Skip to content

Victor Gutierrez, NAMBLA and the same gang of professors who recommended Carl Toms’ book

March 4, 2011

I’ve been told that the fact of Victor Gutierrez attending a NAMBLA conference isn’t reason enough for thinking that he is a pedophile himself. I disagreed but decided to have a closer look at NAMBLA and its meetings.

Wikipedia says about this organization and its members:

”NAMBLA holds an annual gathering in New York City and monthly meetings around the country. In the early 1980s, NAMBLA was reported to have had over 300 members, and was supported by such noted figures as Allen Ginsberg.

Since then, the organization has kept membership data private, but an undercover FBI investigation in 1995 discovered that there were 1,100 people on the rolls. It is the largest organization in the umbrella group IPCE (formerly “International Pedophile and Child Emancipation”).

So in the early 1980s NAMBLA had no more than 300 members. Victor Gutierrez revealed that he attended the NAMBLA congress in 1986.

This fact was reported by two different media sources and in two totally different ways.  The German newspaper Die Tageszeitungdated April 2005 http://www.taz.de/1/archiv/?id=archivseite&dig=2005/04/05/a0170  quoted Victor Gutierrez saying that he attended the congress as a crime reporter representing a Spanish L.A. newspaper.

But a year later in May 2006 Victor Gutierrez was much more cautious when he spoke to the British GQ magazine. Over there he said he had worked undercover as an agent for the Los Angeles Police Department within a certain secret organization which hailed Michael Jackson as their “idol” and which – considering the context – could be nothing but NAMBLA (for details please go to this post).

The version of working undercover for the LAPD was refuted by Gutierrez himself and in the very same GQ article – only a few paragraphs further. He says that when he presented the results of his research in the form of a manuscript the police didn’t pay attention to it because he was “nobody to the LAPD, just a Latino reporter”. This absolutely rules out the possibility of him being sent by them on an mission to a NAMBLA congress because if police infiltrate their agent they definitely don’t ignore his findings later.

This leaves us with the only version of Victor Gutierrez attending the NAMBLA conference as a criminal reporter working for a newspaper.

To verify this theory I decided to check up whether the congress called NAMBLA’s General Membership Conference held in 1986 in Los Angeles was reported by any newspaper at all. This required a conscientious study of every web source which could be in any way connected with the subject,  however the many hours of search brought a zero result – there are no journalistic reports from NAMBLA conferences on the web!  Surprisingly, the major part of information about this organization is coming directly from NAMBLA and its official site where I even found a couple of pictures of the events described.

Here is the banner of the 10th NAMBLA’s International Membership Conference (1986) and below is the picture of another of their conferences arranged in 1984 in San Francisco.

NAMBLA conference in San Francisco 1984

No information is naturally provided by NAMBLA about those who attended the conference except a few names who evidently chose to disclose their identity themselves.

One of the examples is a certain Harry Hay who is said to have made his comments“at a panel on censorship and pornography at the NAMBLA conference in Los Angeles on November 8, 1986.  Other panelists were Bob Rhodes and Dan Tsang.” http://www.nambla.org/losangeles1986.html

The absence of media reports direct from the NAMBLA conferences confirmed my suspicion that newspaper journalists, especially those who reported criminal affairs, were not too much welcome at NAMBLA events – so if any of you do find a report made by Gutierrez for some LA newspaper  in 1986 it will be a big surprise and a complete sensation, I would even say.

Though my study didn’t produce any articles covering NAMBLA forums at least one precious find has been made.

It came from totally unexpected quarters as usual and is a Massachusetts court document called Memorandum In Support of Defendant’s Motion filed by some defense attorneys to prove that their defendant Charles Jaynes was no member of NAMBLA (yes, I went as far as looking into such documents too).

The defendant Charles Jaynes was a one-time member of NAMBLA and was accused of murdering a 10 year old boy and raping his dead body (…). The man and his associate were found guilty and the C.Jaynes case delivered an almost lethal blow to the organization – the parents of the boy accused NAMBLA of providing the murderer with information assistance and training and revealing all those details to the public caused such an outrage that it almost put an end to NAMBLA’s activities.

The Memorandum prepared by Jaynes’ defense attorneys turned out to be a very valuable source of information because in order to try and prove that their defendant had lost all contact with NAMBLA  the lawyers provided a detailed description of the stages of the security process every attendee of a NAMBLA congress should go through before finally making it to the destination point.

The process turned to be so complex that it screamed volumes  about the impossibility of Victor Gutierrez attending the congress unless he was a certified member of the organization.

As that case took place in 1997 the defense lawyers described the NAMBLA attendance procedure which was pertinent to that period only, however the top secrecy which has enveloped the organization from its very start does not give us reason to believe that their earlier security policy was much more open – on the contrary, at the beginning of their functioning there should have been much more secrecy around it.

Here is part of the above court papers which describes the case and the registration procedures valid at least since the year 1995. This is when the lawyers who worked on this paper managed to trace back the registration procedures (click on the link to see the document), but it absolutely does not mean that a similarly secret procedure was not valid in the year 1986 too – it might well be!

The NAMBLA constitution (!) provides that General Membership Meetings, which are the governing body of the organization, are to be held once a year. Attendance at General Membership Conferences is limited to members of NAMBLA and invited guests, and that requirement is carefully enforced.

At least since 1995, pre-registration has been required in order to prevent participation by non-members. Between 1995 and 1997, the membership conferences were announced to members in the NAMBLA Bulletin and in announcements sent by mail, but the location of the conference was not publicly disclosed and pre-registration was required. Completed registration forms were to be sent to the NAMBLA post office box in New York.

NAMBLA’s membership secretary would review the forms to determine that the registrant was a member of NAMBLA. If the person was not a member, he would not be registered for the conference or notified of its location. If the records showed that the registrant was a member, the membership secretary would make a note in NAMBLA’s membership record that the person had registered to attend the conference and would provide the conference organizer with the names of the members who had pre-registered.

The conference organizers would then provide the registrants with general information about the location of the conference and would check at the entrance to the conference to insure that any person seeking to enter the event was pre-registered…”.

“…There were three types of meetings held under the auspices of NAMBLA. These are described in the organization’s constitution. The first is General Membership Meeting (also referred to as the General Membership Conference) which is held annually. The second consists of meetings of the members of the organization’s elected Steering Committee. The last are local meetings of chapters or affinity groups sanctioned by the Steering Committee” .

The NAMBLA site says that their membership records are strictly confidential. Most of the members don’t go there even under their real names…

  • “Membership in NAMBLA is entirely legal and our records are kept strictly confidential”, says the site. Life Membership is offered at $1,000 and allows “lifetime mailings of all publications and free admission to all NAMBLA conferences and events”.

Getting back to Victor Gutierrez let me say what I think of him in view of the latest information about the security measures taken by NAMBLA.

Considering the relatively small number of NAMBLA members back in 1986 and the security requirements which the organization ‘carefully enforced’ I simply cannot see in what other capacity Victor Gutierrez could have attended the NAMBLA congress except as a member of it.

Even the banner of the Los Angeles conference says that it is the 10th International and Membership Conference, so that foreign members of it can also attend…

NAMBLA conference in San Francisco, California 1984

Look at the picture of their similar (1984) convention again – it isn’t a thousand strong audience where a newspaper reporter could go unnoticed among a big crowd.  No, it is a relatively small assembly where everyone should know the person sitting next to him and any alien would be immediately spotted by the old-timers.

In what other capacity could Victor Gutierrez attend such a conference if he wasn’t a registered member of it?

Okay, he could be an invited guest as their “constitution” allows it. But even if he had an invitation to attend a NAMBLA congress will it make things easier for him and any difference to us? No, it won’t, because the same questions will still remain as regards what he was doing there and why.

I mean why was he invited there? To describe their criminal activities in sensational materials to be published in a LA newspaper for which he allegedly worked as a crime reporter? Does it make sense to you?

No, my belief that Victor Gutierrez is connected to NAMBLA as a member of is has only been reinforced by this find…

The murder case mentioned above was widely reported in the press and created a lot of problems for NAMBLA members. Later on the police managed to infiltrate law-enforcement officials into their circles (see this article for details) and this started for NAMBLA a “baffling pattern of self-destruction” as they called it in the year 2001:

  • The group, somehow unaware, or unconcerned, that police might want to infiltrate its meetings, unwittingly voted undercover law-enforcement officials to its steering committee”.
  • This turned them into a “hundred of scared, paranoid members. No more annual conventions, no more public appearances, no more city chapters, no more NAMBLA contingents in gay-pride marches, no more eager new recruits. Times are so bad, in fact, that most NAMBLA members would just as soon not talk about them”.

The above quotes come from an article originally published in Boston magazine in May 2001 and republished there again in May 2006 (Update: none of the links are working now) the tone of which looked to me fairly sympathetic towards the cause of pedophilia and the deplorable fate of NAMBLA innocent guys.

And surprise-surprise, while reading that heart-wrenching story of their terrible misfortunes who do you think I met there? No, not Victor Gutierrez because that would be too much of a luck.

The guys I met there were the same professors who eight years later, in 2009, would make favorable reviews of the book “Michael Jackson’s dangerous liaisons” written by Carl Tom (or convicted pedophile Tom O’Carroll) and advise the book to the general public as “recommended reading”. The same good old familiar faces…

Professor James Kincaid

Professor James Kincaid of the University of Southern California sounds slightly sarcastic when he says that NAMBLA was turned into a national monster because the country just needed an enemy, and if it weren’t for the Man-boy love association someone else would have been used to fit the role:

“That panic, argues James Kincaid, the author of “Erotic Innocence: The Culture of Child Molesting”, is a result of America’s love-hate relationship with stories about gothic sexual demons.  “If we didn’t have NAMBLA, we would undoubtedly find a new national monster,” says Kincaid, an English professor at the University of Southern California.

“We need an enemy, because the endless talk of child sex abuse allows us the vicarious, titillating thrill of talking about children and sex, while at the same time allowing us to shake our heads at someone else’s depravity. And while we find a threat to loathe and deplore, we will continue to promote child sexuality [in entertainment], and we will continue to position at the center of our national desirability women — and sometimes men — who look 14 years old.”

Professor William A. Percy

The second of the professors, the unforgettable William A. Persy, is giving advice to NAMBLA people on how they should be going about their business if they want to be a success:

“Arguably most damaging to NAMBLA, was its refusal to change its position calling for the repeal of all age-of-consent laws, despite the argument made by a vocal minority of members that such a stance — with its implication, sometimes stated and sometimes not, that a prepubescent child can consent to sex — was political suicide.

“I have been trying to convince the NAMBLA people for years that they should argue for an age of 14 or 15, something that people could see as a little more reasonable,” says William A. Percy, a professor of history at UMass/Boston and the author of Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece. “But they’re a small group of inbred and fanatical ideologues. They only talk to each other. They won’t listen to ideas of compromise.”

For more about these outstanding university professors whose names surface each time we mention the pedophilia subject please go to this post: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/meet-the-guys-who-recommend-carl-toms-book/

However despite truly crocodile tears the NAMBLA members are shedding in the Boston article cited above all is not lost for the poor guys. They may not have their conventions now, but they are cultivating the vast territory of Facebook with its half a billion audience for social networking as several recent articles dated September 2010 were aghast to tell us:

“Oh, Facebook. You know how you were trying to clean up your image, especially regarding online safety for children? Especially protecting kids from sexual predators? Well, I’m no PR whiz, but I feel like you may want to reconsider letting the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) use Facebook to organize local chapters and share tips on their nefarious pursuit of underage love.

Yes, as incredible as it seems, NAMBLA is strutting its creepy, creepy stuff of Facebook, according to a report from FoxNews.com, which says the pro-pedophilia organization uses the social network to “connect with its members throughout the world, find and exchange photos of children, hone its members’ predatory behavior, and to identify, target and reel in child victims” — far exceeding NAMBLA’s supposedly limited goal of advocating legal changes to laws forbidding sexual contact between adults and children.

These are serious accusations, but FoxNews.com supports them with plenty of disturbing details. First of all, it found “dozens of pages” devoted to NAMBLA –– not as jokes or protests — complete with (non-revealing) pictures of young boys, and “hundreds of links” to NAMBLA’s Web site on Facebook.

Meanwhile posts on blogs and chatrooms frequented by pedophiles commonly suggest they are using Facebook to target kids. According to the report, NAMBLA members are using the site to “seek out like-minded individuals to help victimize children, exchange crime scene photos and give one another advice on how to be better criminals,” including “tips on using the site to assist others in having real-life conversations with children” and “tips for evading the eye of law enforcement while trolling Facebook for victims.”

In case anyone still thinks this is just some typical Fox News rabble-rousing, consider this quote from Hemanshu Nigam, co-chairman of President Obama’s Online Safety Technology Working Group and a member of the board of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children: “This is just the downright filthiest of society setting up on Facebook in a public way, and the question is, ‘Why is Facebook allowing this?'”

The site said it is removing at least some of the offending pages, but you have to wonder how they came to be operating openly, even brazenly, in the first place.

http://www.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=136625

Now guys, why does it always happen?

I mean, why does this ‘coincidence’ always happen  – each time we mention the worst Michael Jackson’s detractors they turn out to be closely associated with one and the same suspicious gang of people?

First it was Tom O’Carroll who wrote 600 plus pages of dirt about Michael, then came university professors who supported the book and recommended it for family reading and then came the turn of Victor Gutierrez who looks too much of a pedophile to me and who is a self-admitted attendee of at least one highly secretive congress of NAMBLA?

And now the same university professors surface again– this time as advisors on the policy NAMBLA should pursue in order to be a success (?)

And why do all of them turn out to be the worst Michael’s detractors too –  especially Victor Gutierrez who was probably the one who triggered off Michael’s vilification campaign long before any allegations started? Remember that he began interviewing the alleged “victims” all over the country at least five years before the 1993 case.

I half-expect Michael’s haters to shrug off the problem saying that if Michael was one of them it would be no surprise to see this kind of people revolving round him, but this makes me exclaim in more surprise than ever – if they thought he was one of them, then why did they so ruthlessly harass him?

Wasn’t Victor Gutierrez’s life-long harassment of Michael Jackson – starting in 1986 and not finished until now – the major reason that brought about his untimely death? And weren’t Guiterrez’s lies immediately translated into TV reports by Diane Dimond who considered Gutierrez her “best source”?

Why are some of them so keen on “exposing” innocent Michael while with people who really belong to their circle they are so considerate that none of them ever report on each other as the secret and successful functioning of NAMBLA and their meetings shows it?

Shall I rephrase the well-known proverb “Tell me who your friend is and I’ll tell you who you are” into a new one, “Tell me who your enemy is and we’ll know who you are”?

Now that we know for sure that at least several people who consistently worked against Michael and were absolutely no friends to him were pedophilia oriented, does this mean they knew that Michael Jackson had nothing to do with them and considered him an enemy to their cause?

Because Michael was the one who prayed to children’s innocence  while these guys think that children are ripe for adult love…

*  *  *

UPDATED March 8, 2011

Even more interesting details on how terribly difficult it is to infiltrate NAMBLA even for a professional detective come from other court papers I’ve found.

This is an appeal of  a NAMBLA member who was arrested as a result of an undercover operation and who is now complaining about violation of his rights. In the process of explaining why this NAMBLA member’s petition for rehearing the case was denied the Senior Circuit Judge provides a wealth of information on how the detective managed to infiltrate their organization (click on these Nambla Сourt doc):

Formed in 1978, NAMBLA considers itself “a political, civil right and educational organization,”, which is, according to its  Web site, opposed to age-of-consent laws and “all other restrictions which deny men and boys the full enjoyment of their bodies and control over their own lives”. NAMBLA also functions as a support network for its estimated 200-300 members. To this end, its hosts annual conventions across the United States, publishes a newsletter called “The Bulletin,” and facilitates correspondence with incarcerated sex offenders. Despite its opposition to certain laws, the organization states that it “condemns sexual abuse and all forms of coercion,” and that it “does not engage in any activities that violate the law, not advocate that anyone else should do so.”

On July 31, 2001, FBI Agent Robert Hamer joined NAMBLA by sending a letter and a money order to an address listed on the organization’s Web site. Hamer joined NAMBLA using an alias and maintained his alias throughout his association with the group. He subsequently received a letter welcoming him to the organization and congratulating him on taking the “courageous step” of becoming a member.

So far it was fairly easy…

In the course of his research, Agent Hamer read a report about Peter Melzer, a NAMBLA leader who has been terminated from his teaching position in New York City in 2000. Agent Hamer would later learn from another member that Melzer sometimes went by “Peter Herman,” the name signed to his welcome letter.

So none of them go by their real names…

Agent Hamer remained an active member of the organization and would continue to renew his NAMBLA membership for the following three years. In 2001 and 2002, at the request of the organization, he sent holiday cards to incarcerated sex offenders. In 2002, wrote two articles for the Bulletin in an attempt to impress Melzer, though these articles were never published. He requested an invitation to NAMBLA’s 2002 conference but was denied because he had not been a member for a long enough period of time.

Well, this is interesting… So despite writing letters to incarcerated sex offenders and articles for the Bulletin for approximately a year and a half, in autumn 2002 he was still denied the right to attend an annual conference?

The right to attend the conference was granted to him only two and a half years after joining NAMBLA:

The next year, Agent Hamer was invited to the November 2003 conference in New York. He suspected that both Melzer and Joseph Power, a member of NAMBLA’s Sterring Committee, would be in attendance. Power, according to the FBI’s internal documents, was a registered sex offender and the subject of an active government investigation. Agent Hamer received permission to go undercover at the conference.

The word “suspected” attracted my attention. So he didn’t even know who else would be there as there were no leaflets, no programs and no names announced? Sure, there were none… Okay, here is the most interesting part:

The conference itself was not held in public. Attendees were told to say they were with the “Wallace Hamilton Press” and to be discreet. The meeting was held in a commercial building separate from the hotel where attendees stayed and was not advertised as a NAMBLA event. Agent Hamer wore a recording device and collected information about the members in attendance, and this information was sent to other FBI offices as a lead on potential criminal activity. None of the leads proved fruitful because in most cases Agent Hamer could provide only first names.

The way the judge describes this conference NAMBLA should be nothing but a sort of a mafia unit where secrecy is adhered to in its ultimate form – no one knows other people’s real names, all pretend to be representing a publishing company, the name of the event is fictional, everyone goes by his first name only which may be his alias too and there are no bulletins, leaflets or any other signs showing the agenda of the meeting or names of the speakers.

On the evening of the conference, Agent Hamer met the defendant, David Mayer. During their casual conversation, Mayer said that he had been to Thailand several times and spoke about traveling to have sex with boys. Agent Hamer suggested that they form a travel group. Mayer responded with frustration that NAMBLA kept up pretenses of trying to change society when in fact its member only wanted to travel to meet boys.

Mayer made a reservation for the trip through the FBI’s fake travel agency. Mayer and his co-defendants were promised “special friends” and asked about their “age preferences”. On February 11, 2005 Mayer flew with his two co-defendants to San Diego, where they were arrested.

Did you notice the vocabulary used? For example, “special friends”? It seems that Tom Sneddon and the prosecution studied the respective dictionaries to try and draw Michael into the orbit of these people via several words said by chance by some of Michael’s friends. Joy Robson did once mention the word “a special friend” and had to explain for hours at the 2005 trial that she didn’t mean anything bad by that and all the witnesses naturally had to testify on the word “family” which Michael so recklessly used for the Robson family, the Chandlers, the Cascios and many others. It seems he regarded as his family all people whom he considered good …

The discussion of the rights of this criminal brought us some other details from Agent Hamer. For example, “his reports from the conferences suggest that the conferences principally involved discussion of how to avoid detection by authorities rather than actual First Amendment-protected activity”. … “NAMBLA invited Agent Hamer to join its group, participate in its holiday card program, attend its conferences and participate in the privacy committee. He received access to other people, but no access to files or information“… At the conference in 2003 “members openly discussed past and future criminal conduct, as well as how to avoid detection” – again.…

Judging by all this secrecy of their activities and the main agenda of their conferences being how to escape detection, NAMBLA indeed reminds you of a mafia organization.

This is why I see absolutely no possibility for Victor Gutierrez to attend their conference as a newspaper reporter as he claimed he did.  Since when are newspaper reporters allowed to cover secret mafia assemblies?

And look how much care is taken by them for their names not to be in any way associated with boys! Michael Jackson’s openness in admitting his adoration for children makes such a stark contrast with all of the above that this alone should send a clear signal to his detractors that his case is something totally different from what they think him to be.

Knowing how these people really behave one would have to assume that either Michael was a complete madman to be so outspoken about his love for children, subject himself to a civil case in connection with it, go through a criminal trial for the same reason and still adhere to the same views. However knowing that he was no madman we’ll have to admit that the nature of his adoration for children must have been totally different.

Children were Michael’s support and only source of inspiration. Breathing the air of their purity was necessary for the revival of his spirit and survival in the world of cynicism and dirt. He was capable to live and make his music only due to these small ones.

It was no chance that he said it was his children who saved him and kept him going. Without them he was lost and all alone, and with them he knew he could pull through. They made him strong and still willing to live…

86 Comments leave one →
  1. February 24, 2013 12:24 pm

    “Praised as “Scientists”? Dragging Michael into it as well. Honest to God, what kind of messed up world are we going to be dragged into thanks to these monsters if this continues?” – Rodrigo

    Yes, they call themselves “scientists” and the arguments they provide are exactly the same as those of a certain “jay bob” who recently kept some of us busy on Youtube. The arguments he gave are their standard answers. Previously we thought that they were mere “haters” and wondered what was wrong with them if they were so stuck on calling Michael names (despite all evidence proving otherwise). Now we know it – they are ped-les themselves.

    If they are doing it now there is no reason to doubt that the same people were working against Michael before. Essentially nothing changed – they did it when he was alive, they are doing the same now that he is dead.

    Like

  2. Rodrigo permalink
    February 23, 2013 5:51 am

    I can’t believe scum like that are allowed to walk around with their genitals still attached.
    Praised as “Scientists”?
    Praise and freedom of all things, for saying people who have sex with children are not evil.

    Dragging Michael into it as well.

    Honest to God, what kind of messed up world are we going to be dragged into thanks to these monsters if this continues? I don’t want to find out.

    Like

  3. February 23, 2013 1:44 am

    “In the old-times people did not live that long, maybe 40 on the avarage. That may explain the early marriages” – Kaarin

    Exactly. And those at 30 were considered (and were indeed) old.

    When this person gives us the example of a “handful of New Guinea tribes” as a homoerotic pattern of older men’s behavior with teenage boys, I am tempted to ask people like him – do they want the US population to follow the example of these few remaining tribes?

    And how far back are they planning to go? Only to ancient Greece or probably earlier – to the cavemen, for example?

    “Evolutionary psychologist Frank Muscarella’s “alliance formation theory” is the only one that I’m aware of that attempts to do this. This theory holds that homoerotic behavior between older, high status men and teenage boys serves as a way for the latter to move up in ranks, a sort of power-for-sex bargaining chip. The most obvious example of this type of homosexual dynamic was found in ancient Greece, but male relationships in a handful of New Guinea tribes display these homoerotic patterns as well.” [Jesse Bering]

    Like

  4. February 23, 2013 1:05 am

    In the old-times people did not live that long, maybe 40 on the avarage.That may explain the early marriages. I learnt in gyn& obstetrics that early and midteen pregnancies carries a high risk for the infant as well as the mother.Only after the teens do pregnancies have better outcomes. Ofcourse p-li.s os p-r-asts do not care about that, but it shows why it is not biologically any advantage either. The DSM may not be 100% scientific. Far from it. It was created mostly for doctors to have as a reference so they know or use the same language for example when research programmes are designed.

    Like

  5. February 23, 2013 12:42 am

    I am moving Kaarin’s comment to the appropriate post.

    “I may try yo find out re DSN5” – kaarin

    Kaarin, please don’t, I wouldn’t even want to read it. I have enough of “psychologist” Jesse Bering’s provocative articles where he plays with Michael Jackson like a cat with a mouse, pretends MJ to be a ped-le, uses his name in this capacity in every paragraph, muddles water so that no one understands what’s what and despite all the smokescreen sides with those who sympathize with the “Devil” (ped-lia).

    This is the worst piece I’ve read lately, as it is an extremely harmful demagogical pseudo-science which is nevertheless called “The Best Science Writing Online 2012”. It is also programming everyone into thinking that Michael Jackson was one of them.

    Look at this “scientist”:

    THIS PERSON IS OPENLY PROMOTING PED-LIA AND NOBODY NOTICES IT?

    Why most “pedophiles” aren’t really pedophiles, technically speaking
    By Jesse Bering

    (excerpts)

    Michael Jackson probably wasn’t a pedophile—at least, not in the strict, biological sense of the word. It’s a morally loaded term, pedophile, that has become synonymous with the very basest of evils. (In fact it’s hard to even say it aloud without cringing, isn’t it?) But according to sex researchers, it’s also a grossly misused term.

    If Jackson did fall outside the norm in his “erotic age orientation”—and we may never know if he did—he was almost certainly what’s called a hebephile, a newly proposed diagnostic classification in which people display a sexual preference for children at the cusp of puberty, between the ages of, roughly, 11 to 14 years of age. Pedophiles, in contrast, show a sexual preference for clearly prepubescent children. There are also ephebophiles (from ephebos, meaning “one arrived at puberty” in Greek), who are mostly attracted to 15- to 16-year-olds;teleiophiles (from teleios, meaning, “full grown” in Greek), who prefer those 17 years of age or older); and even the very raregerontophile (from gerontos, meaning “old man” in Greek), someone whose sexual preference is for the elderly. So although child sex offenders are often lumped into the single classification of pedophilia, biologically speaking it’s a rather complicated affair. Some have even proposed an additional subcategory of pedophilia, “infantophilia,” to distinguish those individuals most intensely attracted to children below six years of age.

    …Although Michael Jackson might have suffered more disgrace from his hebephilic orientation than most, and his name will probably forever be entangled darkly with the sinister phrase “little boys,” he wasn’t the first celebrity or famous figure that could be seen as falling into this hebephilic category. In fact, ironically, Michael Jackson’s first wife, Lisa Marie Presley, is the product of a hebephilic attraction. After all, let’s not forget that Priscilla caught Elvis’s very grownup eye when she was just fourteen, only a year or two older than the boys that Michael Jackson was accused of sexually molesting. Then there’s of course also the scandalous Jerry Lee Lewis incident in which the 23-year-old “Great Balls of Fire” singer married his 13-year-oldfirst cousin.

    In the psychiatric community, there’s recently been a hubbub of commotion concerning whether hebephelia should be designated as a medical disorder or, instead, seen simply as a normal variant of sexual orientation and not indicative of brain pathology. There are important policy implications of adding hebephilia to the checklist of mental illnesses, since doing so might allow people who sexually abuse pubescent children to invoke a mental illness defense.

    One researcher who is arguing vociferously for the inclusion of hebephilia in the American Psychiatric Association’s revised diagnostic manual (the DSM-V) is University of Toronto psychologist Ray Blanchard. In last month’s issue of Archives of Sexual Behavior, Blanchard and his colleagues provide new evidence that many people diagnosed under the traditional label of pedophilia are in fact not as interested in prepubescent children as they are early adolescents.

    …Blanchard and his colleagues argue that hebephilia should be added to the newly revised DSM-V as a genuine paraphilic mental disorder—differentiating it from pedophilia. But many of his colleagues working in this area are strongly opposed to doing this.

    …Men who find themselves primarily attracted to young or middle-aged adolescents are clearly disadvantaged in today’s society, but historically (and evolutionarily) this almost certainly wasn’t the case. In fact, hebephiles—or at least ephebephiles—would have had a leg up over their competition. Evolutionary psychologists have found repeatedly that markers of youth correlate highly with perceptions of beauty and attractiveness. For straight men, this makes sense, since a woman’s reproductive value declines steadily after the age of about twenty.

    Obviously having sex with a prepubescent child would be fruitless—literally. But, whether we like it or not, this isn’t so for a teenage girl who has just come of age, who is reproductively viable and whose brand-new state of fertility can more or less ensure paternity for the male.

    …One unexplored question, and one inseparable from the case of Michael Jackson, is whether we tend to be more forgiving of a person’s sexual peccadilloes when that individual has some invaluable or culturally irreplaceable abilities.

    …It’s not that we think it’s perfectly fine for Gide and Wilde to have sex with minors or even that they shouldn’t have been punished for such behaviors. (In fact Wilde was sentenced in London to two years hard labor for related offenses not long after this Maghreb excursion with Gide and died in penniless ignominy.) But somehow, as with our commingled feelings for Michael Jackson, “the greatest entertainer of all time,” the fact that these men were national treasures somehow dilutes our moralistic anger, as though we’re more willing to suffer their vices given the remarkable literary gifts they bestowed.

    Would you really have wanted Oscar Wilde euthanized as though he were a sick animal? Should André Gide, whom the New York Times hailed in their obituary as a man “judged the greatest French writer of this century by the literary cognoscenti,” have been deprived of his pen, torn to pieces by illiterate thugs? It’s complicated. And although in principle we know that all men are equal in the eyes of the law, just as we did for Michael Jackson during his child molestation trials, I have a hunch that many people tend to feel (and uncomfortably so) a little sympathy for the Devil under such circumstances.”

    Only very few people saw through the trick and left the following comments (all the rest are praise and admiration – 388 likes):

    – There seems to be an attempt here to justify old freaks taking advantage of kids, because supposedly some kids “aren’t so innocent.” More and more I find Mr. Bering to be a creepy and warped individual!

    Actually, I’ve always thought Oscar Wilde was a total pervert and basically the patron saint of today’s perverts. I could care less about “celebrities”. I think anyone engaging in something as disgusting as sexual gratification through kids is a criminal and a very sick minded individual. But people that engage in using young people for their sexual pleasure- or at the least wish they could but don’t go that far because of fear of consequences if they were caught, love this kind of moral equivocation, where they can work to lower the ages to legally perform their pedophilia.

    Mr. Bering often talks of children in a way that makes me feel very uncomfortable. Of course, most of the time his stuff is just boring drivel that is usually quasi-scientific and would seem more appropriate in something like “National Inquirer” and not “Scientific American.”

    – This article assumes Michael Jackson’s attraction to boys and children was sexual. Of the thousands of children who stayed over at Neverland only two made such accusations and both have been exposed as frauds. Some have suggested Michael sought a belated by seeking acceptance of boys especially as peers. Neverland was built for children and parental permission always obtained. All say nothing happened.

    Like

  6. October 24, 2012 4:00 pm

    Aldebaranredstar, sorry for the mix-up re author. On the regular net, if you just put Seth Clark Silberman you will have several posts on him. He no longer is that “academic”.
    Also, re typos, I got to the habit of writing fast ,as sometimes the comment disappeared in the middle of writing. Helena has been correcting for me. I didn´t know it was she until she told me. I am lousy at typing, had my reports dictated usually.

    Like

  7. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 24, 2012 7:43 am

    Kaarin22, I went to Salon and read the article you refer to, but the writer is Farhod Manjoo, not Seth Clark Silberman. It is truly an awful, prejudiced piece of crap. For example, it can’t even get facts right. The writer says Michael has an “odd racial status”–what’s odd about it? incredible crap.

    http://www.salon.com/2005/03/26/jacko_4/

    I saw you wrote a comment on the dancingwiththeelephant website in response to my comment on Jordan’s drawing. Thanks for your response, but my comment was on this website, not that one.

    I think the drawing is not a suicide drawing at all. The one who is saying “NO!” may be Jordan himself, and the darker figure I think is Evan, who is throwing others off the roof in anger. It shows Jordan’s awareness of the threat to human life in what Evan was doing–which Evan did not understand fully. Although his recorded phone call is full of hate and aggression, I don’t think he foresaw how awful it would all end up. He unleashed his id, his will to power, his greed, his violence, that’s for sure.

    It’s amazing that the Salon writer didn’t look at Evan’s statements. If they don’t scream extortion I don’t know what would (‘if I don’t get what I want’ etc etc). I hate how that writer and others assume Michael was guilty in 93 b/c of the settlement. Yet any one else who settles is not guilty, of course!

    Like

  8. October 24, 2012 3:50 am

    Don´t forget Seth Clark Silberman, who gave lectures at Yale about Michael Jackson.
    Ridicuos in view of of what is known today. He had an article in.Salon.com,The man in America’s mirror.An expert!?!?

    Like

  9. Truth Prevail permalink
    December 16, 2011 6:50 pm

    right so by the looks of things that sick peadofile was trying to use michael as the poster boy for ped-lia still wondering if anyone in michael’s family knew about it and if the estate was aware of it and what it was doing. And i agree it doesent deserve a rebuttle article because it would just bring attention to it and the fact that vindicatemj said their isnt anything knew in it about the chandler case the same BS we have already heard.

    Like

  10. December 16, 2011 3:11 am

    “And when I do read it, I probably will NOT post a rebuttal, because by doing so I’ll only be giving the book more publicity”.

    Oh David, please don’t! I did have a chance to read the whole chapter devoted to Jordan Chandler when it was available on line and did not find a single new fact to really talk of. It was a simple collection of everything tabloids ever said about that case.

    And there is even an explanation to it. As far as I know Thomas O’Carroll was writing the book while serving a term in prison (for possessing child pornography). So all the sources he had were tabloids whose lies he meticulously registered one after another in his manuscript.

    The book is a waste of time from the factual point of view and is a terrible menace to the public as it is heavily spreading pedophilia infection all around it.

    Like

  11. sanemjfan permalink
    December 16, 2011 2:59 am

    @ Helena and Truth Prevail

    Yes, I bought Carl Toms’ book, and it’s literally collecting dust in my closet right now! It is so far on the backburner that I may not get to read it until late 2013! As everyone knows, I’m gonna start summarizing each person’s testimony from the trial, and there were a total of 66 days of court. I hope to summarize between 4 to 6 days each month once I get started, and it’s gonna take at least a year to finish (maybe longer). So I don’t plan on even touching that book until I’m finished with the trial!

    And when I do read it, I probably will NOT post a rebuttal, because by doing so I’ll only be giving the book more publicity. The only people who even know that it exists are the fans who fought so hard to have it banned!

    Like

  12. December 16, 2011 1:48 am

    “what is it actually about seriously i would appreciate if someone explained it to me thanks.”

    I think that David had the misfortune to read it, so he will probably share with you his first-hand impressions. I could assess the book only by what Amazon said about it, by some chapters I read online and the words of those pedophile-oriented professors who actually recommended the book for “family reading”.

    The book is dangerous and is not so much for Michael – because it is based solely on tabloid materials, nothing new there at all (I had a chance to read a part about Jordan Chandler when it was displayed online. It was!).

    It is mostly dangerous for the general public as it aims to break the natural barrier all normal people feel towards pedophilia. Their idea is that it is another of those “norms”, that it is “also love” and “it is beautiful”.

    Here are a couple of posts about the book:

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/carl-toms-new-stage-o-hatred-for-michael-jackson/

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/carl-toms-book/

    Like

  13. Truth Prevail permalink
    December 16, 2011 1:22 am

    you know this carl tom book that was gonna be released did anyone in his family ever talk about it against it what is it actually about seriously i would appreciate if someone explained it to me thanks.

    Like

  14. lynande51 permalink
    September 18, 2011 9:33 pm

    I think I’ll probably get some heat for this one but when it comes to Jermaines knowledge of propofol,even if he has researched it, it is hard to grasp or to understand what an anesthetic is. At least for people outside the medical field. Propfol and anesthetics as a whole are difficult for people to understand without that training. This drug is not Pharmacology 101 it is adavanced specialised pharmacology. Even though it is used in ICU settings even the people that adminster them are not as advanced as an Anesthesiologist or even a Nurse Anesthetist. But let me tell you this. When I found the comment from Dr. Freidberg that said that Murray had mainlining this anesthesia into his patients veins for cardioversions it told me that Murray was a careless man, never mind the Doctor part. He just thinks he is above the rules. That shows that he knew what he was doing to Michael when he was doing it.And that includes everthing that he was doing wrong.
    Harvey Levin with his hooked finger gestures into his antecubital region ( inside of the elbow) during the TMZ with Nancy Grace, used for dramatic effect I am sure,was his demonstration of what mainlining is.I know, or at least I think I do, that nearly everyone knows what it is like to have a blood draw. The lab tech comes up puts a big rubber band around your arm which stops the flow of blood. Next they insert a needle with a big Plastic tube into the vein and let the rubber band loose. When the rubber band is let loose the blood flow to the vein starts and the blood then flows into the plastic tube. Mainlining would be that in reverse. Instead of taking blood out you would be putting a drug in. That is not however the way that it was being administered to Michael.
    Murray told the police that he was giving Michael 50 mg of propfol per night for several weeks via IV drip. I have said repeatedly that is not even possible. Propofol is in a fat emulsified solution. That means that the drug itself is titrated into a liquid so it can be adminstered safely. It is a milligrams per milliter measurement. Propofol is 10 milligrams per milliter. It is the amount of milligrams that matter not the amount of liquid that it is in when it comes to the effects of propofol. Because this is percentage math.
    So a one percent solution is 10 mg per milliter propofol per liquid.It looks like this on the vial 10mg/ml. If Murray was giving him 50 mg of propofol he was only giving him 5 ml. That is the equivilent of a teaspoon. 50 mg is nothing. A teaspoon of this liquid would be so dispersed throughout the tubing that it would have no effect whatsoever when it hit Michaels brain because the IV saline lock was in his popliteal fossa or behind his knee. That was not Murray’s first lie though.
    His first lie was when he called Alberto Alverez upstairs and told him Michael had had a reaction. Right there the first time he interacted with anyone was a lie. Why because if you have a reaction to a medication especially an anesthetic it is the first time it is given not the 5 hundreth time.Which is now the defenses story.
    Next even though Michael is not breathing and has no pulse he should stop and clean up the scene gathering up his equipment and all of those empty vials hastily putting them into a bag for God knows what reason. And Harvey the next time you clean up your murder scene let me know if you get everything when you are in a hurry,you are a doctor and there is now someone in that room with you wondering why you haven’t started CPR on this persons lifeless body. You can say that something was found in plain view under a nightstand but how do we know it wasn’t dropped when he was attempting to pick them up. Because according to Alberto’s pretrial testimony Murray had a couple of handfuls plus singles of empty vials he was putting into a bag. One could easily have fallen down and rolled under a nightstand.Especially when you are in a hurry because for the first time in your whole life you realized that you were not going to get way with this one. This one was going to be a problem. He was scared because he knew he had done something really wrong and was going to get caught.
    Then there is the IV apparatus that he has hanging. Alberto Alverez said that there was a bottle of white milk like liquid in a cut open empty bag of IV solution. There was another IV bag hanging with clear liquid most likely Normal Saline.The first thing I would like explained is how he got an IV tubing spike into a vial of propofol?But then Harvey you don’t know what I am talking about so you? I sure would like a look at how he got that fluid out of there I really would.
    When they tested that long tubing there was no propofol found in it. Propofol was found in the short tubing that the long tubing was attached to. Then there is a 10cc luer lock syringe attached to that with Propofol, lidocaine and Anexate in it. Anexate is a benzodiazepine angonist meaning it reverses the respiratory effects of the benzodiazepines when a person has taken or been given too much. My first question on that is why would you mix a drug in a syringe with other drugs that would render it useless. That means that the Anexate would not work because the propofol would stop it’s action. Next why would you have that all set up if you thought that everything you had done was okay? Why try to stop the effects of a drug you are now claiming you did not give too much of?Why take the time to administer a drug to help reverse something that was not happening according to your current claims?
    Then there was the whole giving it to himself theory that you like to claim you have so much knowldge of but the law in California lets you say anything without revealing a source. Like I said that IV was found behind his knee. In the 2 minutes that he claims he left him unattended Michael was supposed to sit up, (because Murray claims on that morning that 25 mg or half a teaspoon worked and put him to sleep) draw up more propofol into a syringe with a needle,a lot more, remove the needle and place it into the luer port,lay back down on his back and reach down and push that propofol in and die from it.Does anyone see my point?
    The autopsy report has a total of 4 other injection points on Michael’s body. Not seeing them I of course can’t see how old they are. It depends entirely on the condition of the surrounding tissue or in other words the color of the bruise. For all we know they were put there by Murray in his attempts to access a vein that night or the night before. For that matter the EMT’s might have attempted them. Nothing in the scene or on the body would even begin to indicate that he gave it to himself.
    Drinking it is the most ludicrous theory ever. Like I said Michael would have had to sit up. Draw up a ridiculous amount of propofol and squirt it into a cup and then drink about 2 liters of the stuff just to make himself throw up which is the most likely effect of that scenario.
    Harvey you keep on saying to Nancy Grace throughout that interview “yeah but” and you talk about all the doctors in California that enable addicts and you would like to see some of that stopped and in the same breath you propagate the most recent and popular Murray myth in an attempt to do what exactly help him get away with what you say doctors should not get away with. I never in my life thought I would say this but this time I’m on Nancy Grace’s side and I almost choked on that one. LOL. Nancy I owe you one crow sandwich. I agree that we should wait to hear the testimony and see the evidence before we start pointing at Michael Jackson as his own killer because that just does not make any sense.
    Now what I think would make a really interesting show is to go find a nurse, any nurse will do, to show you what an IV gravity drip looks like. A saline lock. A vial of anything will do just to show you what a vial looks like and help you with the math so you and your viewers have a better understanding of what it is you are talking about.

    Like

  15. lcpledwards permalink
    September 18, 2011 8:06 pm

    @ Carm
    Thanks for that link! That is actually an excerpt from “The Veritas Project”, and you can read it in its entirety on this blog. The link to it is on the top of this page, and the link to the original version is on the blog roll.

    Like

  16. Carm permalink
    September 18, 2011 7:11 pm

    David, I’m so glad you’ll have a post rebutting DD’s comments. There is an article which I love–the author gives a psychological explanation for Dimond’s behaviour, with examples. I’m sure some of you have read it, it’s not new.

    Here’s a quote:
    “Cognitive dissonance rears its head in Dimond’s psyche in her own inability to recognize her assumptions about Jackson. For instance, she comments that “I’ve learned a lot that I’ve put on the air and learned a lot that I could never put on the air because I couldn’t substantiate it,” she said. “But I’m going to keep my opinion to myself.”

    (Wikipedia’s definition of cognitive dissonance: Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions. Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying.)

    http://surftofind.com/seminal3

    Like

  17. Teva permalink
    September 18, 2011 3:33 pm

    …and another thing. Jermaine told Peirs research propofol extensively for his book, but he thinks it is an anesthetic, sleep-aid and pain killer – an all in one drug.

    Like

  18. shelly permalink
    September 18, 2011 12:30 pm

    That prologue, the part with the vitiligo, shows how much Jermaine knew about MJ. He discovered the true extent of MJ’s condition in 2005.

    Like

  19. lcpledwards permalink
    September 18, 2011 11:06 am

    Guys, I just transcribed the segment from In Session where she alleged to have spoken to those boys who were “too afraid” to press charges, and I will be making a post out of it in order to effectively rebut it. There’s so much that I have to say! So look for it within the next day or two! You won’t be disappointed! This will be a great addition to the “Fact Checking” category!

    @ Shelly
    You made an excellent point! If there was any truth to what Dimond said about speaking with the FAMILIES of the boys who were “too afraid” to press charges, Sneddon could have subpoenaed them, even if he couldn’t subpoena the actual “victim”.

    @ Susan
    I think you’re right! This is probably the show that Joe Vogel was bumped from at the last minute! It’s too bad, because he would have been a great contributor to the segments about MJ’s musical legacy and cultural impact, although I’m not sure how knowledgeable he is about the allegations. If his doesn’t have a razor sharp knowledge of the allegations, then he would have been just as worthless as the other 3 panelists! And I don’t mean to sound too harsh, but when you read the entire transcript, you’ll see what I mean! A skeptic who had doubts about Mj’s innocence would STILL have doubts after watching it! In fact, they’d be more likely to think he’s guilty, due to Dimond’s clever way of insinuating MJ’s guilt!

    For example, Steve Manning actually ASKED Dimond if it was true that Jordan recanted and posted it on the internet, and of course Dimond rightfully denied it! Also, she said that Evan Chandler killed himself due to his cancer, and not due to guilt, and Manning replied by saying that he wished Dimond could have visited Neverland and see what a beautiful place for families! I KID YOU NOT!!!

    Stay tuned guys, it’s coming!

    Like

  20. Suzy permalink
    September 18, 2011 8:59 am

    I bet when she talks about other boys she talks about the likes of Daniel Kapon – whom not even the prosecution or the FBI considered credible with their crazy stories. And Dimond knows damn well they are not credible at all, yet she continues to refer to them, just to boost her number of boys. Or she includes boys in his numbers who flat out denied any molestation. Just like the prosecution did in 2005. Just like she did when she teamed up with Gutierrez and claimed Michael molested his nephew, Jeremy.

    Don’t forget that when Michael’s FBI files came out and there was nothing in them, Dimond claimed the FBI are covering for MJ! That’s how delusional she is. She doesn’t let herself get bothered by facts.

    Dimond made a career of torturing an innocent man and lying about him, so it’s not surprising she will never admit she was wrong. She will never admit that her buddy and “source” Victor Gutierrez is the real p-le and she was basically supporting the p-le agenda all along!

    @ Ares

    Dimond’s obsession with MJ is unhealthy and if she really thinks he was a p-le why does she puts his pictures on her wall? Or remember the underwear she triumphantly dangled around live on CNN? What’s wrong with this woman? It does seem like a sick kind of obsession.

    Like

  21. shelly permalink
    September 18, 2011 2:25 am

    nv89436Mrs Stephens

    @DiDimond-always think of MJ coverage when I see you. Do you think he was guilty as charged or innocent or something in between?

    15 Sep

    en réponse à ↑

    @DiDimondDiane Dimond

    @nv89436 he was found not guilty in a court of law . That’s what matters

    lol

    Like

  22. ares permalink
    September 18, 2011 2:16 am

    Diane Dimond needs a good ass whoopin to finally come to her sences. By the way,and even by imaging it i get disgusted ,but i think that the woman’s obsession with MJ is due to the feelings tha she has for him. I mean in a romantic way. I had seen this picture of hers and in the backround there was a frame with three photos of MJ and i have heard that she ones bought a white fedora owned by MJ.The woman is a nut job i tell you. I believe that she throws this venom towards Mike because she is trying to hide the feelings that she has for him. God knows what she is secretly doing with that hat. Bliah!!! Poor Mike, even now he can’t escape from that stalker. Diane is a Dirty Diane.

    Like

  23. shelly permalink
    September 18, 2011 2:03 am

    What I like about her statement is she never explained why Sneddon never subpoaned the parents. You can’t forced a sexual abuse victim to testify but you can force his family members. Why use the Neverland Five to testify they saw him molesting boys, who denied it, when he had the family members of real abuse victims?

    Like

  24. lynande51 permalink
    September 18, 2011 1:38 am

    I heard portions but have not seen that program. I was provided a link for it but I can not get it to work. Diane Dimond knows full well that the document says a Total of $15,331,250.00 it does not say and in addition to the above. Total means total in a settlement document it has to. But once Diane, with her love of gardening, plants that settlement in her garden it just continues to grow and grow and grow because of all her masterful fertilizing. Well we all know what makes the best fertilizer don’t we?
    In 2004 when she first released it to the public they added a note to the watermarked Court TV version released online. It ommitted the all so important paragraph three in it’s entirety. It seems that she and her editors decided that it would be to difficult for the masses to understand so she would just tell us what it said and explain it for us. The trouble is it is not as easy to understand when paragraph three is refered to throughout the rest of the document.That is where it lays out the important details of who pays what to who and when and how. She knows what it said but she isn’t going to let anyone else see it to make up their own mind. I just wonder how it grew from15.3 million in 1994 to 20 million in 2005 to now 30 million in 2011 doesn’t anybody else.
    The same with the afraid of notion. What are they afraid of now? The Michael Jackson version of a mafioso? They are gone or went away when he died so where are they now? No where because that just like the settlement amount has been fertilized to include everyone from her version of Michael Jackson’s own elite team of special forces to all of us mad and crazy MJ fans. Who exactly are they afraid of now?
    She does not go on shows to give any kind of expert opinion. How could she? She does not have one. The reason that she goes on these shows and continues to not just report the settlement but to fabricate additional money that was not paid is to get the attention of Michael Jackson fans. Diane this was a legal document if there had been more paid it would have had to be on there somewhere. Now my conclusion is that she knows what it said but it does not say what she wants it to say, which is why she will not show it.After everything else do we now think that if it said any more than what it does she wouldn’t be forcing it down our throats.
    Another reason she says stuff like this is to get a rise out of Michael Jackson fans so she can fan the flames of her mad and crazy and threatening portrait of what we are. I say don’t bother. She will never change. She will never be truthful.So don’t Twitter her, email her, comment to her blog or articles or offer any attention to her at all. She gets money for that. Instead just calmly leave a link to this site because this is where you can find the truth.

    Like

  25. Susan permalink
    September 18, 2011 1:08 am

    In case anyone is interested, Jermaine will be on “The View” on Monday, September 19th.

    Joy Behar ……. need I say more?

    For once, I wish when they bring up the ’93 allegations, Jermaine would not fall into their trap of the way they use the word “payoff”. It was a civil suit settlement, so why is that so hard to understand?

    In Session had their program on Friday September 16th discussing Michael. I think this may have been the program that Joe Vogel was originally intended to be on. Diane Dimond was on spreading her usual B.S. She flat out stated Michael paid $30 Million. Apparently fact checking is not their strong suit as they all just sat there and pretty much accepted what she had to say. They also had on MJ friend Steve Manning, Anthony DeCurtis, a long time Rolling Stone journalist, and one of MJ’s former bodyguards, whose name escapes me. Dimond said that families “delivered” boys to MJ – like a pizza, I guess. She says she has sat down with many boys and their families who he has been inappropriate with – but each and every one would not come forward because they are —- afraid! All information from Dimond was provided by —- her sources!! (the ones in her head). The bodyguard tried to say what a wonderful guy MJ was, would not do such things, etc. etc. but Diane says that’s the way p…s are, they are charming, manipulative – the nicest guys in the world! The host of the show, Ryan Smith, said MJ’s children are so beautifully brought up, sweet kids and it’s hard to believe that anyone who would have kids like that doesn’t seem like the type of person who would do such things to children. Dimond said, well p …. s usually don’t go after their own. Then she qualifies everything by saying “I don’t know if Michael was a p..e”. Dimond has an answer for everything – as long as it makes MJ guilty. I could not watch much more as it truly made my stomach upset.

    Like

  26. Julie permalink
    September 17, 2011 10:36 pm

    If you read the prologue, Jermaine explains in more detail about “his” plan and “his” thought to do this and he says clearly that if Mesereau had ever indicated the the tide was turning in the prosecution’s favor, he wanted to act on it. But, he said that Mesereau always felt that the way things were going – it was going to work out in Michael’s favor. I think Jermaine is just feeling what any one of us would feel if our loved one was being crucified for something they didn’t do. It didn’t happen so it’s just something he wrote about regarding how he was feeling. The rest of it talks about how the trial was killing Michael and what Michael was going through. It’s a good read and also heartbreaking at the same time. Michael had to endure so much and it was so unbelievably unfair!

    Like

  27. lynande51 permalink
    September 17, 2011 10:34 pm

    I don’t know how he would have thought he could get around the passport problem. It was confiscated on the day he was arrested and was not returned to him until June 17th,2005. He could not have entered another country without it. Here is the other part that people don’t realize is that a few weeks after he was arrested Michael was scheduled to be in England on business for his newly rleased CD Number Ones. The court allowed Michael to retrieve his passport for those days and return it when he came back. He did all of that. If he had wanted to leave and run from those charges that would have been the time to do it. He had his passport and could have taken off from London to Bahrain or countless other countries that would have welcomed him with open arms. That is what a guilty man does.That is someone afraid of the system and justice. Why would he have gone through the entire trial and wait for days for a verdict and then with who knows what ability leave the country? He walked into the Santa Maria Courthouse on June 13th 2005 to hear what that jury had to say to him. Those are not the actions of a guilty man or even a man that was afraid of what he was going to hear. Those are the actions of an innocent man. Michael believed in the Jury, His Attorneys,the American system of justuce and his innocence. That is why he walked into that courthouse on that day but for some reason that completely escapes everyone in the media.

    Like

  28. Julie permalink
    September 17, 2011 10:30 pm

    While I agree that the Jacksons have a terrible time explaining anything. Please read this: It’s the Prologue from his book and it is so sad.

    Like

  29. lcpledwards permalink
    September 17, 2011 9:47 pm

    Thanks a lot Jermaine! Here’s an article describing what could have happened if Jermaine really tried to put his “plan” into action! http://www.eonline.com/news/ask_the_answer_bitch/do_all_stars_have_secret_plans_flee/263796

    Like

  30. September 17, 2011 10:21 am

    Regardless of people’s opinions about Jermaine, and I share many of them, I highly recommend reading his book, not for Jermaine’s benefit, but for Michael’s. He provides some great insight into his childhood especially and it does seem as though he’s had personal contact with Joy. It’s much more articulate in explaining Mike than Jermaine has ever been on TV.

    Like

  31. lcpledwards permalink
    September 17, 2011 3:46 am

    @ Ares and Carm
    Yes, I agree with the both of you! I couldn’t believe that Jermaine missed a golden opportunity to clear up the sleepover misconceptions. And by saying that “people all over the world do it” doesn’t properly explain it! He still leaves impressionable viewers with the impression that MJ forced kids to spoon or cuddle with him without their parent’s permission!

    I can’t honestly say that I’m surprised though, because my expectations for him and the rest of the family are so low that there isn’t much more that they can do to disappoint me. Let’s look at what Latoya had to say about it in March 2003: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/04/lkl.00.html

    KING: Did you watch the special done by that Londerner, Mr. Bashir, on your brother?

    L. JACKSON: Yes, I did. KING: What did you think?

    L. JACKSON: I thought he was very unfair to him. I thought he was manipulated. And I feel bad because he poured his heart out to him and when you do that and you share your privacy and life with someone and you put trust in them and then they turn around and you do this to you, it hurts. And I understand his feelings.

    KING: He agreed to be taped and if they tape you they can edit you.

    L. JACKSON: Yes, of course. You’re absolutely right.

    KING: What about the sleeping with young boys? How does he explain it to you, how do you explain it to yourself?

    L. JACKSON: Michael addressed that to the public on television and I think that no one can consider that question but Michael and he addressed it to the public and I think that’s the way it should be.

    KING: Did it satisfy you?

    L. JACKSON: That’s totally up to him. I understand and I know him.

    KING: I mean, but — did was his reasoning…

    L. JACKSON: Yes. Yes.

    KING: … acceptable to you.

    L. JACKSON: Yes, it was. And I think it was fair for him to address it to the public to let them know what he felt and what he thought.

    Like

  32. ares permalink
    September 17, 2011 3:01 am

    Did Jermain’s attitude surprised you?After the “escape plan” story? Tell me, from all those people “close to MJ” who have talked publicly about him up until now, who has given the best explanation why MJ was around children and had sleepovers and about the allegations? Was it his sister, was it his other sister,the beloved Latoya,was it Jermain, Katherine, Lisa Marie, who? No one. I don’t expect anything from them anymore because they have made their intention regarding MJ very clear. If it won’t bring them money, they won’t bother with it. But i think that they don’t understand that if MJ’s legacy is not cleared up, they won’t be making the money that they dream. That is something that their inteligence, or the lack of it, can’t comprehend.

    I really hope,especially now with the trial, that only people like Tom Mesereau get to publicly talk about MJ. Otherwise i predict a circus round 2. And it’s Mike’s name that will pay the price one’s again.

    Like

  33. Carm permalink
    September 17, 2011 1:49 am

    “He of course stumbled about the sleepovers”. You’re being too kind, Lylande.
    I didn’t watch the interview (I only have a basic subscription). However I went to the piersmorgan.tv website and watched the section about Michael sharing his bed with kids. I was livid. Jermaine had a golden opportunity to educate the public regarding the sleepovers and he completely blew it. When Piers Morgan asked him what a 44 yr. old man was doing in bed with boys all Jermaine could come up with was “that happens all over the world” (of course cynical viewers are asking themselves “WHAT happens?”). And he didn’t correct Morgan when he said that MJ was in bed alone with a 12 yr. old (of course he is referring to MJ’s accuser Gavin, who, as we know was never alone in bed with Michael) What the hell is wrong with that family?? Couldn’t he explain it better than that? Don’t the Jacksons realize that if the facts aren’t made clear in this regard the public will never respect MJ or will always view him as psychologically “damaged”. If I hadn’t done the research I have done since Michael’s passing (thanks in great part to the AMAZING investigative work by the Vindicatemj team) I would have been left with this image of a weird guy taking boys, alone, into his bed, Thanks but no thanks Jermaine.

    Like

  34. shelly permalink
    September 16, 2011 10:52 am

    Yes, please.

    Like

  35. lynande51 permalink
    September 16, 2011 9:57 am

    What I did was scan them in as photos so I could use my photo program to enlarge them and clear them up. That way I was able to read those documents. If you want me to I can do it again and then email them to you. Those pages are full of information. It has the letter that was written to Gloria Alred when they fired her and a office memorandum where they explore Evans options to sue Michael independantly from Jordan. It has one that is a bank statement with an ending balance of 3 million and change which is a far cry from the 20 million that everybody thinks it was. Oh and let’s not forget the pages of the “timeline” or outline for their book. Another interesting one is that scrap of paper from Evan and Natalie’s divorce where she gets half the money but if you read above that it says that she can’t make any money from a book only he can. He also has a photo of Orietta Murdoch in there too. Then that weird thing that he says is actually a close up photo of Michael’s eye to show he is really black and just bleaching his skin. What it really looks like is one of the chimps from Neverland went after him or he accidently hit the shutter when he was taking a picture of it. Just let me know if you want them as photos so you can use your photo program. I don’t use photo shop I use Roxio or just my Windows Paint.

    Like

  36. shelly permalink
    September 16, 2011 9:39 am

    @lynande,

    They were downloadable but the quality is very low so I didn’t recognized the chandelier.

    Like

  37. lynande51 permalink
    September 16, 2011 9:38 am

    Oh yeah or at least he asked her to take him there. He probably had a real good look around too. No wonder his descriptions of things were accurate. the thing is though he blew that secret room all out of proportion. It was there when he moved in and it was never large enough to do any of the things he suggested. Remember that he also said there was a secret bar that could be hidden away that the kids were allowed to drink and run around naked.He sure did have a twisted imagination that guy

    Like

  38. Suzy permalink
    September 16, 2011 9:14 am

    @ Lynette

    “There is one in there of VG with Blanca Francia and if you look closely at the photo you can make out a chandelier in the background that greatly resembles the chandeliers in Neverland dining room.”

    So do you think VG was invited to Neverland by Blanca Francia while Michael wasn’t there? It’s horrible to think this monster was let in to Neverland!

    Like

  39. lynande51 permalink
    September 16, 2011 8:47 am

    I did read the few pages that were posted on the ABC site. The pages that I read there were delightful and nostalgic. If you read nothing else in the book those pages will give you the deepest understanding of the orgins of the man he became. That said Jermaine does not know the difference between what an anesthesia is and a pain killer or a sleep aid is. Neither does Piers Morgan. That part was hard to watch because my knowledge is a part of me. He of course stumbled about the sleepovers. He should have said ” he had a 2 bedroom bedroom, he slept on the floor, the kids slept on the bed but of course that was not the question he was asked once again. Once again it was why did he have kids in his bed. I think they need to listen more closely when they are asked that question so theycan answer it accurately. I think I will buy the kindle version.

    Like

  40. lcpledwards permalink
    September 16, 2011 7:53 am

    Speaking of Jermaine, here is an interesting article on him. The title speaks for itself!

    “Why MJ fans can’t take Jermaine Jackson seriously”

    http://www.thegrio.com/entertainment/why-mj-fans-cant-take-jermaine-jackson-seriously.php

    Like

  41. lynande51 permalink
    September 16, 2011 7:31 am

    I am sure some of you may have seen these two photos of the Arvizos before but I have not so I will leave a link to the site where I found them.
    http://www.mjjfiles.com/page.php?info_id=4

    Like

  42. Teva permalink
    September 16, 2011 4:55 am

    BTW Jermaine is being interviewed by Piers Morgan in 5 minutes on CNN.

    Like

  43. Teva permalink
    September 16, 2011 4:54 am

    @Rock

    I asked him on Twitter about an hour ago, but I have not received a response yet. Thank you for the information.

    Like

  44. September 16, 2011 4:28 am

    And re: the other families, he does discuss brief pieces of info about all of them in his book, but it’s only specifically Joy that he thanks.

    Someone should ask him on twitter.

    Like

  45. September 16, 2011 4:27 am

    @Teva

    It comes across from reading it that he’s had contact with Joy. He goes into more detail about the Robson’s and Joy than any of the other kids and families mentioned.

    He thanks a lot of the direct sources he used for the book, like Harrison Funk whose photos he’s used and who’s stories he relates on his behalf, Hazel his ex-wife who seemed to help with stories, the specific siblings who helped with his memories (everyone except Toya and Jackie), and he doesn’t thank the Cascio’s, the Barnes, Culkin’s, or any of the other families, but in that specific section for thanking people who’ve helped he thanks Joy.

    He doesn’t mention Jordan’s retraction in the book, does mention Evan’s suicide and how TMez had witnesses lined up to say Jordan had told them he lied

    Like

  46. Teva permalink
    September 16, 2011 4:10 am

    I agree with what Shelly is saying. If the family knew nothing about the Casios how can I know for sure Jermaine knew Joy? I am really curious what is the source of this piece of information from Jermaine. Secondly on the fansite the excerpt was taken from a fan relayed how Jermaine in a recent ITV interview spoke about Jordan’s retraction letter after MJ died. We know that letter was fake, so why doesn’t JJ know? The devil is in the details, so I think it is important to verify the source. If he thanks Joy at the back of the book, then great.

    Like

  47. lynande51 permalink
    September 16, 2011 3:42 am

    The important part is what we can draw from this. VG contacted Joy in the summer of 1992 at which time she alerted MJ’s security. Now Shelly I don’t know if the photos that were included in VG’s book were downloadable for you or not. There is one in there of VG with Blanca Francia and if you look closely at the photo you can make out a chandelier in the background that greatly resembles the chandeliers in Neverland dining room. She left Neverland in May of 1991 when Adrian McManus took over her job of cleaning MJ’s bedroom.Now it seems to me that with this information it can be concluded that he was in fact the one that approached people with the idea of MJ being a P*** not the other way around. It also proves that what he says in his book is mostly fabricated because in his version Joy offers him support in what she says but the truth was she saw the lie and the concern that she had was evident and she alerted his security.

    Like

  48. shelly permalink
    September 16, 2011 3:13 am

    Both of you are probably right, but I don’t trust Jermaine. That story is on Internet for years now.

    Like

  49. September 16, 2011 2:55 am

    Yup, Jermaine says Joy was contacted by VG in the summer of 1992.

    That’s crazy…

    Shelly, Jermaine thanks Joy Robson specifically at the end of the book in the list of people he seems to have actually contacted over the book. You can always ask him on twitter too if he spoke to Joy.

    Like

  50. lynande51 permalink
    September 16, 2011 2:37 am

    @shelly during the trial the family was often in the room when the trial was discussed and of course the family would have had contact with Joy before as well.

    Like

  51. shelly permalink
    September 16, 2011 1:04 am

    How did Jermaine knew that?

    Like

  52. lynande51 permalink
    September 16, 2011 12:47 am

    @ suzy Spot on. So it would not be very hard to believe that guy went to Evan with his P** propaganda and convinced not only his sick bi polar mind but also his greed was stimulated. I wonder why people do not see that this guy was actually stalking MJ and stalkers always have their own agenda.

    Like

  53. Suzy permalink
    September 15, 2011 10:30 pm

    @ Lynette

    I don’t know if Jermaine elaborated more. I ask the person who reads it.

    “he was probably the useful tool that was used by Evan Chandler”

    I think it was VG who was using people for his agenda before anybody else using him. I firmly believe Evan didn’t came up alone with the idea of accusing Michael exactly with p-lia. Someone planted that thought in his mind. The same person who attempted to plant it in Joy’s and probably other parent’s minds before. Only they weren’t buying it. However Evan with his sick, bipolar mind did.

    Like

  54. lynande51 permalink
    September 15, 2011 10:19 pm

    Fantastic, I wonder did Joy talk about that in her 2005 testimony. See we were right all along that guy started this whole thing and he was probably the useful tool that was used by Evan Chandler. It is possible that MJ’s management did not tell him about it depending on when he did it. Michael was on tour for the Dangerous tour in 1992 for the best part of that year. Did Jermain elaborate on that or is this the only excerpt that tells us anything?

    Like

  55. Suzy permalink
    September 15, 2011 9:15 pm

    Someone on MJJC is putting on a summary of Jermaine’s new book. Here is an interesting part:

    “1993 is the year everything changed with schemers, planners, plotters. Summer 1992 a journalist approaches Joy (Wade’s mother) and tells he’s investigating Michael for being a pedophile. Joy calls and tells it Michael’s management.”

    We all know who that “journalist” was, right? So according to Jermaine VG did approach Joy in 1992 and Joy told about it to Michael’s management. I guess he was too naive and didn’t believe this journalist would cause greater problems later.

    Like

  56. March 8, 2011 11:11 pm

    Helena that was a great find to say the least

    Like

  57. March 8, 2011 10:28 pm

    Guys, I’ve just updated the post about Victor Gutierrez and NAMBLA with information on TOTAL IMPOSSIBILITY for Victor Gutierrez to attend their congress in the capacity of a newspaper reporter. From the documents I’ve found it turns out that they function as a sort of a mafia organization with secrecy rules being simply unheard of. This is a story of a real FBI agent who infiltrated NAMBLA:

    “On July 31, 2001, FBI Agent Robert Hamer joined NAMBLA by sending a letter and a money order to an address listed on the organization’s Web site. Hamer joined NAMBLA using an alias and maintained his alias throughout his association with the group. He subsequently received a letter welcoming him to the organization and congratulating him on taking the “courageous step” of becoming a member”.

    So far it was fairly easy…

    “In the course of his research, Agent Hamer read a report about Peter Melzer, a NAMBLA leader who has been terminated from his teaching position in New York City in 2000. Agent Hamer would later learn from another member that Melzer sometimes went by “Peter Herman,” the name signed to his welcome letter”.

    So none of them go by their real names…

    “Agent Hamer remained an active member of the organization and would continue to renew his NAMBLA membership for the following three years. In 2001 and 2002, at the request of the organization, he sent holiday cards to incarcerated sex offenders. In 2002, wrote two articles for the Bulletin in an attempt to impress Melzer, though these articles were never published. He requested an invitation to NAMBLA’s 2002 conference but was denied because he had not been a member for a long enough period of time.”

    This is interesting… So despite writing letters to incarcerated sex offenders and articles for the Bulletin for approximately a year and a half, in autumn 2002 he was still denied the right to attend an annual conference? This right was granted to him only a year later or two years and a half after joining NAMBLA:

    “The next year, Agent Hamer was invited to the November 2003 conference in New York. He suspected that both Melzer and Joseph Power, a member of NAMBLA’s Sterring Committee, would be in attendance. Power, according to the FBI’s internal documents, was a registered sex offender and the subject of an active government investigation. Agent Hamer received permission to go undercover at the conference.”

    The word “suspected” attracted my attention. So he didn’t even know who else would be there as there were no leaflets, no programs and no names announced? Sure, there were none… Okay, here is the most interesting part:

    “The conference itself was not held in public. Attendees were told to say they were with the “Wallace Hamilton Press” and to be discreet. The meeting was held in a commercial building separate from the hotel where attendees stayed and was not advertised as a NAMBLA event. Agent Hamer wore a recording device and collected information about the members in attendance, and this information was sent to other FBI offices as a lead on potential criminal activity. None of the leads proved fruitful because in most cases Agent Hamer could provide only first names.”

    Well, the way the judge describes this conference NAMBLA should be nothing but a sort of a mafia where secrecy is adhered to in its ultimate form – no one knows other people’s real names, all pretend to be representing a publishing company, the name of the event is fictional, everyone goes by his first name only which may be his alias too and there are no bulletins, leaflets or any other signs showing the agenda of the meeting or names of the speakers.

    “On the evening of the conference, Agent Hamer met the defendant, David Mayer. During their casual conversation, Mayer said that he had been to Thailand several times and spoke about traveling to have sex with boys. Agent Hamer suggested that they form a travel group. Mayer responded with frustration that NAMBLA kept up pretenses of trying to change society when in fact its member only wanted to travel to meet boys.”

    “Mayer made a reservation for the trip through the FBI’s fake travel agency. Mayer and his co-defendants were promised “special friends” and asked about their “age preferences”. On February 11, 2005 Mayer flew with his two co-defendants to San Diego, where they were arrested.”

    Did you notice the vocabulary used? For example, “special friends”? It seems that Tom Sneddon and the prosecution studied the respective dictionaries to try and draw Michael into the orbit of these people via several words said by chance by some of Michael’s friends. Joy Robson did once mention the word “a special friend” and had to explain for hours at the 2005 trial that she didn’t mean anything bad by that and all the witnesses naturally had to testify on the word “family” which Michael so recklessly used for the Robson family, the Chandlers, the Cascios and many others. It seems he regarded as his family all people whom he considered good …

    The discussion of the rights of this criminal brought us some other details from Agent Hamer. For example, his reports from the conferences suggest that the conferences principally involved discussion of how to avoid detection by authorities rather than actual First Amendment-protected activity. … NAMBLA invited Agent Hamer to join its group, participate in its holiday card program, attend its conferences and participate in the privacy committee. He received access to other people, but no access to files or information… At the conference in 2003 members openly discussed past and future criminal conduct, as well as how to avoid detection – again.…

    Judging by all this secrecy of their activities and the main agenda of their conferences being how to escape detection, NAMBLA does indeed remind you of a mafia organization.

    This is why I see absolutely no possibility for Victor Gutierrez to attend their conference as a newspaper reporter as he claimed he did. Since when are newspaper reporters allowed to cover secret mafia assemblies?

    And look how much care is taken by them for their names not to be in any way associated with boys! Michael Jackson’s openness in admitting his adoration for children makes such a stark contrast with all of the above that this alone should send a clear signal to his detractors that his case is something totally different from what they think him to be.

    Knowing how these people really behave one would have to assume that either Michael was a complete madman to be so outspoken about his love for children, subject himself to a civil case in connection with it, go through a criminal trial for the same reason and still adhere to the same views. However knowing that he was no madman we’ll have to admit that the nature of his adoration for children must have been totally different.

    Children were Michael’s support and only source of inspiration. Breathing the air of their purity was necessary for the revival of his spirit and survival in the world of cynicism and dirt. He was capable to live and make his music only due to these small ones.

    It was no chance that he said it was his children who saved him and kept him going. Without them he was lost and all alone, and with them he knew he could pull through. They made him strong and willing to live…

    Like

  58. hana permalink
    March 7, 2011 1:57 pm

    The majority of Desiree’s sources are people like Diane Dimond, Victor Guiterezz, Maureen Orth, Bob Jones, The national enquierer, etc..She seriously believes these people have crediblity. I’ve read alot of her postings and I can point out at least 10 things that are incorrect. I laugh at some of the things she writes about, and it’s a shame that she has so many people misinformed with her fairytales.

    Like

  59. March 5, 2011 2:58 pm

    “Sorry if I upset anyone sharing these real abuse stories, it just angers me that anyone could try and use sexual abuse as a hobby…. I hear stories from the people who have to hear these stories about sex abuse first hand – people who can’t get these stories out of their heads. They’re haunted by the details, the way these children behaved, by how damaged these children were.”

    @Rockforeveron, I think we should refrain from telling all those loathsome details. The awful thing about stories of child abuse is that these images start haunting you and you definitely lose the innate purity of mind which is typical of a normal and healthy human being. In this respect I simply cannot imagine how Michael could cope with all this dirt for so many years – and told about him too – and nevertheless retain his purity of mind. He must have been a saint.

    When Michael’s fans refuse to read dreadful books by Victor Gutierrez and ilk they are actually right. It is better to stay away from them as far as it is only possible because the insanity of these books can easily contaminate your own mind. Details described and pictures portrayed there are something which will start haunting you and involuntarily rise in your mind when you least expect it.

    THIS IS the major problem of all those who have to do with writings of all these perverts – and not our “inability” to refute their lies! Lies can be very well dealt with when you see how ridiculous they are, but the damage done by those books is very difficult to cope with…

    Like

  60. March 5, 2011 2:34 pm

    “- She also went into detailed description about her fantasies of MJ having anal sex with Brett in one of her e-mails
    – There’s something very VERY fundamentally wrong there.”

    I’ve seen the e-mail sent by our adversary D. to poor David. It is the most revealing confession of a perverse mind which I’ve ever read. D. expresses so much pleasure and excitement over the lustful details of an alleged abuse of a boy by MJ that it settled the matter with D. for me once and for all.

    Firstly, this was absolutely no ‘female’ way of thinking because it contained details a woman never thinks of as she doesn’t know about them. You need to be a male to talk like that… This makes me sure that D. is not a girl.

    And secondly, the excitement D. fell into while describing all those details could not be mistaken for anything else – it is the excitement of someone who is thoroughly enjoying this process, even when only describing it.

    These guys seem to be so obsessed with their devilish desires that they can’t help themselves and need to talk about it again and again. This is probably why they are so keen on fantasizing about MJ – he is just a convenient pretext for them for exhibiting their own mind openly. It is some form of exhibitionism when mentally sick people feel compelled to expose their sexual organs in public – only over here they are compelled to expose their minds by describing the dreadful images of abuse they have in their heads.

    D. cannot be Victor Gutierrez because it is hard for VG to express himself in English. But D. can easily turn out to be Tom O’Carroll or someone else in his surrounding.

    Like

  61. March 5, 2011 1:53 pm

    “The 80s are interesting – 1985/6 specifically, when he was nicknamed Whacko Jacko”.

    Rockforeveron, yes, now that we know from Victor Gutierrez that he started his “investigation” of Michael in 1986 it seems we have to go back into the 80s too – to try and find out how it all began.

    Like

  62. March 5, 2011 1:49 pm

    “He even thanks them in his book?”
    Yes, here is the page:
    https://vindicatemj.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/authors-notes.jpg

    Suzy, Gutierrez also thanks DIANE DIMOND in his filth book for her TRUST in him.

    So SHE says he was her “best source” and HE thanks her for “trusting in him” – and this means that this couple admits they closely cooperated with each other, which is another proof of their alliance formed with the only goal of bringing Michael down!

    Quote from Gutierrez:
    “I also want to thank journalists and friends Lydia Boyle and Diane Dimond for trusting in me and guiding me through difficult times”.

    Like

  63. Suzy permalink
    March 5, 2011 10:28 am

    @ rockonforever

    Ah, it was always clear to me the Pfeiffer story was a lie. The story is almost funny. He and Klein couldn’t even get their facts right! The most revealing was watching him on Extra. His body langauage, the way he talked (lots of insecurity in his voice) was very telling.

    He said he was Michael’s soulmate (I guess he realized it would be difficult to sell that he loved him for his good looks, LOL), yet this alleged “soulmate” says things like “I ASSUMED he was bisexual”. Or “I think he would have approved of it (him going to tabloids with the story)”. If they were soulmates, how come he had to make assumptions about Michael’s sexuality, rather than knowing? And if they were soulmates how come he doesn’t know Michael hated nothing more than he hated tabloids! He would have approved of it. Yeah, right….

    Pfeiffer is only ever around Michael when Klein is around him. In those pictures of Xtmas 2008 in most of the pics they don’t even stand next to each other. Pfeiffer is on one side of the group and Michael is on the other. Seems like two people madly in love, LOL. And the only other scenarios you see them together is some of the photos about when Michael leaves Klein’s office (Pfeiffer was the CEO there). Like I said he only ever seems to be around him when Klein is near too. Judging by the looks of other ex-lovers of Klein (like Paul Gorahnson), to me it seems Pfeiffer is rather Klein’s type. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was his lover. And yeah, Klein is broke and tabloids pay for gay stories about Michael. We know that one of Michael’s cousins (Tim Whitehead) was once offered $100.000 to say Michael was gay. He refused, but it gives you an idea about what gay stories about Michael are worth for the tabloid media. Especially for someone like Alicia Jacobs, who is a big advocate for gay issues. Nothing wrong with that, however gay people and their friends (that applies to the likes of Ian Halperin as well) should realize that this type of behaviour won’t help their case. Lying, gossiping, making up stories about celebrities, paying off people to make up stories doesn’t make gays and their advocates look good, it makes them look desperate.

    Harvey Levin of TMZ revealed that Pfeiffer and Klein were shopping around with their story before they went to Extra. TMZ refused to report on it initially. You can imagine how “trustworthy” they felt the story was if even they refused to report it! (And I suspect they probably wanted money for the story.) Actually when Levin interviewed Klein about it later after the Extra show, you could feel he didn’t believe him. In fact, he even called him out on his claim Michael was openly gay and he would have approved of them doing this.

    Like

  64. March 5, 2011 9:47 am

    I’ve yet to encounter a story about a molested child who “enjoyed” it. The only encounters I come across are filled with shame and disgust and people who are, for want of a better word, very damaged by it. Problems in relationships, problems in identity, obviously problems with sexual identity.

    I’m not quite sure what could have been enjoyable in any of the sexual abuse supposedly propagated by MJ – he supposedly gave cancer children alcohol, threatened to kidnap parents in hot air balloons, threatened to send one to juvvy and to hurt their parents, threatened the children that the “other” ones were willing to do this so they should (all of this was coersion), and according to some people kept these children as sort of sex slaves for life, as some want to believe Frank and Omer were – if someone could direct me to the “loving” portion of this then I’d be very interested in reading it.

    Frank and Omer are dating two very beautiful women at the moment, btw. Wade has famously been linked with Britney Spears and is now married. Macaulay dated Mila Kunis for a dogs worth of Hollywood years. Jimmy Safechuck married at Neverland. Jordie has been dating Sonette since he knew Michael, right, that was the girl he spoke to his psychiatrist about at the end when he reported that he had no problems? Emmanuel Lewis hasn’t had any problems.

    BTW, what does this story have to do with Klein’s ex-boyfriend? (Is this the same guy who told that BS story about Michael’s balls being damaged and chronically inflamed because his father used to kick him there when he was a child?)

    Yes, Paul Gorahnson, said he was Klein’s ex boyfriend, sold two stories about these damaged testicles/Klein is the father nonsense. It was interesting tracking down all these paternity stories and Hoefflin vs Klein and Pfeiffer love story (which is hilarious in reading, I don’t know if anyone has posted the entire together in one place before) and very very very interesting tracking when Klein was both being investigated by the LAPD over MJ’s death and when his money problems began and when all these bizarre crazy stories from KLein started appearing….

    People need to learn that if they want to make money from Michael then they have offered themselves up for scrutiny. If the media are not prepared to investigate and fact check, then we have to.

    Just like the great work you guys have done with Victor and NAMBLA.

    Like

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

    That’s very disturbing rockonforever. Isn’t it strange that none of Michael’s alleged “victims” show symptoms like this? They seem to be unaffected. P-le advocates use this fact to say kids “liked the molestation” but we all know that’s BS p-le propaganda. You don’t get molested and remain totally healthy and unaffected – or even “enjoy it”. These kids were unaffected because no molestation ever happened. Period.

    BTW, what does this story have to do with Klein’s ex-boyfriend? (Is this the same guy who told that BS story about Michael’s balls being damaged and chronically inflamed because his father used to kick him there when he was a child?)

    Like

  66. March 5, 2011 8:43 am

    The first thing that was alarming to me about D. is that remake of “Jordan’s drawing” she did. What was the purpose of it? Why didn’t she just post the original drawing? Instead she spent time with remaking it AND adding more explicit details.

    Wow, I had no idea she even did that.

    Just wow…

    See, back then I would have assumed that was something else that made her possible to be someone like Victor, someone who at least has a reason to be invested in this case (you know, the fact that MJ sued the f#ck out of him), but for a stranger who’s never met him to feel this level of involvement, to try and draw and write stories about it? What could possibly motivate someone?

    She says she wants to be an author – what kind of author obsesses and tries to recreate these scenarios? This isn’t for any educational reasons, she writes about these things like the way I write about finding a last cookie in a jar – she’s got this gleeful excitement and pleasure about the IDEA of it. She believes children’s lives have been permanently scarred and she wants to write gleeful stories about their abuse? Does she not care about their own feelings about their supposed abuse? Does it not bother her that these are real people?

    And the details she added to the drawing were of fantasies about anal sex with Brett. She also went into detailed description about her fantasies of MJ having anal sex with Brett in one of her e-mails

    There’s something very VERY fundamentally wrong there.

    Okay, as someone who recently in the course of investigating something to do with Arnold Klein managed to trip up on some very disgusting actual recounting of child sexual abuse (by an ex boyfriend of Arnold Klein’s who’d sold stories about Michael) – I mean, reading about it made me feel intensely angry. I had to stop reading, come back to it after I’d calmed down.

    I sent my friends huge emails ranting about how disgusted I was. It was incredibly upsetting to read. And these were accounts by DCFS, very dry and direct accounts of something that a man had done to two children.

    I hear stories from the people who have to hear these stories about sex abuse first hand – people who can’t get these stories out of their heads. They’re haunted by the details, the way these children behaved, by how damaged these children were.

    The story I read was about a 5 year old boy and a 3 year old girl who had been molested – the 3 year old girl would masturbate compulsively, she was THREE and doing this. They examined her and found absolutely no hymen. They would both cry and get really upset by the sound of rushing water – a lot of abusers abuse children in bathrooms and turn on the taps to drown out any noise. They were very hard children, crying, moody, hard to deal with. I was welling up reading about it.

    I remember another story about two adoptive parents speaking about how they were trying to adopt two abused children and discovered much to their horror that the eldest who was about 8-10 had been molesting the youngest of the two, as a direct result of the sexual abuse he had previously receieved in another home or by his original parents. And the little one had woken up every night at a specific time wetting the bed because of this abuse from the older one. And when they found out, they were horrified, completely sadened. They had to let the two children go, they couldn’t cope with it. At the end they told this thing that broke my heart – when the kids had arrived they said that they could do anything, that this was their home now but ONE of the big and ONLY boundaries they had was that their private parts were THEIR own, nobody else could see or deal with them. Imagine having to have to SAY that to a child, as if this is something that needs to be ever told.

    That’s how damaging and haunting these stories are.

    And this is someone who writes fanfiction about it for FUN??????

    I very seriously believe there is something very tragically fundamentally wrong with this person.

    (Sorry if I upset anyone sharing these real abuse stories, it just angers me that anyone could try and use sexual abuse as a hobby)

    It also seems to me that she is a homophobe but at the same time she is fascinated by gay sex.

    Yes.

    Any reasonable person would say, “yes he liked women, he could still be a ped-le” but for her she can’t fathom it, it seems to make her angry to even suggest he could look at women, talk to women, flirt with women. Reading about sex abuse makes me angry; reading about MJ as a heterosexual angers her.

    And like one of their followers who came posting over here – revealing they believe 18+ nude girls should be shown to 14-16 year old boys and that Mike was perverse for looking at those girls, yet I wonder if this person would also want to start a campaign to find out if MJ had “molested” the young girls he was around? Of course not, because to them they do not want to picture, discuss, imagine, him talking to girls or dealing with them in anyway. Of course these 18+ women were “perverse” to them – any woman Michal would look at would be perverse. They cannot associate Michael with women in any positive way.

    Truly, “you are what you love”; Desiree and ilk have revealed themselves ten times over.

    Like

  67. Suzy permalink
    March 5, 2011 7:41 am

    @ rockonforever

    I agree totally. The first thing that was alarming to me about D. is that remake of “Jordan’s drawing” she did. What was the purpose of it? Why didn’t she just post the original drawing? Instead she spent time with remaking it AND adding more explicit details. Out of VG’s book and out of her own fantasy. For some reason she seems to be obsessed with Brett Barnes. She seems to fantasize a lot about MJ and Brett having sex! And the details she added to the drawing were of fantasies about anal sex with Brett. She also went into detailed description about her fantasies of MJ having anal sex with Brett in one of her e-mails. Very odd. It is definitely a reflection on her own issues. I don’t know if she/he is female or male (for now, I will accept she is female), but she seems to enjoy making up detailed fantasies of sexual action between a man and a child. Very disturbing. It’s also telling that with all the hatred towards MJ that she has – and she reasons that with claiming MJ was a p-le – she seems to be very empathic towards real p-les, such as Carl Toms and VG. You don’t see her criticizing them and calling them disgusting scumbags. Instead she taps them on the back for being so great “sources” to her. It is telling that her issue is not really with p-lia. She couldn’t care less about p-lia and children. Her issue is exclusively with Michael and her hatred is directed exclusively at him and not at p-lia. It also seems to me that she is a homophobe but at the same time she is fascinated by gay sex.

    Reminds me of religious leaders and politicians who are the most aggressive in their condemning of homosexuality in public – until it turns out they have issues with homosexuality themselves. Ted Haggard comes to mind, but also:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-deilyswearingen/raiding-the-closet_b_830074.html

    So it seems to me this type of behaviour is often more about self-hatred, the issues they have, than about anything else.

    Like

  68. March 5, 2011 4:06 am

    @hana

    For a while there I suspected she was Victor. I remember when she threatened legal action against Vindicate because they used a scan she had of his book. She seemed to believe scanning a book in and posting it online meant the copyright for that image and the info now belonged to her. Very very amusing.

    She’s one of the people I’m absolutely are certain are using Michael to project and resolve identity issues they’re dealing with themselves but do not wish to acknowledge. She’s homophobic and yet fixated with homosexuality, she hates Michael because she thinks him to be a p., yet writes fanfiction about pedophilia, tries to victimize people who weren’t victims, tries to seek out vaseline and anal sex stories with children – she gleefully recounts these things. There’s something very revealing in it all.

    And I wish I was kidding about it. But I believe 100% these people use Michael as a way to not have to deal with their own issues.

    Like

  69. hana permalink
    March 5, 2011 3:51 am

    Desiree uses Victor’s book as a credible source on her blog.

    Like

  70. lynande51 permalink
    March 5, 2011 2:23 am

    I told you so. A long time ago I told you guys he was and nobody would believe me. I listen to these criminals justify their junk talk all the time and I know one when I hear one. All I ever had to read was the back cover of that book to know which way this guys pinball machine tilted.
    By the way Allen Ginsberg ( the head of the ACLU) only defended their first amendmemt right to free speech he did not defend the topic of their speech.

    Like

  71. March 4, 2011 11:43 pm

    because he is one of them

    I’d like to thank Victor for being so transparent.

    JET, 22nd September 1977, Denies having a sex change and being gay

    Like

  72. lcpledwards permalink
    March 4, 2011 11:35 pm

    @ Rockforeveron

    “But he has been hounded over issues like his sexuality and gender since he was 18.”

    Here is an interview he did with Jet magazine in 1979, where a female fan called him a gay slur for refusing to kiss him!!!

    http://www.mj-777.com/?p=5126

    Like

  73. March 4, 2011 10:09 pm

    “Why would anyone who is trying to expose a supposed pedophile because they believe him to be deplorable for it then also thank a huge organization for pedophiles?”

    because he is one of them

    Like

  74. March 4, 2011 9:46 pm

    Why would anyone who is trying to expose a supposed pedophile because they believe him to be deplorable for it then also thank a huge organization for pedophiles?

    If I seek out information about terrorists and terrorism and manage to infiltrate Al Quaeda – I wouldn’t give them a big thank you note about it. Not unless I supported their movement.

    The bizarreness of this whole thing is just… sigh. Constantly I’m amazed at how the people in his life who made it their goal to target and tar him are never given any questioning about their own agendas and their own fuckeries. Michael is called a liar about every which thing, but these people in his life who tear him down are never given the same treatment. Nobody cares if the people who target him are liars, racists or pedophiles, just so long as they’re willing to say things the media wishes to print.

    The 80s are interesting – 1985/6 specifically, when he was nicknamed Whacko Jacko. But he has been hounded over issues like his sexuality and gender since he was 18. And the reason he used Janet as a buffer in an interview in 1980 was because he’d given an interview previously talking about how he wanted to visit poor children in other countries to really understand their suffering – and the journalist noted that Michael “smiled” as he did this, making it seem as though Michael wanted to visit these countries and these children because he took perverse pleasure in their pain.

    Like

  75. Suzy permalink
    March 4, 2011 9:22 pm

    @ rockforeveron

    “He even thanks them in his book?”

    Yes, here is the page:

    Isn’t it ironic that just before NAMBLA he thanks the Child Abuse Unit of LAPD and the FBI. Talk about being cheeky.

    BTW, I totally agree with you about haters projecting their OWN demons onto Michael. Absolutely.

    Like

  76. March 4, 2011 9:18 pm

    Thank you 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 an undercover officer or a moron who does not understand the seriousness of his words.

    Since we know that VG is not an idiot and he was not an agent, there is only one option left.

    I think that we have some facts now: MJ was targeted already in 1980’s and the p-les worked for sure against him.

    We should now explore more 1980’s to answer more questions.

    Like

  77. March 4, 2011 9:10 pm

    The topic (VG) is so disgusting by definition and I think we need something positive. Michael was always the light in the mess

    Like

  78. March 4, 2011 9:01 pm

    “Even if someone still thinks his visit to NAMBLA in 1986 isn’t a reason to think VG is a p-le, I think this put together with the content of his book and some of his interviews is a very, very good reason to think he is indeed a p-le. ”

    I have no doubt whatsoever

    Like

  79. March 4, 2011 8:59 pm

    His visit to NAMBLA, him thanking NAMBLA in his book are suspect enough,

    He even thanks them in his book?

    Ridiculous.

    It’s veryb interesting to me the way he describes himself as not being gay, but that his boyfriends are. Sounds like he has issues with his own sexual identity.

    Again, I’m convinced these people use MJ as a way to deal with their own demons in discussing and obsessing about him, and can therefore avoid having to confront their own.

    Makes me think of this:

    Like

  80. March 4, 2011 8:54 pm

    The wistful way Victor spoke about how he thought in 30 years the way those kind of relationships would be treated also confirmed it to me.

    I wonder how the MJ haters/obsessives like Diane Dimond and the other people who seem intent on trying to get their word out here feel about quoting and relying heavily upon a man who is himself a pedophile? If pedophilia and the lives of these children were truly the biggest concern to these people, shouldn’t they start hounding and harassing and exposing peope like Victor?

    But then – what am I saying? Victor writes fanfiction about the relationship between Michael and these kids and these same haters also engage in writing disgusting stories like that. I wonder what that says about them.

    It seems the people who are always obsessed by these things about Michael – him being a racist, him being a ped-le, him being a closetted gay man, tend to be the people who always seem to be projecting their own demons onto him.

    It’s kind of fascinating. Instead of having to deal with their own demons, they hound Michael for their belief that he has the same conflicts they do. Instead of being angry at themselves for their own shame and guilt, they instead talk about how disgusting and shameful MJ was.

    Like

  81. Suzy permalink
    March 4, 2011 8:30 pm

    “I’ve been told that the fact of Victor Gutierrez attending a NAMBLA conference isn’t reason enough for thinking that he is a pedophile himself. “

    Even if someone still thinks his visit to NAMBLA in 1986 isn’t a reason to think VG is a p-le, I think this put together with the content of his book and some of his interviews is a very, very good reason to think he is indeed a p-le.

    His visit to NAMBLA, him thanking NAMBLA in his book are suspect enough, but they aren’t the only reasons why we think he is a p-le. Just about everything about this guy screams p-le.

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Haters’ real agenda and new strategy against Michael Jackson’s fans « Vindicating Michael
  2. OUTLAWS ? « Michael Jackson an Innocent man
  3. Victor Gutierrez and his monstrous book about Michael Jackson. Part 2. HIS CLASSICAL LIES « Vindicating Michael
  4. Vindicating Michael
  5. Victor Gutierrez, NAMBLA and the same gang of professors who … | U.S. Justice Talk

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: