaign=related

    Like

  177. Suzy permalink
    March 4, 2011 5:24 am

    I’m pretty sure VG is a p-le. I mean if you look at what he says about p-lia in his book and in articles it’s crystal clear. Noone is that sympathetic to the p-le case if he isn’t one himself. Noone devotes a lifetime to advocating p-lia, if he isn’t one himself. And of course his visit to NAMBLA and him thanking NAMBLA in his book is highly suspect as well.

    Of course, we don’t have a court decision against VG saying he was a p-le, so I agree that the question mark should be there. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think he is. Either that or he is paid well by NAMBLA. To me being a p-le and advocating p-lia for money is not very different morally.

    Like

  178. Dialdancer permalink
    March 4, 2011 5:14 am

    Isn’t it possible like many gay & heterosexual women and men who found Michael attractive that V.G. was more than a little attracted himself? Could this have not been the basis of his fascination with MJ at least initially? An attraction coupled with a documented envy of MJ’s financial lifestyle; an envy of his possessions, popularity and acceptance among different cultures and social groups. An attraction that may have began when Michael was younger.

    What do persons with certain predilections do when receiving real or imagined or foresees a rebuff of their attention?

    Like

  179. March 4, 2011 12:18 am

    “I just changed the name of the post to “Untrustworthy”’

    David, I’ve come again for a second (as it is too late here) and changed it back into a Pedophile. The only thing I added is a question mark. The fact that he attended a NAMBLA congress is reason enough to think that he is. And his writings are only an additional confirmation of it. Teva has evidently not read them…

    The media had much less reason to call Michael a p. – especially when he was fully acquitted on all counts – but they nevertheless did it. Our standards should of course be much higher than theirs, but in case of Victor Gutierrez the evidence is overwhelming. HE SAID IT HIMSELF – no one asked him to reveal the fact that he attended the NAMBLA meetings, however he was bold enough to announce it, making numerous lies around it.

    None of his lies are valid here. He wasn’t working for LAPD and he couldn’t attend the “congress” as a reporter. So make your conclusions yourselves. I’ve made mine.

    Like

  180. lynande51 permalink
    March 4, 2011 12:13 am

    I say if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it’s a duck. The one thing that isn’t published here is the clipping from a NAMBLA publication called Spunk that is featured in MJWML. It is a beautiful photo of Michael with a boy during his Bad tour and the story about him in 1988 before he moved to Neverland saying why he was moving to Neverland. He didn’t get that from “covering” the “convention”. My guess is he wrote for them. Has anyone ever beeen able to find one other articlethat he wrote here in the US and believe me I have looked?.

    Like

  181. shelly permalink
    March 3, 2011 11:36 pm

    I agree with Teva, even though I suspect he is.

    Like

  182. lcpledwards permalink
    March 3, 2011 11:34 pm

    @ Teva
    I just changed the name of the post to “Untrustworthy”, which is something we can all agree on, and we have the evidence to support it. Thanks for your suggestion!

    Like

  183. March 3, 2011 11:14 pm

    @VindicateMJ

    Your headline says “VICTOR GUTIERREZ is a PEDOPHILE” it is bold, intriguing and questionable. Do you definitively know that VG is a pedophile, or do you suspect he is one based on his actions? You maybe right, but he was never convicted, or charged. Please see my email.

    Like

  184. March 3, 2011 9:51 pm

    “Yes, I sent 3 separate emails. The 1st email detailing all the background info on the “sources” Peretti uses in is film. 2nd email I provided them a list of alternative program suggestions such as, BBC Michael Jackson Documentary, Larry Nimmers footage, Aphrodite’s Special, etc. The 3rd email I voiced my disappoint in the route they took and sent the info on Guiterrez connection to NAMBLA.’

    Gigi, thank you for taking so much action. Now that the film has probably aired we all need to post information on the “sources” Peretti used whenever the media mentions his film and wherever there is an opportunity to comment. And let us not be shy in disclosing that Gutierrez attended a NAMBLA congress and is connected to this organization. And also that this kind of a man is Diane Dimond’s “best source of information”.

    I firmly believe that it is top important to form the same kind of association between Gutierrez and NAMBLA as haters formed for Michael when they constantly put the word p. beside his name.

    Like

  185. March 3, 2011 8:23 pm

    Suzy,

    Yes, I sent 3 separate emails. The 1st email detailing all the background info on the “sources” Peretti uses in is film. 2nd email I provided them a list of alternative program suggestions such as, BBC Michael Jackson Documentary, Larry Nimmers footage, Aphrodite’s Special, etc. The 3rd email I voiced my disappoint in the route they took and sent the info on Guiterrez connection to NAMBLA.

    Omg that photo of Guiterrez…smh This photo looks like he was at TII’s opening premiere. The man is very bold.

    Like

  186. March 3, 2011 8:09 pm

    “How can you enjoy being near something or someone that you consider perverted or criminal? Wow,i am really surprised right now. My first thought is that there is clearly something not right with those two.I think they have a serious mentall issue”

    Ares, it might not be a mental issue at all. Such things happen when people are paid to hate somebody, but in reality they don’t have anything agaist the man and actually even like him.

    Like

  187. March 3, 2011 7:39 pm

    “If Sneddon and his gang had been great investigators, they could have exposed NAMBLA and their methods. Instead they chose to waste almost two decades and millions of dollars from tax payers’s money to bring down an innocent man.”

    This reminded me of Corey Feldman and how police wanted him to say that MJ had mol-d him, and when Corey Feldman said he had been molested but by another person and even gave the name of that person, they were not in the least interested in this information. Okay, I understand – they were busy investigating Jackson but they could have passed it to their colleagues who could have pursued a real ped-le? But none of this happened – see what the mjeol site says about it:

    “Further digging in the archive and you’ll find about Celebrity Justice report titled “Corey Feldman Defended Jackson in 1993 Police Interview – CJ”, dated Feb 9 2005.

    According to the CJ report, Feldman is on tape saying:

    “Nothing ever happened with Michael and me,” Corey is heard saying. “Believe me, If there was something that I’d been hiding for all these years, then I would want nothing more than to bring it out right now, to make sure that Michael got the help that he needed.”

    When Feldman told police who his alleged molester was, they didn’t appear to be interested in investigating, according to CJ.

    More from their report:

    Shockingly, Corey does claim he had been molested — but not by Jackson:
    “I myself was molested so I know what it’s like to go through those feelings, and believe me, the person who molested me, if this was him that did that to me, this would be a different story because I would be out there, up front, doing something immediately to have this man given what was due to him.”

    Even more shockingly, Feldman actually named his alleged abuser but the detectives seemed to express no interest investigating the man, seeming to only have eyes for Jackson.

    Can someone infer that the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s department didn’t want to have anything to do with finding real child molesters? Jackson was a target as far back as 1993. Period. To law enforcement, based on the CJ report, it seemed like Feldman could go to hell so long as he wasn’t accusing Michael Jackson of any wrongdoing.

    Feldman: “People can say whatever they want, but it wasn’t Michael. He and I have our own issues, but that wasn’t one of them… The guy that did this to me was my assistant.”

    http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/not-so-breaking-news-feldman-and-haim-not-molested-by-jackson-bullet-329.html

    All this is very strange, isn’t it? It seems that all of them were after Michael Jackson only, while real cases of ped-lia were completely ignored and disregarded during their hunt for one innocent man.

    All this taken together looks like a deliberate campaign carried out through various channels – defamation in the media, life-long persecution by police and ruining Michael by withdrawing his music from radio and TV and making him pay legal bills in 1500 ridiculous law suits filed by various madmen.

    Like

  188. ares permalink
    March 3, 2011 7:29 pm

    @Suzy
    Syzy are you sure that is Gutierez? Man, i am really speechless right now. So both he and DD although they believe that MJ was a ped-le and basically a criminal of the worst case, they don’t have a problem having his picture in their office (Dimond) or being taken pictures near a photo of MJ (Gutierez). What is this? How can you enjoy being near something or someone that you consider perverted or criminal? Wow,i am really surprised right now. My first thought is that there is clearly something not right with those two.I think they have a serious mentall issue and it’s very disturbing that people continue to consider them MJ experts. Someone should expose them for what they really are.

    Like

  189. March 3, 2011 7:21 pm

    “I truly hope Gutierrez’s role in all this and what really happened to Michael will be exposed to the wider public one day. Not just for Michael but also because there are so many important lessons in it for the whole society!”

    Suzy, I pray for it too. The more we unravel the story of Michael’s harassment, the more bizarre it is getting. Never in my life could I imagine that the people standing behind his vilification could be ped-les themselves. They accused him of something they themselves were guilty of!
    This is such a terrible paradox that, to be frank, my mind is refusing to accept it. But the more we look, the more links to them we find – and it is happening on its own, we are not pushing the research in this direction! I begin to grow even fearful of what else we can find here.

    “But then I also wonder how many of these journalists KNOW the true agenda behind VG? I can’t believe nobody ever realized.”

    That’s the point. For someone who has been in touch with Victor Gutierrez for so long I think it is impossible not to know who he is. It was enough for us to read several chapters of his book to start wondering about him – and Diane Dimond associated with him on a regular basis. I can’t believe she never noticed anything…
    What is more probable is that she did know, but cynically used VG as a sleuth assuming that this type of a guy would get the necessary information easier. And this makes it clear that she was not keen on fighting the problem of p-lia as such – she was (and still is) on a mission to slander and demonize Michael Jackson only.

    And this doesn’t make our life easier either. The question is still there – why would they do it?

    Like

  190. Suzy permalink
    March 3, 2011 7:05 pm

    @ Gigi

    Did you send them an e-mail?

    BTW, this is a recent picture of Gutierrez: http://jacksonaktak.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/gutierrez.jpg

    As you can see with a “This is it” poster in the background…..

    Like

  191. March 3, 2011 6:25 pm

    Suzy,

    That’s basically what I told the Arte channel last night have. After their 3 so called “meetings” over all the phone calls and emails providing the details of who Peretti, Dimond, and Guiterrez are. They still chose to brush all that information aside and join into perpetuating p-le propaganda. I also told them that their company “mission statement” had now been turned into a complete lie.

    Pray that Guiterrez and this whole propaganda is exposed as well.

    ________________

    David,

    DD is one of the most twisted persons I’ve ever seen. She functions on pure evil. All these players do.

    Like

  192. March 3, 2011 3:35 pm

    @Ares Yes he does. Like a real p-le would write about it

    Like

  193. ares permalink
    March 3, 2011 2:18 pm

    Has anyone read Gutierez book? Is it true that he describes the relationship between MJ and Jordie like a love story?

    Like

  194. Suzy permalink
    March 3, 2011 12:28 pm

    Most fans are fans of a person because they admire and love that person. But there seems to be a dark type of celebrity obsession: Dimond and the haters familiar to us all seem to be made of that mould. Reminds me of the guy who killed John Lennon and who also claimed to be a “fan” of Lennons.

    Anyway, to me this part of the story is one of the most ironic things I have ever seen and it still makes me wonder about the p-le maffia and how much power they really have within the media and all.

    It’s ironic because all these haters of MJ and all these people who were wasting their time on bringing down an innocent man were actually promoting the p-le agenda and supporting p-les by doing so! From media people like Dimond and Peretti to law enforcement people like Sneddon and his gang. Lazyiness and/or being blinded by irrational hatred and tabloid sensationalism made them do so. I can’t believe how this one guy, Victor Gutierrez lead them all by the nose by exploiting their character weaknesses! Did none of them ever do a background check on him? Did nobody ever read the acknowledgements in his book – him thanking LADP and NAMBLA on the same page? Did nobody ever realize the language of his book or his interviews supporting p-lia?

    If Sneddon and his gang had been great investigators, they could have exposed NAMBLA and their methods. Instead they chose to waste almost two decades and millions of dollars from tax payers’s money to bring down an innocent man. Victor and his friends from NAMBLA were surely laughing their asses off. How many children were they molesting while Sneddon was busy chasing Michael Jackson?

    Sneddon didn’t just prove to be a malicious prosecutor, but also a very bad one. Someone who was lead by the nose by a p-le advocate, by a little “nobody” journalist for two decades! Victor Gutierrez did nothing but exploited Sneddon’s weakness: that he tended to let his personal feelings and opinions and prejudices get in the way of justice.

    Same with the media. Dimond, Peretti and hundreds of others proved to be very bad journalists as well. It could have been a fantastic piece of investigative journalism for Dimond, or for any of them, had they not been lazy and/or uninterested in the real truth. In other words: if they would be REAL journalists honoring the real values of their job. It could have catapulted Dimond’s career into serious journalism. Instead she will forever remain the small minded tabloid journalist with a Michael Jackson obsession. Who, BTW, was giving support to NAMBLA advocate, Victor Gutierrez – just for cheap sensationalism….

    I truly hope Gutierrez’s role in all this and what really happened to Michael will be exposed to the wider public one day. Not just for Michael but also because there are so many important lessons in it for the whole society!

    But then I also wonder how many of these journalists KNOW the true agenda behind VG? I can’t believe nobody ever realized. Some are just stupid/lazy to realize, alright, but some are knowingly supportive of him in my opinion. I don’t know which cathergory Peretti belongs to. Or which cathegory the people (media moguls etc.) belong to who support his “documentary” to be aired again…..

    Like

  195. March 3, 2011 9:41 am

    “OPEN THE LINNK, SCROLL DOWN, AND TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT WHOSE PHOTO SHE HAS FRAMED ON HER WALL IN THE BACKGROUND!!!”

    One of the many indications of her abnormal obsession with MJ.

    Like

  196. Suzy permalink
    March 3, 2011 5:21 am

    Just to be clear: “Star” is a tabloid magazine (not Star Arvizo) they went to to sell their story to. So before that they consulted Victor Gutierrez….

    Like

  197. Suzy permalink
    March 3, 2011 5:19 am

    Well spotted Hana!

    Actually Tom Mesereau asked Chacon about Gutierrez in his cross-exam.

    5 Q. All right. Do you recall speaking to a book

    6 author named Gutierrez?

    7 A. Yes, sir.

    8 Q. And approximately when did you speak to a

    9 book author named Gutierrez?

    10 A. I believe that was before we went to Star,

    11 and — but I don’t remember the — I don’t remember

    12 the date or the time.

    “We” meaning Chacon, Kassim Abdool and Adrian McManus.

    Like

  198. hana permalink
    March 3, 2011 4:29 am

    Quote from Victor’s book:

    “Michael’s kisses were so passionate. He would kiss Jordie with his hands all over his body”

    Ralph Chacon’s testimony:

    SNEDDON: Now you say you saw Mr. Jackson kissing the boy, correct?

    CHACON: Yes sir

    SNEDDON: And how would you described the kissing?

    CHACON: Well, it was very passionate. Very passionately he was kissing him

    SNEDDON: And did you see his hands during the time he was kissing him?

    CHACON: Yes sir

    SNEDDON: Where were they?

    CHACON: They were all over his body.

    Looks like Chacon drafted his story from reading Victor’s book…

    Like

  199. lcpledwards permalink
    March 3, 2011 4:20 am

    And just think, this is the same person that Latoya not only interviewed with, but HUGGED! I’m at a loss for words! Here is the article and translation: http://www.lun.com/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?dt=2010-03-17&PaginaId=26&bodyid=0

    Michael’s chaser ended up hugging La Toya

    Víctor Gutiérrez in a good mood with the Jacksons

    The good wave was such big that the singer, sent greetings to the earthquake victims,
    Picture legend: During the interview La Toya liked Víctor’s Gutiérrez shirt

    Sergio Vallejos

    It seemed and impossible mission, but he did it. The journalist Víctor Vallejo, the same that treated Michael Jackson as delinquent and pedophile, must obtain an exclusive interview with : La Toya Jackson, who today is the head-on spokesperson from the late King Of Pop’s family

    “I thought that I couldn’t make it. Until the last moment I had doubts about the interview”, tells Gutierrez from Los Angeles, California

    “ The only thing I can say is Chile be Strong”
    La Toya Jackson

    With so much faith, the persistent journalist contacted the manager of the dark-skinned girl to speak about the situation. And for the surprise of Gutiérrez,

    The journalist was hired the past week, to produce an interview between La Toya and an Argentinean program via satellite. He reveals “They called me from 70.20.10, from the Channel 13, asking me to contact La Toya to speak about the theory of her brother’s murder”

    The 53 old woman, accepted his invitation. We met last Friday in the studio, before the interview I told her: It’s time to talk about other matters. He confess, I think she though that I was going to lay an ambush or something like that to her”.

    After the 17 minutes interview. Michael’s sister and Gutiérrez shared a friendly conversation.

    I told her what happened in Chile with the earthquake, and she couldn’t get that matter out of her head. She asked me how could she help, and I said sending them regards”

    And they recorded a video.
    We made a couple of tests, because she wanted to send a message in Spanish. She had a hard time trying to say “Fuerza Chile”, but she had a very beautiful gesture.

    Did you make up with La Toya?
    I don’t know, I think the earthquake united us. In addition, I commented to her about my mother’s passing and she was very affectionate.

    What about the other siblings?
    I believe they don’t like me. I did not change my theory (about Jackson’s pedophilia), but I believed he was murdered.

    Oh, and speaking of MJ haters, check out this photo of Diane Dimond, who gave her worthless opinion to Tru TV (formerly Court TV) during the preliminary hearing in January. She Skyped in from what I assume is her home (although there is no way for us to know where she was located at). OPEN THE LINNK, SCROLL DOWN, AND TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT WHOSE PHOTO SHE HAS FRAMED ON HER WALL IN THE BACKGROUND!!!

    http://www.justice4mj.com/diane-dimond/

    Like

  200. Dialdancer permalink
    March 3, 2011 2:31 am

    Congratulations Helena.

    Please check email reference: Gutierrez

    Like

  201. lynande51 permalink
    March 3, 2011 1:23 am

    Whar amazes me now and always will is that police were in contact withhim and he was even mentioned by the LAPD Detective Jack Gonerman (who he thanks in the book) when he takes Gutierrez’s information to the FBI. Not one of these people in law enforcement or in journalism thought to ask this guy for one more name. One more name of somebody that was in NAMBLA. It is a group that does after all promote criminal activity. Maureen Orth and Diane Dimond missed their mark with this one. Instead of taking what he said and running with it theyshould have investigated him but no not them.They could have been heros instead of laughingstocks which is truly what they are. The funniest part of the Appeal of the Diane Dimond Michael Jackson case is where she said she could always trust him because he was right about so much like Lisa and Michael’s divorce. Theyget on air in early January of 1995 to say tell their sordid little lie about the tape one full year before Lisa files for divorce. That must be the first time that a crystal ball was used as a source let alone a credible one and the court accepted it.

    Like

  202. March 2, 2011 11:39 pm

    The real name of this BS should be “what really did NOT happen”

    Like

  203. March 2, 2011 10:42 pm

    Guys, I am sorry I’ve left you for so long. Here is a summary finally made on almost everything we know of Victor Gutierrez by now.

    The research will have to be continued but I hope that even the information presented here will prove to you that Gutierrez is an absolutely pathological liar who shows clear signs of being a pedophile too.

    Firstly, there is absolutely no way he could attend the congress of NAMBLA in 1986 unless he was a member of it and secondly, the details of his writings which we had the misfortune to read, convinced all of us that the mind of this man is perverse and crooked in its very extreme.

    The summary took longer than I expected as I also had a pile of work to do at the office where I now resumed work – which leaves me very little time for the research.

    Now it is half past one in the morning here, so I hope to get back to you only tomorrow.

    In case you find more on Gutierrez please share it with us.
    We need the general public to know what an insect he is.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: