Skip to content

Victor Gutierrez and his laughable book about Michael Jackson. Part 1. BRETT BARNES

May 30, 2011

At a third or fourth attempt I finally managed to read Victor Gutierrez’s book kindly provided to me by Lynette. I mean his fiction story called “Michael Jackson Was[n’t] My Lover”.

The first several attempts failed me after the very few pages. Reading the book was so torturous that I simply could not go on with it and threw it away in disgust.

But this time was different. Surprisingly there was no emotion at all – except for incredulity at Victor Gutierrez’ boundless desire to do away with Michael and an occasional laugh here and there when his lies became totally indescribable.

Why was it different this time? The only explanation I can give is that each book should be read when the reader is ready for it. The facts of Michael’s innocence have reached such a peak with us that reading this haters’ bible suddenly become harmless and capable of raising only a laugh and disbelief. The book is of course still poisonous for a lazy reader as the concentration of lies there is completely extraordinary, but for us it is practically harmless – almost each of VG’s lies has already been overthrown either by the research made or by life itself (for example, Gutierrez’s hilarious arguments that he knows better than Lisa Marie Presley that she and Michael Jackson were never man and wife).

However I can imagine what impression the book made on the unsuspecting public when the torrent of Gutierrez’s lies came upon the people in 1996 and the book was quoted by every so-called journalist and media outlet. If you listen to the arguments of Michael’s haters now you will recognize Victor Gutierrez’s hand in 99,9% of all the lies ever told about Jackson. Victor Gutierrez can truly enjoy the title of the father of Michael Jackson’s publicity ruin as his lies have become the classics of the genre.

For some reason few journalists risk naming Victor Gutierrez as a source of their inspiration. Maureen Orth was probably the only one (besides Diane Dimond) who paid tribute to this liar in her “Losing his grip” article of April 2003 (incidentally published just after the LAPD and the DCFS closed their investigation of Michael after Bashir’s film). We find her in raptures over Gutierrez’s ‘thorough work’:

“Gutierrez describes a passionate love affair and numerous sexual trysts of Jackson and the boy, day by day, week by week. The book quotes former employees who corroborate details of Jackson’s allegedly illicit behavior, and who also spoke to the authorities. It is heavily illustrated with fragments of official documents from the case as well as pictures of Jordie, the room where he and Jackson slept together, even his report card…. There is also Jordie’s description of Jackson’s genitals and distinguishing marks, and mention of three-way sex with a second boy. … The sources close to the prosecution I interviewed for this article were all familiar with the book and believed it was an essentially accurate portrayal of Jackson’s relationship with Jordie Chandler.”

Even judging by Orth’s words it is clear that Gutierrez’s book was meant to be a killer – cold, calculating, pathological and ruthless, same as its author himself and those who met the book with enthusiastic approval. The book is indeed extremely graphic and is speaking of things your own mind would never think of on its own. When you face a thing like that you initially regard refuting it as hopeless – same as it is hopeless to refute another person’s perverse manner of thinking, way of life and sexual preferences all of which are clearly transpiring through the pages of this manuscript.

However something about it can be done, otherwise I wouldn’t be writing about it. There will surely come a day when a neutral researcher will sit down and write a total rebuttal of Victor Gutierrez’s monstrosity with a truthful comment on each of his paragraphs and I can guarantee you that it is going to be a bestseller. In the meantime however let us deal with only some of its passages as speaking about all of it will take a lifetime.

THE TITLE AND VOCABULARY

The Secret Diary Of Jordy Chandler!

VICTOR M. GUTIERREZ

The title is catchy of course, only Jordan Chandler never kept a diary so it is useless to clasp hands and put exclamation marks here. Ray Chandler explicitly said that Jordan never had a diary, called the author a “sleazebag” and did not endorse his book. He said it when advertising a book of his own called “All that glitters”:

  • With Jackson facing a January 2005 trial on charges of child molestation, Chandler’s book should cause a firestorm. For one thing, it validates much in a previously published book by Victor Gutierrez — banned in the U.S. — that chronicled Jackson’s relationships with several children, including Chandler’s nephew.  But Ray Chandler said he did not endorse that book. “Victor Gutierrez is a sleazebag,” he said.

However leaving the matter at that would be a grave mistake on our part. If Jordan never kept a diary then what sources is Gutierrez’s book based on? This is a matter of principle as those of us who read it surely wondered on almost each page of it how come Gutierrez knew those graphic details so well that you had the impression he was present at the events described? Where did he take so  much ‘inside’ knowledge of it? Let us keep these questions constantly on our mind and set them as the main goal of our discussion.

“I am not gay, my partner is gay” says Victor Gutierrez

Victor Gutierrez dedicated the book to his parents Romilio and Aida and to his friends Anthony and Mario whom he thanks very much for their “love and wisdom”. Victor Gutierrez is gay and for some reason does not want to disclose the fact. He admits it in the form of a joke though, saying that “I am not gay – it is my partner who is gay”. Gutierrez’s sexuality is mentioned here with one purpose only – it may be a way to explain his constant preoccupation with some very specific words which are possibly related to love between males.

His vocabulary is very specific and is one of the things which attracts the most attention. We get familiar with the key words of his vocabulary as early as in introduction to the book. The words are repeated on innumerable occasions and are in fact so frequent that they put the readers into a sort of a hypnotic trance.

The key words are as follows: sexual, abuse, intimate, minor, pedophile, molest, sex, games, victims, lover, ex-lover. The word pedophile is repeated an incredible number of times (sometimes in every other sentence). The follow-up text is also introducing us to such exquisite expressions like penetration, shit, excrements, anus, rubbing in Vaseline, penis, masturbation, dry semen, sheets stained with shit and blood and the like.

A STORY ABOUT HIMSELF?

Now that you are more or less aware of what to expect of Victor Gutierrez’s book let us proceed with some of its concrete statements and episodes. He starts the introduction with a claim that Michael “paid to Jordan as soon as he heard of him having a diary”. The author doesn’t explain how he came to obtain this non-existent document and why the news of it didn’t reach the ears of the police, but its factual absence doesn’t prevent VG from building a fabulous story on the basis of it:

“Jordie, now 16 years old, had kept a diary with all the details of their friendship, including the sexual ones. When Jackson learned of the existence of the diary, he decided to pay Jordie off in order to keep the diary out of the hands of the police. Nevertheless, the diary became the pillar of my investigation”.

The author assures us that he was following Michael for three years before the 1993 allegations. This places the beginning of his ‘investigation’ in 1990. Other sources name 1987 as the launch of his project but even if we think that it was only three years we can imagine what amount of harm this strange guy and his activity could do to Michael prior to the Chandlers’ accusations.

The author flatly says that his aim was to prove that Michael was a p-le. He doesn’t pretend that he was looking for the truth about the man as is the case with more or less neutral researchers – no, this type of a ‘research’ knows the end result even before starting it.

Considering Gutierrez’s virulent activity and the ability to squeeze into every family which ever came into contact with Michael Jackson we can safely say that when the accusations broke out in 1993 the soil had been heavily fertilized by Victor Gutierrez and his preconceived notions about Michael Jackson. The only thing I wonder about is who was sponsoring him for so long a time? Gutierrez claims that he is a poor journalist who lives off his work…

“The investigation to prove that Jackson is a pedophile (an adult who is sexually attracted to minors) took me nearly four years. I began three years before the news of the accusation against Jackson exploded. At the time, no one wanted to take the risk of publishing a book that accused the King of Pop of being a pedophile.”  (Introduction)

Victor Gutierrez uses the word “paedophile” in every other sentence

If you think that the author uses the word “ped-le” in every other sentence because of his limited vocabulary you will be wrong here. This is a well-known hypnotic method – even if no facts are provided the mere repetition of the word imprints the desired image in people’s memory simply due to the frequency of its use.

In a recent TV program on Chilean TV the possessed Gutierrez drew himself into a complete trance by repeating this mantra for four or five times running (I have a screetshot of the accompanying text, only I cannot afford posting it here as you understand).

To finish with the introduction to the book let me say that Gutierrez has a specific attitude to children who were allegedly molested by MJ. To any normal person a child seduced by a predator will be a victim no matter whether he was forced into it or took part in it voluntarily – in both cases the seducer rids him of his innocence and pushes him into depravity which is the essence of any molestation, however our Victor Gutierrez has a problem with seeing this point as he evidently accepts the idea that a child may be a lover of an adult:

“For me it was confusing, not knowing whether to refer to the boys as victims or ex-lovers.  My interviews with the participants in the criminal investigation against Jackson will surprise you. I leave you with the evidence, which was neither edited nor censored. It is a tale of dreams and sexual games between the King of Pop and his young lovers. I ask only that you read with an open mind; you will need it.”

Of course we will have to read it with an open mind and have to decide for ourselves where Gutierrez is telling a flat lie or only a half-lie about Jackson and where some truth is sprinkled over the whole thing to make it look more credible. Or whether Gutierrez is actually telling us a story about himself.

As you probably know our interest in this guy and his own preferences started with his reckless revelation made in several media outlets that in 1986 (just before his launch of the Michael Jackson project)  he attended a NAMBLA conference from which he was allegedly “reporting for his newspaper”.

The other version voiced by VG for being at that assembly was “working undercover” for the LAPD and being there on a “FBI mission”, but since the three variants for one and the same event showed that Gutierrez himself wasn’t sure in what capacity he attended the NAMBLA meeting we decided to have a closer look at this man to see who could be standing at the root of Michael Jackson’s smear campaign.

‘BOYS’

Gutierrez starts his narration with Jordan’s falling in love with Michael at a very early age. I was very much impressed by the fact that in January 1984 the four years old boy ‘wrote a note of support’ to Jackson who was placed in hospital after a burn on his head. The preschool boy was so literate that he even left a telephone number on his letter:

“The second occasion was on a Friday, January 27,1984. Jordie was still just four years old when Jackson suffered serious burns on his scalp while filming a Pepsi commercial. Thousands of children were touched by the news that their idol and hero was in Brotman Hospital in Culver City, and sent greeting cards and get well notes.

One of these children was Jordie, who, very upset about the news, took his mother June’s advice and decided to write a note expressing his support for Jackson. He included his phone number and a photograph of himself. He and his mother then went to the hospital and delivered the note to one of Jackson’s bodyguards.

To Jordie’s surprise, the following day Jackson called him at home to thank him for the note and photograph, telling him, “You are a beautiful boy. Thanks for your note.”

The four-year old boy left his telephone number to Jackson? Okay, let it be Gutierrez’s way. What is truly important here is the author’s subtle innuendo that Michael called Jordan back because he was ‘a beautiful boy’ thus implying that if Jordan wasn’t handsome Michael wouldn’t have called him.

Genuine affection for the poor cripple…

Victor Gutierrez surely hasn’t seen the painful sight of a burn victim Dave Dave with whom Michael was friends until his dying day and whom he called as soon as he found out about his disaster, or bald cancer child patients who couldn’t walk on their own and whom Michael carried in his hands from one attraction to another in his Neverland amusement park, or the boy Ryan White who befriended Michael too – the boy was ill with AIDS and was shunned by others like the plague.

You will not find any mention of these children in Victor Gutierrez’s book because he regards Michael’s real life as an obstacle to the fictional reality he creates around the man in order to stick to him the label he so very much desires to see on him.

Gutierrez says that Jordan adored Michael and imitated his dance moves so well that his stepfather once threw a hat in the street as a joke and collected money for his dance. But what was allowed for Jordan was not allowed for Wade Robson whom Gutierrez allegedly saw dancing in the street too, a year before the 1993 allegations (in June 1992).

Gutierrez tells us in full earnest a heart-wrenching story about Wade Robson being abandoned by Michael and left homeless and penniless, driven in his despair to beg for money in the street. According to Gutierrez this terrible misfortune allegedly happened to the boy as a result of his mother’s alleged rebellion against his “sleeping in Michael’s bed”:

“As I approached Joy, Wade ran up to her and said that he had only got three dollars from his latest performance. He took two one dollar bills and some coins out of his hat.…

At first, it did not seem as they were poor. But after some time it became apparent to me that they were homeless. They once had a rich life with one of the most famous people in the world. Now they were in the street without money, without friends, and hoping that Wade’s dancing would put bread on the table”

Funny, isn’t it? Yes, it is, but not in the year 1996 when the public couldn’t yet foresee that that Robson, his mother and sister would vehemently defend Michael in court nine years later, in 2005 and that we will learn that the ‘homeless’ Wade and his mother would live in Neverland whenever they wanted, even in the absence of the host.

Gutierrez says that some time after the four-year old Jordan Chandler had sent a letter of support to Michael Jackson, Michael called him and asked him for an audition for some video but Jordan wasn’t chosen from the other twenty children present there. However the biggest disappointment for Jordan was that Michael himself didn’t attend the audition.

This fact is worth paying attention to. We know that Michael’s invited children to participate in many of his videos, so for professional reasons he could have indeed kept pictures of various children in order to select them for his films. However it turns out from Gutierrez’s account that his personal interest in them was so ‘big’ that he didn’t even attend those auditions…

We all know that when Jordan Chandler was around 12 years old (1992) he came up with an idea of a comedy movie and wrote together with his father a script for a satirical version of Robin Hood’s story called “Robin Hood: Men in tights” (they say that the film is filled with sexual innuendoes as the title of the movie suggests it). Gutierrez says about it:

“In May of 1992, Jordie had not yet turned twelve when he had created the idea for and assisted his father in the writing of the movie “Robin Hood: Men in Tights.” The movie, directed by Mel Brooks, was a satire of the Kevin Costner Robin Hood film “Prince of Thieves.”

Jordie and his father found themselves writing two other screenplays, which they tentatively called “James Bunny in Humor Terminal: The Last Laugh,” and “The Sleazoids vs. The Schulmbergers.” They laughed together as they thought about how wonderful it would be to do this all the time, and on top of it all get paid for it. “Jordie liked the cinema and the business of cinematography, to which he had been exposed thanks to my new wife Nathalie, who was working in a cinematography production company,” his father said”.

Jordan seems to have had a big share in the movie’s jokes. According to Gutierrez Evan Chandler explained to him that the boy had an exceptional sense of humor which Michael Jackson appreciated very much. Jordan was said to be at his best when he was making fun of other people (knowing what he did to Jackson this feature of his doesn’t surprise me in the least).

Jordan didn’t lose his supreme ability to laugh at others even after the alleged molestation and was always ready to tell a joke or make fun of whoever he was with. Evidently the ‘molestation’ didn’t have any effect on Jordan in contrast to another alleged victim we all know of who had to take “therapy” for full four years after some tickling on the outside of his clothes (which most probably never took place at all).

The way Evan described his son to Gutierrez Jordan was much fun, and he and Michael got on extremely well together:

The father “knew that there was one quality in particular that made the most famous person in the world want to be with his son. According to Evan, that quality was Jordie’s sense of humor.

“On many occasions, I thought that Michael was never so happy as when Jordie made him laugh, occasionally at the expense of Michael. I remember very well one time at my house Jordie made Michael laugh so hard that his makeup began to smear.

I thought that Michael wanted to be like Jordie for his great sense of humor. This humor that is the essence of Jordie always remained the same, in spite of the insinuations, the lies, and the omnipresence of the most well known person in the world. Nothing could destroy this sense of humor.”

People close to Jordie are familiar with his sense of humor and how uncontrollable it is. He at times makes fun of whoever he is with, but does it with such a style that the person is not insulted, and ends up laughing at themselves. “It’s a unique talent with which he was born and it’s almost impossible to explain it. But this is part of who Jordie is”

Surprisingly Victor Gutierrez doesn’t lie like Ray Chandler that it was Michael who was the first to ask for Jordan’s telephone (it would be fun to compare their two books to see how the authors lie depending on the specific goals each of them sets).

Ray Chandler prefers to focus on a ‘predator who spotted the handsome boy and asked for his telephone’. But Gutierrez says it was June and David Schwartz who encouraged Michael to call Jordan (which is a fact confirmed by Jordan in his interview with a psychiatrist – he said his stepfather urged Michael to call saying he wouldn’t have to pay for a replacement car if he did).

Victor Gutierrez with an impersonator of MJ. For Gutierrez the whole thing is just a game!

However we shouldn’t fall for the truthfulness of Gutierrez’s story – the only reason why he is telling a little bit of truth here is to prove that June Chandler and David Schwartz went out of their ways to use Jordan for purposes of their own.

LARRY FELDMAN ‘HAD A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR TO FIND GUTIERREZ’

I’ve noticed that Victor Gutierrez often speaks in the name of his characters,  including Jordan, which raises the same old question – if there was no diary how could Gutierrez quote the boy’s words? Jordan wasn’t giving interviews. Maureen Orth for example could not talk to Jordan – no matter how she tried to reach him she didn’t go as far as his uncle only: http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/story/jackson-accuser-jordan-chandler-terrified-about-testifying .

However this was in 2003. Could Gutierrez have talked to Jordan during the 1993/1994 events? Theoretically he could, but the real possibility is close to zero as after the confidentiality agreement of January 1994 Jordan didn’t have the right to speak to journalists for fear of having to return the money (though he had the right to speak in court), and before the agreement Gutierrez says he was simply unavailable for talk.

How do we know it? In his desire to show how important he is Gutierrez accidentally drops a story how Jordan’s lawyer Larry Feldman had been looking for him (Gutierrez) for three months and through a private investigator too before he finally found him. Ridiculous as it sounds but Gutierrez says he was checking with Larry Feldman about the status of the case and and learned that they had been looking for him for three  months, evidently to help them find someone else to testify against Jackson. The meeting was allegedly two weeks before the settlement:

Tuesday,  January 11 (1994)

“That same afternoon I met with Jordie’s attorney Larry Feldman, to find out more about the status of the case. Feldman told me that he had been looking for me for three months through a private investigator,  Sandra Sutherland. During our conversation, Feldman expressed to me his uneasiness about the difficulty of finding more children to testify against Jackson”.

So were there other “victims” or were there not?  This is what makes the book totally laughable. Besides the absurdity of most of its statements one thing contradicts another and if we believe one lie from Gutierrez it automatically destroys another of his lies. And  when Gutierrez gets entangled in his own lies no one is capable to help him.

GUTIERREZ STATES HIS CASE

But let us get back to the question –  if Gutierrez didn’t talk to Jordan how could Gutierrez allegedly know some of Jordan’s exact words and even his most intimate thoughts? For example these typically ped-le statements about the desire of those children to have sex:

” People were not ready to believe that Jordie and other children actually wanted to have sex with Jackson.

It wasn’t the games we played or the expensive presents. It was the attention and love we received from Jackson,” declared Jordie to a close friend. “On many occasions I tried to tell the therapist and the authorities that Michael never made me do anything I didn’t want to but the authorities had told me that Michael had seduced me by buying toys and expensive presents.

Michael did more than buy me presents. The attention and love he gave me was amazing. He always worried with details. He spent time with me. I was an important part of his life, a man that was so busy.

Why is it so difficult for the people to understand that I like Michael. If one is in love with a school girl or a friend, everyone is happy and says it’s so wonderful, but when I say I like Michael, people don’t want to listen.

I am sixteen years old and I know what has happened. I think people are bothered by homosexual relationships but I’m not a homosexual. I just feel an attraction towards Michael and I had sex with him. My friends and professors have told me that it’s normal for a boy to be attracted to other children or adults. It happened to me. But if people don’t want to listen it is another thing.“(pp.128-129)

Jordan was sixteen years old instead of thirteen? This is something new! Why does Gutierrez suddenly change the age of the boy? Most probably because these Jordan’s words are not really Jordan’s words but are a kind of the author’s manifesto put in the mouth of a ‘victim’ or rather an ‘ex-lover’ who is still very young but has already come of age and who is explaining to the general public that this kind of ‘love’ is acceptable and is just misunderstood by most of the people?

The same words said in the name of a thirteen year old boy would have sounded too offensive to the public and wouldn’t have reached the goal, but if the boy is already sixteen he can safely say: “I only had sex”, but “it doesn’t make me a homosexual”,  and it is “a normal attraction of a boy to an adult”…. Do these statements remind you of anything? Correct, the last time we read something of the kind was in the texts of self-confessed pedophiles who praise the “beauty of a man/boy’s love”.

Proof that at some point in time Victor Gutierrez worked as an advisor to Bashir

Considering that Gutierrez couldn’t hear these words from Jordan and the fact that no one but him (and Thomas O’Carroll) speaks about Jordan in this way, I would think twice about cooperating with Victor Gutierrez if I were in the place of Diane Dimond, Maureen Orth and Bashir all of whom worked together with this guy and praised him for his effort….

No matter what Gutierrez is talking about he invariably introduces his own specific touch into the words of every character. According to him Jordan says that Neverland is a place where ‘boys have rights’:

“We would speak for hours until late at night,” Jordie recalled. “Michael would talk to me about his Neverland Ranch and how much fun it was. Games, animals, video games, golf carts, motorcycles, jet skis, a private movie theater, water forts, etc. He told me that ‘Neverland is a place where boys have rights.’ I wanted to go.”

According to Gutierrez the guards (Kassim Abdul and Ralph Chacon) complained that Michael Jackson didn’t give them money to buy fire-arms, or handcuffs, or a baton to defend themselves (against children?). They ‘got angry’ when they saw a huge amount of money spent on children and joked among themselves that Michael could have given them the handcuffs he ‘used in his sex acts’ (!). This dirty joke about her boss is put into the mouth of a female guard Melanie Bagnall:

“What kind of professionalism and seriousness am I going to show if I have to tie her [a cross passer] up with a telephone cord? Another guard jokingly asked me if perhaps Michael had a pair of handcuffs that he used in his sex acts that he could loan us. Everyone, including the detained woman, began to laugh.”(p.17)

Everything Gutierrez says is hitting one and the same point – “boys, boys, boys” in MJ’s life…. He is trying so hard that is actually overdoing the whole thing and brings it to the point of complete absurdity. The guard Abdul Kassim is allegedly saying:

“In the years I worked there I never saw a girl, woman or adult invited to his room. Only young boys.”p.19

Never saw a girl or a woman invited? In all the years he worked there? What an incredible thing to say! They were never ‘invited’ because they had the right to come in and out of Michael’s room whenever they wanted! No, I can’t even discuss it in full seriousness…. Let me only remind you of Macauley Culkin’s words during his 2005 testimony:

Q. Can we assume from that your parents never came into the room while you were in bed with Michael Jackson?

A. That’s not true, no. Sometimes my father would wake us up, because he liked going horseback riding or something like that and, you know, things that I didn’t necessarily enjoy as much as he did, but he would wake me up early in the morning to go horseback riding.

Q. And you would be in bed alone with Michael Jackson?

A. Not always alone, no. And sometimes I wouldn’t be always there. I would be wherever. But I knew they knew that I was in that room, and they knew I fell asleep there.

Q. Did your mother ever come into the room when you were alone with Michael Jackson in bed?

A. It’s a possibility, yeah.

Q. Do you know if it happened more than once?

A. Yeah. He had a very open-door policy. His bedroom door at that time was never locked. Anyone could walk in, fall asleep there, I’d fall asleep anywhere. People just kind of fell asleep wherever they wanted to. That was kind of the fun of the place, was that there was no rigid rules about when or where you should fall asleep.

 Q. And you talked about an open-door policy in his room.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Could you please explain what you mean?

A. Well, no doors were ever really locked in his place. It wasn’t like — you know, you could always — you could always come — he always told me, “You can just come to the ranch whenever you want.” And every door was open, and you can go anywhere you wanted, and that included the bedroom.

Q. And did you feel that adults were free to come in and out as well as children?

A. Absolutely. He had a lot of memorabilia and things like that in his closets, and so people liked to look at that. It was one of those stops on the tour when we first showed up. It’s like, “Come to the bedroom. Come see what’s in the closet,” those kind of things. Like I said, it’s almost a part of the tour.

Q. You’re telling us that Mr. Jackson had no problem with people going through the closets in his bedroom?

A. Yeah, it was one of those things. I mean, I don’t necessarily think it was a good thing to rifle through everything, but it was —

Q. But people did?

A. He had a large closet. Like I said, he had a lot of his old rhinestone jackets and things like that in there.

Q. People did that?

A. People would go in there, yes.

Q. Sometimes people he didn’t even know?

A. Well, I can’t really speak of whether or not they knew him or not. I assumed if they were there, they knew him.

https://vindicatemj.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/macaulay-culkins-testimony-may-11-2005.pdf

Given the incredible open door policy of Michael in respect of his personal living quarters, the next quote from Gutierrez is again both awful and hilarious  – every point there is a fantastic lie, beginning with the insinuation that Michael’s bedroom was accessible only for the ‘choicest guests’ (naturally boys) and finishing with special rules they had to follow when they ‘succeeded in getting into this sanctuary. The whole thing becomes all the more incredible if you consider that any parent could enter the room at any time there and see his child. Gutierrez thinks different:

“Thursday, March 11, 1993.  Jordie arrived at the Neverland ranch at midday, and saw two boys he did not know. They were Edward and Frank Cascio from New Jersey, nine and thirteen years old, respectively.

Jackson had a surprise for all of them. He was taking them into his bedroom. In the bedroom, there was a game that caught Jordie’s attention, a slot machine that had $100 bills inside. Only Jackson’s close friends could play it.

Jordie later found out that apart from having to be in Jackson’s confidence to play, there were two special rules. One, the game had to be played in the nude (according to Jackson, so that no one could hide trick devices in their clothing). And two, the kids who played couldn’t tell anyone. The children would not likely tell their parents, since if they had succeeded in getting into Jackson’s room, it was because they had already won his trust and already shared other secrets with him.(p.29)

The game could be played only in the nude? Gutierrez’s imagination is boundless…

Whatever Gutierrez speaks about he focuses on boys only – which is done intentionally to convey his very specific ideas to the reader. Even when Jordan and Lily are described shopping for toys together Gutierrez stresses only the boy’s happiness:

“That evening he took them to “Toys R Us” in the city of Santa Maria, located more than an hour from Jackson’s ranch. The store was closed so that they could shop privately and peacefully. Jackson told Jordie and Lily that they could buy whatever they wanted. They filled three shopping carts with toys. What more could a boy ask for?” (p.16)

So on page 16 Gutierrez says that Jackson took Lily to a toy shop but on the very next page he quotes the female guard (Melanie Bagnall) who claimed in full earnest that girls were prohibited from accompanying Jackson into toy shops:

“When Michael went with the boys to buy toys, the girls were prohibited from going. The only reason that they were there was because the mothers brought them along with their brothers, who were the ones Michael was interested in.

When Michael’s pickup truck left to go to the toy store, the girls cried uncontrollably while Michael said nothing. But their brothers, shouting out the window of the vehicle, promised to bring them something.

It was painful to see these little girls all alone. I remember Brett Barnes’ sister, who once said to an another inconsolable girl not to feel bad, since all the girls had been left on the ranch because Michael doesn’t take any girls with him. The girl cried even more.”

Now didn’t I promise you that some of it would be hilarious? For those who are still in the dark in respect of the “girls” I can recommend the testimonies of Robson’s and Brett Barnes’s sisters in 2005 while I will confine myself to a statement of Macauley’s father Kit Culkin only who said that he never noticed any difference in Michael’s treatment of boys and girls in his huge family:

  • I have heard it reported that Michael always wanted to play only with boys (just as boys usually only want to play with other boys, I suppose), but I never noticed this to be true My six year old daughter Quinn (who, as her name would imply, was my fifth child) was always included in the activities that Michael would often plan, and was always made to feel as though she was a part of the gang.  As I say, Michael always treated my kids quite equally. 

However not all Gutierrez’s book is a laughable read. Some of the pages are truly disgusting and are not easy to verify as it is impossible to verify something which has never taken place. This is what slander is all about – everyone knows that it is a lie, but some of it rubs off the poor victim anyway, especially if the author hints at some ‘credible insiders’ who supplied him with this information.

GUTIERREZ “PROOF”

In Gutierrez’s case all his lies are sort of endorsed by the illustrated pages with photos and documents in them which lead you to believe that they got into Gutierrez’s hands direct from the Chandlers. The photos and documents per se are nothing much, but it is a sinister comment which is doing all the job here – you see Jordan’s  bathroom (this is where the ‘molestation’ occurred), a bed (where the same thing happened), the photo of Michael sitting on another bed surrounded by books (as if in the midst of making homework for school) and a test Jordan allegedly had to undergo for venereal diseases (they didn’t find any).

No, none of these things would have produced any impression if it weren’t for Gutierrez’s sinister comment and our growing belief that Gutierrez could indeed have access to the archives of Evan Chandler.

I don’t doubt for a second that at a certain point in time Evan Chandler did supply Victor Gutierrez with some photos, letters and documents. But from the damning way Gutierrez describes Evan – like a greedy father capable to prostitute his son – I doubt very much that the friendship between the two lasted long. Even if Jordan’s father did provide Gutierrez with some initial information Gutierrez  surely followed a path of his own.

The key “proof” of Gutierrez is found in the middle of his book which he calls “Jordie’s chronology that he did with his father”. These pages are actually crucial for the book – Gutierrez wants us to think that the facts provided by him (including his most graphic episodes) are no invention of his own. This way he can get away with all his lies and present the case as if it were told to him by someone in the Chandler’s family. The authorship of the diary is explained in extremely vague terms. The text says:

Read Carefully

The third document is a part of Jordie’s chronology, that he did with his father. Evan is clear to mention the word “pedophile” to refer to Jackson.

Jordie’s chronology? That he did with his father? So it was Evan Chandler who wrote that text? Of course it should be Evan. Who else could write it if the narration is in the third person singular – “Jordan did this, Jordan did that”…?

Gutierrez says that on May 9, 1994 – while the criminal investigation against Jackson was still going on and the world was hanging on each new piece of information about the case – he read out on the radio excerpts from this diary as a precursor to his book. The pieces read and shown were presented as Evan’s diary, though in the book itself Gutierrez once again claims that it was written by Jordan.

He also makes a ridiculous statement that the police didn’t know of the diary until May 9, 1994  or for almost nine months after opening their investigation.

In order to explain why the police didn’t use this document after they learned of it Gutierrez has to invent another lie and say that Larry Feldman refused to turn over the evidence to the police for their ongoing criminal investigation – as if he could really do it without legal consequences for himself!  Only a lunatic can believe the story told by Gutierrez:

 “… on Monday, May 9th [1994] I presented to the world excerpts from Jordie’s diary as a precursor to my book. The presentation included photographs of Jackson dressed in pajamas in Jordie’s room. It also included Jordie’s suicide note and other things of interest.

I never expected that the Santa Barbara and L.A. district attorneys and detectives would react with surprise. I thought that Jordie had told them everything, and that they had seen the photos. The district attorneys contacted Larry Feldman, and demanded Jordie’s entire diary, however, Feldman refused to turn over the evidence”.(p. 187)

This incredible text also mentions Jordan’s suicide drawing which he made (according to Gutierrez) because he was in despair that he had betrayed his “lover”. The text is remarkable as what transpires through Gutierrez’s lies is that Jordan Chandler indeed had terrible pangs of conscience for betraying his friend. Gutierrez describes it in his own inimitable way of course, but what else could be expected of a man who attended a NAMBLA conference?

The idea that he [Jordan] would have to testify in court against his “first love” depressed him so much that, before going to bed that night, he drew a picture of a boy jumping off of a building and another person yelling at him to stop from behind. The drawing also showed a figure on the pavement covered with blood. This was a message. It was a suicide note.

Evan found the paper the next morning. When he saw the drawing, he wrote on it the sentence “Don’t let this happen!” He thought that the reason for the suicide note was that Jordie had been sexually abused by Jackson. The drawing appears exclusively in this book.

Jordie’s reason for suicide was not because he felt shame for his sexual acts with Jackson. He was depressed because his father had promised him that nobody would know. Now his own father was negotiating and planning to go to court to tell all. His father had betrayed him. He also understood that his relationship with Jackson would never be the same. At night, he had nightmares that he wouldn’t see Jackson. During the day, he took long naps, barely ate, and did not want to speak to anyone.

He didn’t want to speak to anyone? Isn’t it another proof that Jordan couldn’t have been giving away his interviews to the left and right and willing to share his most intimate thoughts with Victor Gutierrez?

However Gutierrez never claims that he spoke to Jordan – all he does is pretending that he is quoting direct from Evan Chandler’s diary. To strengthen the impression of him not inventing anything and just quoting the “original source” Gutierrez repeats Evan’s statements from those several pages of the ‘diary’ almost word for word. The texts are indeed almost identical:

A photocopy of “Evan’s” diary inserted into the middle of the book:

 Victor Gutierrez’s text:

Friday, February 19, 1993.

At 7 p.m., Jackson arrived in Los Angeles in his limousine to pick up Jordie and his family. When Jordie got in the limousine he noticed that there was another boy inside with Jackson. It was Brett Barnes, who Jordie had spoken to by phone before, and who Jackson had presented as his cousin. “I found Brett very shy and quiet,” Jordie said. “Michael and he were very close while the limousine headed to the ranch. Brett was seated between Michael’s legs. They hugged a lot, and kissed each other on the cheek.” This made Jordie uncomfortable, not because he found it strange, but because he was jealous of all the attention Brett was receiving. It was not the same as Jackson had given him the week before.

Upon arriving at the ranch, the security guards took the guests’ suitcases and put them in the visitors’ cabins. Brett’s suitcase was taken directly to Jackson’s room.” (p.22)

What surprised me greatly is that the alleged Evan’s diary looks less restrained than Victor Gutierrez’s account of the same – for example, he shows Brett sitting on Michael’s lap “kissing” while in Gutierrez’s version he is sitting between his legs (no need to believe either of them as both versions are untrue – June Chandler said in her 2005 testimony that Brett was sitting NEXT to Michael).

Despite being essentially the same, the text from the so-called diary of Evan Chandler also includes a terrible piece of filth about Brett Barnes which I am totally unwilling to reproduce here. It is awfully graphic and describes an almost sexual act with the other boy done in the presence of Jordan Chandler (!). To me the idea that anyone would make a public show of applying-Vaseline-to-some-place is totally incredible and testifies to nothing else but someone’s sick and perverse imagination.

But what really astounded me is that the so-called Evan Chandler’s version describing Brett Barnes looked much more graphic than Gutierrez’s text. Its language is typical of Victor Gutierrez’s style as it has the usual combination of the key words mentioned above – however Gutierrez nevertheless claims that it is Evan Chandler’s text…

WHO WROTE THE DIARY?

Something is not quite right here. Such an explicit language attributed to Evan Chandler in one place doesn’t go with other pages where Gutierrez says that Evan Chandler had no solid evidence to prove his allegations and had nothing but suspicions only. If he had nothing but suspicions how could he make things so graphic as if he had seen them?

We knew about Evan’s uncertainty ourselves because in a taped conversation with David Schwartz (July 9, 1993) Evan Chandler says that he “has no idea what was taking place” between Jordan and Michael Jackson. But Gutierrez makes an important addition to it – he says that at the moment the case reached the police (end of August 1993) Evan Chandler did not get any more confident of Michael’s “guilt”, was still thinking the same way and was therefore uncertain about the case!

In other words by the time Evan Chandler had squeezed out everything he could from his son, he still had nothing but suspicions and no solid evidence to go by:

“While Jordie was being interviewed by Rosato, the police were questioning Evan about the negotiations he had had with Pellicano and why he hadn’t reported it earlier. Evan gave them all kinds of excuses, and said that he only had suspicions and no solid evidence. No one had confidence in what Evan declared.” (p.124)

But if Evan had nothing but suspicions how could he describe the graphic scene with another boy which his son allegedly had been a witness to? If his son had really seen something and Evan Chandler had really described that scene himself  (following Jordan’s words) this was just the evidence he needed and he should have been adamant to the police that the accused man was a serial molester! But instead of growing more confident – because of Brett’s case – Evan was still in doubt and said that he had nothing but suspicions?

At another point Gutierrez again unwittingly tells us of Evan’s doubts by saying that Evan never used the words ‘sexual abuse’ in respect of Jackson and never went further than saying that MJ and Jordan had a ‘strange relationship’:

” Evan stated that he believed his son and Jackson had a “strange relationship.” He had never, though, used the words “sexual abuse” with anybody, not even his lawyer or wife. (p.92)

Somewhere at this point I realized that a supposition that Gutierrez’s book could be based on Evan Chandler’s diary would be a highly superficial and even wrong one. Victor Gutierrez wants us to think that Evan Chandler wrote all those horrible details, while the reality is completely different.

What Victor Gutierrez presents to us as the diary of Evan Chandler as a source for the book was most probably written by himself as the difference in their attitude towards the case clearly shows it.

Gutierrez’s text coincides word for word with the diary but not with Evan Chandler’s words and deeds which the author describes himself in other parts of his book. The way Gutierrez is describingEvan Chandler he could not have written that diary because Evan was absolutely not sure of his suspicions, while the diary is and even provides the “details”.

But then it means that Gutierrez did both jobs – wrote the diary in the name of Evan/Jordan Chandler and then referred to this diary as a source of his inspiration… A genius move, isn’t it? You write it yourself and then refer to it as a source of your study! No wonder that Ray Chandler was angry with Gutierrez, said he didn’t endorse this book and called Gutierrez a “sleazebag”!

But why is it so important for us to know who the author of the “diary” was?

Because if Evan Chandler didn’t write that filth it means that all those graphic details came straight from Victor Gutierrez. And all this choice of vocabulary and the graphic scenes described heavily suggest a very peculiar turn of mind Gutierrez has….

To tell you a bit more about his type of thinking let us see some Gutierrez’s dirt about poor Brett Barnes.

BRETT BARNES

I wanted to save you from all these graphic details but over here will have to say that Gutierrez supplements the invented scenes of ‘molestation’ of this other boy by confident observations that he was ‘penetrated’ and that as a result of that activity there were sheets stained with blood and excrements which Adrian McManus had to hide before the arrival of the police.

Let us vivisect this monstrous lie to see that Gutierrez’s every single word here is the fruit of his own perverse imagination.

Firstly, Gutierrez himself says on several occasions that “the furthest MJ got with the boys was with Jordan Chandler”:

Jordie was the minor with whom Jackson had gone furthest sexually, according to what Jackson himself told Jordie. (p.186)

However even with Jordan the alleged ‘sex’ never got to any ‘penetration’ but was confined to ‘masturbation’ only at the very worst.  But ‘penetration’ is much more offensive than ‘masturbation’ (which never happened either) so if Gutierrez says that the furthest point was with Jordan Chandler it means that with other boys ‘penetration could never take place in principle.

Guys, I’m really sorry I have to tell you all this filth, but Brett’s reputation needs the real truth to be told.

How can Gutierrez say one thing in one episode and a totally different thing in another one? Easily. Lies are no problem for Victor Gutierrez – he knows full well that his shocked reader is shocked so much that no one will dare check or compare one episode with the other. He carelessly changes his lies depending on the situation and is sometimes so carried away by the process that unwittingly lets a little bit of truth slip in between these lies.

This was the case when Gutierrez mocked at Pellicano’s stupidity and suddenly revealed that Evan never went further than saying that MJ and Jordan had ‘a strange relationship’ and never used the words ‘sexual abuse’ in respect of Jackson. Please read this marvelous episode:

“Later, Pellicano called Evan’s wife, Nathalie, at work, but she was not there. Pellicano left his number with the receptionist, and added that he would call back in five minutes. Five minutes later, Pellicano called Nathalie again, but she still was not to be found in the office. They finally spoke hours later. Pellicano introduced himself as someone who worked with Bert Fields. According to Nathalie, Pellicano asked her:

“Is it true that your son Nikki asked you and Evan if it was okay for men to marry other men?”

Nathalie didn’t have a chance to answer when Pellicano continued with the interrogation.

Let me stop for a second. Why didn’t Natalie “have a chance to answer”? Wasn’t the whole idea of the interrogation to get a reply from Nathalie? No logic, no nothing in Gutierrez’s stories – just the desire to shock and produce the impression. But let us go on:

“I think that Michael would have a problem if your husband thinks there had been sexual abuse.”

That was one of the biggest errors that Pellicano committed during his investigation. He used the words “sexual abuse.” Evan stated that he believed his son and Jackson had a “strange relationship.” He had never, though, used the words “sexual abuse” with anybody, not even his lawyer or wife. (p.92)

So Evan never connected Jackson with any “sexual abuse” and never pronounced these words with anybody, even his lawyer or wife? But how then could he describe those graphic scenes in his so-called diary concerning Brett Barnes if he refrained from using even this relatively neutral expression even with his lawyer? Totally impossible!

By the time Gutierrez gets to the end of the book he evidently forgets what he said in the beginning of it. Thus, in his highly suspicious desire to describe the ‘beauty’ of the alleged relations between MJ and Jordan, he finishes portraying Jordan as Michael’s only big love and involuntarily clears Brett Barnes of his earlier lies.

In a chapter called “The Way They Were” Gutierrez shares with us his own very intimate thoughts and observations and again says that Michael never went with any boy further than he “did with Jordan”. Please note the romantic inspiration the author feels while describing the man-boy love:

The Way They Were

Jackson loved Jordie. The King of Pop had had sexual relations with many children, but Jordie was special. Jordie was his lover, his companion. He desired him physically and couldn’t be separated from him. He was his top priority, his life, the only person he wanted close to him. That’s why he told Jordie “I’ve never gone so far sexually with a boy as I have with you.” Jordie felt the same. He was attracted to his friend, his idol, and lost his virginity, so to speak, with him. He enjoyed sex with his friend (p. 201).

Forget this dirty lie about Jordan “having sex with his friend” and even “enjoying it” (he didn’t have sex as he couldn’t even describe MJ genitalia) – first we need to finish with the ugly business concerning Brett Barnes. To do so I will have to quote an episode where Jordan allegedly says that Michael told him that he allegedly wanted to try anal sex with him and complained that he “had never done it”.

This made me jump – so ‘he had never done it’? And how about another boy’s ‘penetration’? This other boy came into Michael’s life much earlier than Jordan and nevertheless now Gutierrez himself tells us that Michael had never done it?

The narration about a ‘failed attempt at anal sex’ starts with MJ attending the wedding of June Chandler’s brother:

“On Monday, June 21, Jackson surprisingly arrived in New York. “He called the number which I had left him, and asked my mom if she could take me to the hotel where he was  staying. We couldn’t believe it. Michael had followed me to be together,” related Jordie.

While in New York, Jackson showed a side of himself that Jordie had not known. “Michael told me that we were going to spend a very special day and night together. But then my mom decided to leave Lily at the hotel with me. This enraged Michael so much that he asked me very strongly, as if I had never seen him, ‘What is your sister doing here? We won’t have any privacy! We won’t be able to do anything!’ When my mother left, Michael slammed the door and began to break the lamps, mirrors and tables in the room.”

After reading the above you will understand why serious people like Sneddon and Mesereau discussed in full earnest at the 2005 trial the incident when Michael accidently broke two lamps in a hotel room. The lamps were broken because Michael was showing some karate moves. Let us see what Mesereau asked June Chandler about it and what she said:

25 Michael told you he kicked the two lamps

26 practicing karate, right?

27 A. Correct.

28 Q. And he said he would pay for it, right?

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. And you said to him, “Lily told me a

3 different story,” right?

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. But Lily told you they were just playing,

6 correct?

7 A. Correct.

Forget about the lamps and better look at what Gutierrez says about MJ ‘never doing it before’:

He [Jackson] invited June, Lily and Jordie to Disneyworld in Florida. In Orlando, they stayed at the Grand Floridian Hotel. Jordie and Jackson stayed up all night playing, watching television and conversing. They slept in a private room where the mutual masturbation, kisses and caresses continued to be part of the couple’s routine.

Jordie learned what Jackson had in mind for him in New York. It was to try to have anal sex. “He said that he had never done this before” (p.83).

So here it is …. Brett Barnes got friends with Michael before Jordan Chandler, and now Jordan says that the alleged molester had never done it before and this nullifies everything else Gutierrez said about Brett Barnes in other episodes.

This is how Gutierrez’s lie about Jordan clears of this filth the other boy – Brett Barnes. This is the usual thing with liars as they are unable to bring all their lies in full accordance with each other and at least somewhere in some unconspicuous way they will betray themselves.

If I were in Brett’s place I would send an SMS with the above quotation to the author of all this crap  (and possibly to Maureen Orth, Diane Dimond and the rest of the pack) every day so that they stop repeating lies about him due to their absurdity.

I regard it as a complete disaster that due to Gutierrez’s dirty imagination Brett had to live the major part of his life with a stigma of Gutierrez’s  lies about him. What Gutierrez’s libel actually amounts to is a real abuse of a child (and not fictional as in Michael’s case) and people responsible for it should answer for it one day.

Since Brett suffered life-long moral damage from the above nonsense he is entitled in my opinion to huge damages from all those who were involved in his unspeakable verbal abuse. I sincerely hope that one day justice prevails and Brett gets millions of dollars and a torrent of apologies from these monsters and the press.

ADRIAN MCMANUS DESCRIBES THE HORRID SCENE THOUGH WAS ABSENT FROM IT

Adrian McManus testified at the 2005 trial. She worked in Neverland from August 29, 1990 to July 31, 1994

That being said we can disregard the remaining of Gutierrez’s lies about the sheets with “dry semen and blood stains” from alleged sex scenes with poor Brett Barnes hurriedly hidden by Adrian McManus before the arrival of the police.

The simple reason for it is because Adrian McManus was on a leave that day and said about it in her testimony at the 2005 trial.

There was no way Gutierrez could have known that nine years after he told lies about Brett Barnes in his book, Adrian McManus would have to tell the real truth about that particular day in the 90s.

And in her testimony she said that she was absent on the day of the police raid in 1993 and neither she nor anyone could hide anything prior to the police arrival simply because they didn’t know about the coming raid:

 28 Q. Did you know when the Jordan Chandler 5322

 1 investigation began?

 2 A. Yes.

 3 Q. Was there a search that was conducted at

4 Neverland by Los Angeles Police Department?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Were you present at the time that happened?

7 A. I — yes, but I — yes, but I had called in

8 sick that day and I had to go back to the ranch.

9 Q. You had called in sick that day?

10 A. I was sick on that day.

11 Q. By coincidence, or you knew there was going

12 to be a search?

13 A. No, I didn’t know. I did not know. I just

14 was sick and I called in sick.

15 Q. And had anybody heard of anything in advance

16 of that search?

17 A. No.

18 Q. There had been no talk about that at all?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Fair to say there was probably considerable

21 talk thereafter?

22 A. Yes.

 http://deargavinarvizo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Adrian-McManus-Testimony1.txt

How simple and plain the above looks if you don’t know the context for this discussion! If we didn’t know what Gutierrez said about the day of the police raid in 1993 we would not even pay attention to this part of Adrian McManus’s testimony – so what of it if she was sick on that day and had to be called in?

It is Sneddon and Mesereau who knew what Gutierrez had written and this is why were asking. And the public in the 90s also knew about it as Gutierrez’s lies were repeated by almost everyone then (Taraborrelli, for example).

If only the people reading Adrian McManus’s testimony now could realize that the whole life of Brett Barnes depended on a testimony like that! These plain words clear Brett Barnes again of the dirt said about him in Gutierrez’s book. See how horrid the description of that day is by Gutierrez:

“…before the police arrived, Jackson’s employees had been told to remove certain evidence from the ranch, especially from the singer’s bedroom. Adrian MacManus, Jackson’s personal maid who, as mentioned, was the only person who had access to his bedroom, remembered the scramble the day before the raid.

“It seemed as though a mob of people were robbing a shop. Everyone was running to take things. Michael and his advisors had told people what they should hide. I took his ladies perfumes that he liked to use, he didn’t use men’s. He had Gardinia, Giorgio for Women, and Liz Claiborne.

I took sheets stained with dry semen and excrement most definitely from Jackson and Brett Barnes [the Australian boy]. They also hid suitcases with photos, videos and documents, video cameras, photo equipment and tripods. The guards took furniture and Michael’s spring mattress, which most definitely carried evidence of sexual activity.”

Security guards also told of hiding evidence. “I was in charge of taking the more private things like the bottle of Vaseline, pants and traces of excrement, not stains, but excrement that he put in a bag so that Adrian could wash it at another location,” said Ralph Chacon accusingly. “I also took bottles of alcohol from Michael’s bedroom, alcohol that was drunk by Brett and other boys that would come to visit.” (p.128)

What inspiration! What vivid comparisons! Gutierrez likens the scene of hiding the evidence to “a mob of people robbing a shop”! Who said that the author isn’t talented? He is simply a genius of invention!

But how could the employees hide anything before the police arrival if they didn’t know when the raid would take place?

And how could Adrian McManus take part in it if she was physically absent on that day and arrived only when the police summoned her from home?

And by the way how could Michael give them orders if he had already left on a Dangerous tour by then, and Pellicano was also away?

Due to the 2005 testimonies of the alleged participants in that scene we know that not a single thing of the above ever took place. There was no ‘mobbing the shop’, there were no ‘sheets’ to hide, there was no ‘Vaseline’ and all the rest of it, and the scene is simply the fruit of horrid imagination of Gutierrez or those people.

Which of them was the basic source of it we don’t know but we know for sure that all of them were consulted by Gutierrez as was revealed at the 2005 trial. Thomas Mesereau occasionally asked them, “Did you discuss it with Gutierrez?”.

Looking at all his lies do you realize now what kind of a guy we are dealing with?

Gutierrez couldn’t know one important thing when he was writing his manuscript  – that the testimonies these people will give in 2005 will overturn the lies he attributes to them in his book of 1996.

Today’s disproval of these lies makes all the more precious Gutierrez’s own conclusion about the police raid in 1993. Gutierrez says that the police didn’t find anything incriminating MJ during their search of Neverland then, only he explains this fact by the fictitious mob scene described earlier. Probably this is why he had to invent that scene at all, as otherwise it is not clear why nothing, absolutely nothing was found by the police.

However there is no stopping Gutierrez and defying all logic he  states that though nothing was found the police all the same confirmed that MJ was a p-le:

In the end, the police did not have any incriminating evidence, because Jackson’s employees had taken it the day before. The detectives, though, confirmed that Jackson was a pedophile.(p.129)

You see that the absence of incriminating evidence doesn’t stop Victor Gutierez from repeating his usual mantras about Jackson. Even if his accusations are based on nothing he simply likes pronouncing the word ….

When the police raided Michael’s Hideout apartment and didn’t find anything there either Gutierrez boldly explained it by the fact that the chauffeur took a whole suitcase of evidence into Pellicano’s house. Well, the chauffeur did take a suitcase, but only AFTER the police had raided the apartment which makes all the difference in the world. But this doesn’t matter to Gutierrez and he goes on inserting lies and sex even into this totally innocent situation:

“…the Police Department dealt Jackson a second blow by raiding his Century City “hideout”. The police did not find what they were looking for. They only found a few photos of Jackson’s friends in photo albums, semi-nude, only faces and bodies, but nothing that would show them that Jackson had sex with them. The police apparently did not know that Jackson had sent his employees to take all the incriminating evidence from all of his residences. Jackson’s chauffeur, Gary Hearns, later admitted that he removed a case and a bag from the “hideout,” and took it to Pellicano’s house (p. 129).

It would be a crime to leave page 129 without mentioning another of Gutierrez’s colorful lies there (how does he manage to spill so much poison into one page?).  According to Gutierrez Adrian McManus said about Brett’s mother that she had stolen things from the ranch during the police raid and that she would steal anything she saw of Jackson to give them as presents to her relatives!

“During the raid, Los Angeles detectives interviewed Brett Barnes and his sister, Karlin Nicole. The children didn’t understand what was happening, and were scared. The employees knew Brett and his mother very well. She was a bit strange. “This lady would steal anything she saw of Jackson’s so that she could give them as presents to her relatives,” said Adrian MacManus. (p. 129)

There is no way to know who was telling these outrageous things about Brett’s mother (she most probably received those things as gifts from Jackson) – the maid or Victor Gutierrez –  but what is interesting is that life often turns out much more colorful than any journalist’s invention. During the testimony in 2005 Adrian McManus had to admit that she had stolen not only Michael Jackson’s drawing of Elvis Presley but also tens of thousands of dollars from the children who stayed in her home and whose money was entrusted to her and her husband by the children’s family!

Q. So you dissipated those funds, violated their trust? 

A. Yes, we did.

The woman who accused Brett Barnes’ mother of stealing had to admit that she was a thief herself?  The ways of God are full of wonder indeed…
(to be continued)

UPDATE January 28th, 2012 by sanemjfan

It turns out that Michael Jackson was NOT the only person who was slandered by Victor Gutierrez!  In October 2008, VG was ordered to pay $46,000 dollars to Cecilia Bolocco, a former Miss Universe winner who VG said was having an affair with a Brazalian author named Paulo Coelho while she was married to Carlos Menem, the former President of Argentina. He made that defamotory statement in 2001 during a television appearance.

Read the article below and look at his PATHETIC response to the verdict, and his worthless appeals for mercy and leniency!

Chile upholds lawsuit won by ex-Miss Universe

SANTIAGO, Chile — Chile’s Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the slander conviction of a journalist who alleged that a former Miss Universe was having an affair with novelist Paulo Coelho while engaged to Argentina’s president.

The court ordered Chilean journalist Victor Gutierrez to pay $46,000 to Cecilia Bolocco for the allegations, which he made during a 2001 television appearance.

Bolocco has repeatedly denied the allegation that she had an affair with the Brazilian author while engaged to Argentine President Carlos Menem.

Menem and Bolocco married in 2001. They are now separated and in the process of getting a divorce. Menem served as president of Argentina from 1989 to 1999.

In his appeal of a lower court ruling, Gutierrez wrote that “there was no intention to offend, and if there was an offense, it would be minor, not serious.”

Gutierrez said he would be hard-pressed to pay the fine.

“I’m only a journalist who does not earn millions with his coverage,” he wrote in his appeal. “We’re dealing with a humble person, whose income goes directly to help his widowed mother and several disadvantaged nieces and nephews.”

Gutierrez added that for Bolocco, $46,000 was probably “nothing.”

Bolocco did not comment on the ruling Wednesday. It was not possible to contact Coelho for comment.

Gutierrez also lost a 1998 lawsuit filed by singer Michael Jackson after the journalist accused him of child molestation.

Local news media at the time reported that Gutierrez was ordered to pay Jackson $2.7 million. It is unclear if Gutierrez ever paid any of it. He reportedly was outside of the country Wednesday and could not be reached for comment.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

To end this post on a sad note, in March 2010 VG was able to secure an interview with Latoya Jackson about the circumstances involving MJ’s death. Here is a video of them HUGGING after the interview, followed by a translation of a Chilean article about the interview! The article speaks for itself!

Michael’s chaser ended up hugging La Toya

Víctor Gutiérrez in a good mood with the Jacksons

The good wave was such big that the singer, sent greetings to the earthquake victims,

Picture legend: During the interview La Toya liked Víctor’s Gutiérrez shirt. Sergio Vallejos

It seemed and impossible mission, but he did it. The journalist Víctor Vallejo, the same that treated Michael Jackson as delinquent and pedophile, must obtain an exclusive interview with : La Toya Jackson, who today is the head-on spokesperson from the late King Of Pop’s family

“I thought that I couldn’t make it. Until the last moment I had doubts about the interview”, tells Gutierrez from Los Angeles, California

“ The only thing I can say is Chile be Strong” La Toya Jackson

With so much faith, the persistent journalist contacted the manager of the dark-skinned girl to speak about the situation. And for the surprise of Gutiérrez, the journalist was hired the past week, to produce an interview between La Toya and an Argentinean program via satellite. He reveals “They called me from 70.20.10, from the Channel 13, asking me to contact La Toya to speak about the theory of her brother’s murder”

The 53 old woman, accepted his invitation. We met last Friday in the studio, before the interview I told her: It’s time to talk about other matters. He confess, I think she though that I was going to lay an ambush or something like that to her”.

After the 17 minutes interview. Michael’s sister and Gutiérrez shared a friendly conversation.

I told her what happened in Chile with the earthquake, and she couldn’t get that matter out of her head. She asked me how could she help, and I said sending them regards”

And they recorded a video.

We made a couple of tests, because she wanted to send a message in Spanish. She had a hard time trying to say “Fuerza Chile”, but she had a very beautiful gesture.

Did you make up with La Toya?

I don’t know, I think the earthquake united us. In addition, I commented to her about my mother’s passing and she was very affectionate.

What about the other siblings?

I believe they don’t like me. I did not change my theory (about Jackson’s pedophilia), but I believed he was murdered.

http://www.lun.com/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?dt=2010-03-17&PaginaId=26&bodyid=0

UPDATED JULY 6, 2013 by vindicatemj

Guys, I see that my first text about Gutierrez’s book and Brett Barnes has suddenly got to the top of articles most read at the moment. I looked it up myself and was totally dissatisfied with the way it was written. You must forgive me – it was long time ago and when I was writing it I was in a total shock of the book myself. This was the first time I really read it.

Now I have brought a little more order into my then thoughts, and reorganized the text a little. But there is one point in this text which these days I would interpret differently.

It is Gutierrez’s story about Larry Feldman allegedly looking for him for three months with the help of a private detective prior to their settlement with Michael in January 1994.

At that time I was incredulous of such a statement and merely laughed at it. Now I would no longer laugh.

Please read this piece from Gutierrez once again:

Tuesday, January 11 (1994):
“That same afternoon I met with Jordie’s attorney Larry Feldman, to find out more about the status of the case. Feldman told me that he had been looking for me for three months through a private investigator, Sandra Sutherland. During our conversation, Feldman expressed to me his uneasiness about the difficulty of finding more children to testify against Jackson”.

Here is what I see in the same episode now:

1. On January 11, 1994 Feldman still had no other “victims” and said it was “difficult to find more children to testify against Jackson”. This means that not only Jordan was refusing to testify but Jason Francia had nothing to say either. And there was absolutely no one else.

2. What did Feldman want Gutierrez for? He wanted him to supply him with evidence about “other boys”. They could not find any themselves and needed Gutierrez’s help.

3. Gutierrez’s words that he met with Feldman to find out more about “the status of the case” makes me think that he was the one where the case originated and now he was checking with Feldman what progress they were making. It turned out that there was not much progress despite all the information he had supplied them with and they wanted more.

4. The fact that Feldman knew whom to look for to get this information from shows that Gutierrez was at the beginning of the case.

5. And the fact that Feldman had to hire a private investigator to find him does not look like a big exaggeration I previously laughed at. Now it shows to me that Gutierrez was deep in hiding from someone and must have had a very strange status too. If Gutierrez was the one who had supplied them with information earlier they must have had his contact telephones, etc. especially since previously he was openly making rounds of the families who were friends with Michael.

6. This makes me think that Gutierrez was afraid of Pellicano and had to go into so deep a hiding that even Feldman and the Chandlers had to look for him with the help of a private investigator.

7. If Gutierrez had been an FBI agent I don’t think that he could have been intimidated by a simple private detective like Pellicano. No, he was an informant who was trying to hide his own past from a very professional sleuth like Pellicano.

So all of it is acquiring a totally different meaning now.

I think that some people in the police and even FBI wouldn’t want a person like Pellicano to tell the whole truth about that matter and this may explain the exceptionally harsh treatment he got for what he did as a private detective. I’ve looked it up and found that private detectives are allowed wire tapping – in cases of extortion, for example.

His rival Rizzo paid for wiretapping by his license revoked for 10 years, while Pellicano is serving 15 years (or more?) in prison for the same crime, and this makes me wonder. Pellicano’s fate may not be an outside matter for this  Gutierrez’s story at all.

189 Comments leave one →
  1. July 6, 2013 5:06 am

    No, Pellicano does not look like a side matter to this Gutierrez’s thing at all. In fact everything is fitting in.

    In 1992 Gutierrez was making rounds of various families spreading lies about Jackson and looking for a candidate to start a case against him.

    Among those many parents Gutierrez spoke to Joy Robson, mother of Wade Robson.

    She listened to him very attentively and reported Gutierrez to Michael.

    Michael told his then attorney Bert Fields, and Bert Fields sent his investigator Pellicano to find out.

    Pellicano found Gutierrez and according to Gutierrez himself “threatened” him with sanctions if he went on spreading lies about Jackson.

    Gutierrez went into hiding, but not before he associated with Evan Chandler.

    Evan Chandler said there were many people involved in his case and that it would ruin Michael’s career.

    In November 1993 Pellicano and Bert Fields were moved out of the case. Both insisted that Michael was innocent but did not explain why they were leaving. Bert Fields never spoke about it again and Pellicano is now in jail.

    Five months since the Chandler case broke out, on January 11, 1994 Larry Feldman was still having a big problem with proving his case as he was missing “other victims” and no one was confirming Jordan’s story.

    Three months before that (approx. October 1993) began looking for Gutierrez and his help.

    On January 11, 1994 – which is Jordan Chandler’s birthday – Gutierrez resurfaced and they discussed the case.

    But even Gutierrez could not help Feldman and supply any more “victims” than those provided earlier.

    Two weeks after that Feldman had to go down from the initial $30million they wanted from Jackson to the final $15,3mln. and they settled.

    And now some people are again returning to what they call “fbi files” (provided by informant Gutierrez?) and now again we hear about Pellicano who had accesss to those papers.

    And now they are also involving Wade Robson. For some reason Joy Robson is keeping silence (at least at the moment).

    Yes, there is definitely a big connection between all this Gutierrez’s story, Pellicano and even Joy Robson.

    P. S.

    And you know, all of the above even explains the strange words dropped by Jordan Chandler when the police and FBI agents approached him again prior to the 2005 trial. He said that he “had done his part” and said he would sue them if they did not leave him alone.

    Like

  2. July 6, 2013 4:26 am

    Guys, I see that my first text about Gutierrez’s book and Brett Barnes has suddenly got to the top of articles most read at the moment. I looked it up myself and was totally dissatisfied with the way it was written. You must forgive me – it was long ago and when I was writing it I was in a total shock of the book myself. This was the first time I read it to the end.

    Now I have brought a little more order into my then thoughts, though the text itself is the same – just some words changed and a little more focus is placed on a couple of things.

    But there is one point in this text which these days I would interpret differently. It is Gutierrez’s story about Larry Feldman allegedly looking for him for three months with the help of a private detective prior to their settlement with Michael in January 1994.

    At that time I was incredulous of such a statement and merely laughed at it. Now I would no longer laugh.

    Please read this piece from Gutierrez once again:

    Tuesday, January 11 (1994):
    “That same afternoon I met with Jordie’s attorney Larry Feldman, to find out more about the status of the case. Feldman told me that he had been looking for me for three months through a private investigator, Sandra Sutherland. During our conversation, Feldman expressed to me his uneasiness about the difficulty of finding more children to testify against Jackson”.

    Here is what I see in the same episode now:

    1. On January 11, 1994 Feldman still had no other “victims” and said it was “difficult to find more children to testify against Jackson”. This means that not only Jordan was refusing to testify but Jason Francia had nothing to say either. And there was absolutely no one else.

    2. What did Feldman want Gutierrez for? He wanted him to supply him with evidence about “other boys”. They could not find any themselves and needed Gutierrez’s help.

    3. Gutierrez’s words that he met with Feldman to find out more about “the status of the case” makes me think that he was the one where the case originated and now he was checking what progress they were making. It turned out that there was not much progress despite all the information he had supplied them with and they wanted more.

    4. The fact that Feldman knew whom to look for to get this information from shows that Gutierrez was at the beginning of the case.

    5. The fact that Feldman had to hire a private investigator to find him does not look like a big exaggeration I previously laughed at. Now it shows to me that Gutierrez was deep in hiding from everyone and must have had a strange status too. If Gutierrez was the one who supplied them with information earlier they must have had his contact telephones, etc. especially since previously he had been openly making rounds of the families who were friends with Michael. However now Gutierrez was not available.

    6. This makes me think that Gutierrez was afraid of Pellicano and had to go into so deep a hiding that even Feldman and the Chandlers had to look for him with the help of a private investigator.

    7. If Gutierrez had been an FBI agent I don’t think that he could have been intimidated by a private detective like Pellicano. No, he was an informant who was either terribly afraid of Pellicano or was trying to hide his past from a professional sleuth like him.

    So all of it is acquiring a totally different meaning now.

    I think that some people in the police and even FBI wouldn’t want a person like Pellicano to tell the whole truth about that matter and this may explain the exceptionally harsh treatment he got for what he did as a private detective. I’ve looked it up and found that private detectives are allowed wire tapping – in cases of extortion, for example.

    His rival Rizzo paid for wiretapping by his license being revoked for 10 years, while Pellicano is serving 15 years (or more?) in prison for the same crime, and this makes me wonder.

    Pellicano’s story looks like a side matter to this Gutierrez’s thing but you never know.

    Like

  3. Truth Prevail permalink
    January 31, 2012 3:49 am

    Oh my Latoya you just hit an all time low Shameful!

    Like

  4. sanemjfan permalink
    January 31, 2012 3:34 am

    I added the video of Latoya hugging VG in March 2010, as well as the translation of the article about their interview at the bottom of this post.

    Like

  5. January 29, 2012 4:47 pm

    “All this is just a continuation of the phenomenon of the McMartin preeschool scandal that finally was proven not to have existed. People are more gullible than one wants to believe and thirst after sexual and salacious material”

    Kaarin, I know that the phenomenon of “McMartin school” is there and none of us are immune to unfounded suspicions about innocent but slandered people. And the “satanic child abuse” panic which was spread in the US in the 80s and early 90s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse) was also probably unfounded. But we need to make some conclusions from the 90s moral panic.

    First, it was due to this panic that people started eyeing others with suspicion, and Evan Chandler was a vivid example of this. The early 90s were the culmination of the anti-pedophilia campaign. And Evan fell a victim to it, especially since Victor Gutierrez surely worked on him (in the same way he worked on all other parents in MJ’s surrounding).

    But it would be a mistake to go to the other extreme and say that all child abuse cases taking place at that and other times were fictional. There is so much evidence in the Franklin case that I am not sure that we should shrug it off as a fake (I’ll try to study it further).

    But what I am absolutely sure of are the words of Corey Feldman who speaks about wide-spread pedophilia in Hollywood which has been its key feature and has existed there for decades.

    The problem is that it is extremely difficult to differentiate between true and false cases of child abuse but we should nevertheless learn how to. Pedophilia is a terrible threat, and it IS spreading as some materials show it. It should be fought by all means if we do not want to have a living hell on this planet. The only problem is to learn to see the difference between truth and falsity in all these cases and never to accuse the innocent.

    On Hollywood and Corey Feldman:

    Recent Charges of Sexual Abuse of Children in Hollywood Just Tip of Iceberg, Experts Say
    2011-12-05, Fox News
    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/12/05/recent-charges-sexual-abuse-c

    If a spate of recent allegations proves true, Hollywood may have a hideous epidemic on its hands. The past two weeks have brought three separate reports of alleged child sexual abuse in the entertainment industry.

    Martin Weiss, a 47-year-old Hollywood manager who represented child actors, was charged in Los Angeles on Dec. 1 with sexually abusing a former client. His accuser, who was under 12 years old during the time of the alleged abuse, reported to authorities that Weiss told him “what they were doing was common practice in the entertainment industry.” Weiss has pleaded not guilty.

    On Nov. 21, Fernando Rivas, 59, an award-winning composer for “Sesame Street,” was arraigned on charges of coercing a child “to engage in sexually explicit conduct” in South Carolina. The Juilliard-trained composer was also charged with production and distribution of child pornography.

    Registered sex offender Jason James Murphy, 35, worked as a casting agent in Hollywood for years before his past kidnapping and sexual abuse of a boy was revealed by the Los Angeles Times on Nov. 17.

    Revelations of this sort come as no surprise to former child star Corey Feldman. Feldman, 40, himself a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, unflinchingly warned of the world of pedophiles who are drawn to the entertainment industry last August.

    “I can tell you that the No. 1 problem in Hollywood was and is and always will be pedophilia,” Feldman told ABC’s Nightline. “That’s the biggest problem for children in this industry… It’s the big secret.”

    Like

  6. Suzy permalink
    January 29, 2012 4:11 pm

    Kaarin, indeed. I read the article on the “Satanic ritual abuse” panic on Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse ) and what struck me was how one book, titled “Michelle Remembers” (which later proved to be a total fabrication) triggered it all and how authorities used it as a handbook while “investigating” such allegations:

    “In 1980 the book, Michelle Remembers, written by Michelle Smith and husband/psychiatrist Lawrence Pazder, was published. The book, now discredited, was written as an autobiography and was the first known claim linking the abuse of children with Satanic rituals.[10] Pazder was also the individual responsible for coining the term “ritual abuse”.[11] It provided a model for allegations of SRA that followed.[10][12] On the basis of the book’s success, Pazder developed a high media profile, gave lectures and training on SRA to law enforcement, and, by September 1990, had acted as a consultant on more than 1,000 SRA cases, including the McMartin preschool trial. Prosecutors used “Michelle Remembers” as a guide when preparing cases against alleged Satanists.[13]Michelle Remembers, along with others portrayed as survivor stories, are suspected to have influenced later allegations of SRA[10][14] and the book has been suggested as a causal factor in the later epidemic of SRA allegations.[15][16][17]”

    The same happened to Michael! If you read the testimonies from Michael’s trial and the allegations of the prosecution, you know that much of it was modelled after what VG claimed in his book! Those stories popped up again and again during the trial, even though the only “source” for them was VG’s book. The prosecution definitely used that book to construct their allegations. Even though VG should have lost all credibility after that video tape allegation (not to mention his NAMBLA connections). I always found it incredible how the law enforcement was led by the nose by a nobody book author with questionable credibility. But reading this Wiki article it seems to me this wasn’t the first time. One book (“Michelle Remembers”) was able to trigger a one and a half decade long witch-hunt against a great number of people all over the United States! Honestly, I didn’t expect US authorties to be this gullible. Although, in Michael’s case the reason why Sneddon and his team were “gullible” was that they WANTED to believe these allegations, because they had an initial hate for Michael.

    Like

  7. January 29, 2012 2:46 pm

    Victor Gutirrez book was so successful and inspired so many to use it as source for their journalism.Strange that he has been so influential!?
    All this is just a continuation of the phenomenon of the McMartin preeschool scandal that finally was proven not to have existed.
    People are more gullible than one wants to believe and thirst after sexual and salacious material.V.G. just chose another way to access this need in many peoples sick minds.

    Like

  8. January 29, 2012 10:32 am

    @lynande51
    Your right about the ouija board, I don’t think Michael would bother with it, he probably didn’t watch the Exorcist either liked Chandler alleged. I am not an official witness, but studied for eons and I wouldn’t be caught dead with a ouija board. The Jehovah’s witnesses didn’t make Michael put up the disclaimer though – that was his decision. After it aired many religious leaders through the press were accusing the Jehovah’s witnesses of being an occult linking Michael to thriller.

    Like

  9. January 29, 2012 10:31 am

    @lynande51
    Your right about the ouija board, I did think Michael would bother with it, he probably didn’t watch the Exorcist either liked Chandler alleged. I am not an official witness, but studied for eons and I wouldn’t be caught dead with any ouija board. The Jehovah’s witnesses didn’t make Michael put up the disclaimer though – that was his decision. After it aired many religious leaders through the press were accusing the Jehovah’s witnesses of being an occult linking Michael to thriller.

    Like

  10. January 29, 2012 12:42 am

    “MJ was NOT the only person who was slandered by VG! I added an update at the end of this post with a story of another person who successfully sued VG!”

    David, Gutierrez is in the habit of accusing people on sexual grounds and he seems to be specially obsessed with pedophilia. He involved himself in several scandals in Chile. At least in one case (in addition to Michael Jackson’s suit) he was heavily penalized for his libel.

    I have a sort of a file on him, but much of it is in Spanish and requires translation. However one day I will still make a post about his Chilean cases.

    As a sample of how outraged people are with Gutierrez here is a letter of Marcelo Morales Navarro, a correspondent of “The Nortero” newspaper, saying what he thinks about “journalist” Victor Gutierrez. Sorry for the Google translation from Spanish. (I had to omit one sentence as it was unclear):

    OPEN LETTER TO JOURNALIST VICTOR GUITIÉRREZ

    I imagine you must be happy with the death of Michael Jackson, that your cell phone has not stopped ringing and your articles and interviews fee has gone up significantly.

    I guess now you can breathe easy knowing that the plaintiff has died and the trial you lost in 1997 is closed and that $ 2.7 million to be paid for losing the lawsuit in the United States will no longer be your concern.

    When you said you were in possession of an incriminating video Michael Jackson in compromising situations and failed to prove its existence you lost a case in which the image, professionalism and ethics of the Chilean journalism were affected. But YOU said:

    “I declared myself bankrupt and had 10 years to find money. June 2007 was the deadline and could not get me anything, ”

    This strategy of letting time pass by filing petitions that may be legal but not ethical is nothing usual in UD. It portrays the misery of your person and the non-existence of values, the total lack of good living, indecency a vulture and the immorality of a deadbeat bastard throwing accusations in the air, unable to prove the truth of your statements.

    Neither said when in 2001 Chile’s Supreme Court sentenced you to pay $ 47,500 to Cecilia Bolocco when you had no basis for saying she was a lover of Brazilian writer Paulo Coelho. There was no resources or manhood to take on the sentence. How easy it is to do what YOU do, trash people, make lots of money for interviews, writing books and articles with lies and no losses when demand and lost, as has always been the case.

    That is easy and that is your life of a miserable parasite. Too much harm it does to society. “The journalist is not to invent sources, hiding as a” close “,” a senior official of the institution “, etc., Thus safeguarding the credibility and dignity of the profession.” (Article 8th. Code of Journalistic Ethics)

    Latest News In The UD today. It says:

    “Now I can negotiate the rights of my film about my book that was outstanding”
    “And of course me are calling programs worldwide to sell them information and even photos I have of him as a child”

    Morality that Mr. Gutierrez, to continue doing business, continue to receive money from others, continue profiting from the misery of others, to death.

    You have exceeded all bounds of decency and respect. Article Six of the code of journalistic ethics says:

    “A journalist must always establish a clear distinction between facts, opinions and interpretations, avoiding any confusion or deliberate distortion of them”

    2003 to meet the rugged history of Claudio Spiniak UD had no qualms about linking to Joaquin Lavin, at that time a presidential candidate with the pedophile, again winning a lawsuit because they can not prove. Did not hesitate to devise a mounting public figures linked to the pedophile ring. As usual nothing came and UD. You hoped that the waters be still hiding your head of an ostrich.

    This morning you said on DNA Radio “We keep talking about Michael Jackson as if there no more important issues” And YOU say so? You who have lived and fed us for years by reports and articles based on lies? Have you ever had the manhood to face sentences or pay what justice has imposed on you?

    As you can tell that there are issues more important if UD. lived to these stories. Such as a human being so miserable, as a journalist can reach this level of sleaze and dishonesty.

    “I’m not gay, my partner is Gay”
    (Victor Gutierrez, magazine The Journalist, March 31, 2003)

    Being homosexual is respectable and self determination and I have absolutely nothing against it, but being a sissy shit like UD openly condemn it and consider it a bastard that pervades the society of evil, of falsehood, hypocrisy and dishonesty.

    UD. never transcend as a journalist for being a real contribution but farandulizar life and distance that has to ethics, decency and values.

    Michael Jackson, thanks for your music happiness flooded my youth parties and for your enormous contribution to world music.
    Rest in Peace.

    Marcelo Morales Navarro

    Here is the original letter:

    CARTA ABIERTA AL PERIODISTA VICTOR GUTTIEREZ
    SEÑOR
    VICTOR GUTIERREZ
    PERIODISTA
    PRESENTE

    Imagino que debe estar feliz con la muerte de Michael Jackson; que su teléfono celular no ha parado de sonar y que su tarifa por artículos y entrevistas ha subido ostensiblemente.
    Imagino que ahora puede respirar tranquilo al saber que la parte demandante ha fallecido y el juicio que perdió el año 1997 se cierra y que los 2,7 millones de dólares que debía pagar por perder la demanda en Estados Unidos ya no serán su preocupación.
    Cuando UD dijo que tenía en su poder un video que incriminaba a Michael Jackson en situaciones comprometedoras y no pudo probar su existencia perdió un juicio en el cual el periodismo chileno vio afectada su imagen, su profesionalismo y ética. Pero UD dijo:

    “Yo me declaré en bancarrota y él tenía 10 años para encontrarme dinero. En junio de 2007 venció el plazo y no pudo sacarme nada”,

    Esa estrategia de dejar que el tiempo pase, presentando recursos que pueden ser legales pero que no tienen nada de ética es habitual en UD.; retrata la miseria de su persona y la nula existencia de valores, el desconocimiento total del buen vivir, la indecencia de un buitre y la inmoralidad de un bastardo aprovechador que lanza acusaciones al aire, sin poder probar la veracidad de sus dichos.
    Tampoco respondió cuando en el año 2001 la Corte Suprema de Chile lo condenó a pagar 47.500 dólares a Cecilia Bolocco por decir sin ningún fundamento que era amante del escritor brasileño Paulo Coelho. Ahí tampoco tuvo recursos ni hombría para asumir la condena. Que fácil es hacer lo que UD hace; basurear a la gente, ganar mucho dinero en entrevistas, escribiendo libros y artículos con mentiras y sin pérdidas cuando se le demanda y pierde, como siempre ha sido su caso. Que fácil y que miserable es su vida de parásito. Que mal le hace a la sociedad. “El periodista no inventará fuentes, encubriéndolas como “un cercano”, “un alto funcionario de la institución”, etc., resguardando de este modo la credibilidad y dignidad de la profesión.” (Articulo 8vo. Código de Ética Periodística)
    En Las Últimas Noticias de hoy UD. Dice:
    “Ahora podré negociar los derechos de mi película sobre mi libro que estaba pendiente”
    “y por supuesto me están llamando programas de todo el mundo para que les venda información y hasta fotos que tengo de el cuando era niño”

    Que moralidad Sr. Gutiérrez; siga haciendo negocios, siga recibiendo dinero a costa de los demás, siga lucrando con la desgracia ajena, con la muerte.
    Usted ha sobrepasado todos los límites de la decencia y del respeto, se pasado por cualquier parte el artículo Sexto del código de ética periodística
    que dice:
    ”El periodista deberá establecer siempre una distinción clara entre los hechos, las opiniones y las interpretaciones, evitando toda confusión o distorsión deliberada de ellos”

    El año 2003 al conocerse la escabrosa historia de Claudio Spiniak UD no tuvo reparos en relacionar a Joaquín Lavin, por esa época candidato a la presidencia con el pedófilo, ganándose nuevamente una querella al no poder probar los hechos. No tuvo reparos en idear un montaje que vinculaba a personero públicos con la red de pedofilia. Como siempre todo quedó en nada y UD. Esperó que las aguas se aquieten escondiendo la cabeza con un avestruz.
    Hoy en la mañana usted dijo en ADN Radio “Para que seguir hablando de Michael Jackson si hay temas mas importantes” ¿Y UD lo dice? ¿Usted que se ha vivido y se ha alimentado por años de reportajes y artículos basados en la mentira? ¿Usted que nunca ha tenido la hombría para enfrentar condenas ni pagar lo que la justicia le ha impuesto?
    Como puede decir que hay temas mas importantes si UD. a vivido de estas historias. Como puede ser un ser humano tan miserable, Como un periodista puede alcanzar tal nivel de sordidez y deshonestidad.

    “Yo no soy gay; mi pareja es Gay”
    (Víctor Gutiérrez, Revista El Periodista, 31 de marzo de 2003)
    Para mi UD. es una persona despreciable que desde su reconocida y mal vivida homosexualidad ve desviaciones sexuales hasta peces de acuario y que busca fama y dinero de la peor de las formas; alejado de la moralidad y de la ética profesional, cometiendo asesinatos de imagen y que cuando los cuadros se le presentan adversos se convierte en maricón en la más literal de las definiciones.
    El ser homosexual es una determinación propia y respetable y no tengo absolutamente nada contra ello, pero el ser un maricón de mierda como UD lo condeno abiertamente y lo considero un mal nacido que inunda la sociedad de maldad, de falsedad, hipocresía y deshonestidad.
    UD. nunca trascenderá como periodista por ser un aporte real sino por farandulizar la vida y por lejanía que tiene con la ética, la decencia y los valores.
    Michael Jackson, gracias por tu música que inundó de felicidad mis fiestas de juventud y por tu enorme aporte a la música mundial.
    Descansa en Paz.

    Marcelo Morales Navarro
    Link a la columna en “El Nortero”

    Like

  11. sanemjfan permalink
    January 28, 2012 10:15 pm

    MJ was NOT the only person who was slandered by VG! I added an update at the end of this post with a story of another person who successfully sued VG!

    Like

  12. October 12, 2011 1:59 am

    It’s his real twitter account.

    Like

  13. October 11, 2011 11:36 pm

    This seems to be Brett Barnes’ real twitter account

    http://twitter.com/#!/IAmBrettBarnes

    Like

  14. shelly permalink
    October 2, 2011 2:26 am

    Dimond also said that in 1994, she had a source who told her that Chacon and Abdool testimonies were very damaging. I wonder who was the source, VG?

    Like

  15. lynande51 permalink
    October 2, 2011 1:15 am

    No surprises there I don’t think one single prosecution witness didn’t break that gag order. I wonder how much she or Court TV paid him for that email?

    Like

  16. shelly permalink
    October 2, 2011 12:18 am

    If Dimonnd is telling the truth, Chacon broke the gag order when he send her that email in February 2005.

    Like

  17. lynande51 permalink
    October 1, 2011 11:23 pm

    I don’t remember I think it might be or it is in the Spanish version that had an additional chapter.

    Like

  18. shelly permalink
    October 1, 2011 11:07 pm

    Is the Ouija board story in VG’s book?

    Like

  19. lynande51 permalink
    October 1, 2011 9:24 pm

    Yeah that wouldn’t surprise me at all. VG was in fact always ready to connect MJ to the Occult in some way. It started from the Thriller disclaimer because the Jehova Witness church made him add that disclaimer because in his church Thriller was viewed that way at the time.
    VG could probably have another agenda with that stuff because at the time many big cases in the US of child sexual abuse allegations included Satanism as a common theme. That was the case with the McMartin Preschool case and several others. So I am sure he wanted to add that as a theme when he helped them create their stories.

    Like

  20. stacy2 permalink
    October 1, 2011 6:54 pm

    I read somewhere that after being cross examined by Meseraeu, Chacon finally cried and said he wanted to go home..lmao

    Like

  21. shelly permalink
    October 1, 2011 10:45 am

    I was just wondering if they changed their story with the Vaseline. As for the Ouija board, it’s in an emailed from Chacon that she published. It really looks like he wanted revenge.

    Like

  22. lynande51 permalink
    October 1, 2011 6:28 am

    I think at some point Sneddon had to know that was a stupid story. Does it really take two grown men to carry a jar of vaseline? As for the ouija board I seriously doubt Michael who was raised a JW would have really done such a thing. It is time to face it DD just makes stuff up for the fun of it.

    Like

  23. shelly permalink
    October 1, 2011 5:21 am

    Dimond claimed that Abdool and Chacon both gave the bottle of Vaseline to Jackson. If so, why the prosecution only tryed to introduce it via Abdool?

    Like

  24. shelly permalink
    September 30, 2011 12:01 am

    Just a question, Dimond claimed she received a mail from Chacon in February 2005 and in it he spoke about a boy who played with MJ with a ouija board and MJ wanted things. What was he talking about?

    Like

  25. September 28, 2011 4:59 pm

    On the note of other kids who were with Michael in 1992, Anthony Jackson

    He was born in 1985, his father died in 1992, as you can see in the video he’s there with Michael on the DWT with him. Jermaine also speaks about how Mike was helping raise his cousins because of difficulties in their family life at the time, around 1994.

    Anthony’s mixed race, just like Brett Barnes and Jordan, if Mike had a supposed “type” then Anthony would’ve fit it to a tee.

    Anthony’s twitter where you can see how much love he has for Mike (he calls Mike “dad” sometimes)

    http://twitter.com/#!/atonclassic

    And with 3T in Japan in 1992 DWT too

    Like

  26. shelly permalink
    September 26, 2011 9:13 pm

    I thought he was trying to explain why Evan’s diary was in the media in 1994. I mean if it was stolen nobody the agreement and Ray is a victim.

    For Chacon, I know it I just found the coincidence intetesting to say the least even doubtfull.

    Do you have the links for those quotes.

    Like

  27. September 26, 2011 7:59 pm

    @Shelly

    Chacon’s testimony was ripped to shreds by Mesereau. Even pro-prosecution analysts agreed.

    Jim Moret: “What we saw as explosive testimony, may have been completely eroded”

    Anne Bremner: “I think this witness’ credibility in a lot of ways was destroyed”

    Roger Friedman: “He’s the one who told the most outrageous story. It was so graphic..About 10 minutes before the break, Tom Meseraeu obligated him”

    J. Randy Tarroblli: “if these people didn’t have all this baggage and if their stories had ended with “and then I called the police”, I would go “oh my god!”..But I mean, if you really saw those things, a normal person would call the police, you don’t call the national enquirer”

    Jane Valdez-Mitchell: “What we thought at first was extremely damaging testimony, didn’t seem all that damaging now that cross examination is over”.

    Like

  28. September 26, 2011 6:17 pm

    He specifically describes the Pepsi support note in his book written by June Chandler

    Like

  29. shelly permalink
    September 26, 2011 5:58 pm

    I think Ray was speaking about the diary.

    Like

  30. September 26, 2011 3:10 pm

    Ray Chandler in his book says that it was June who wrote the note, not Jordan

    Like

  31. shelly permalink
    September 26, 2011 2:30 pm

    Ray Chandler claimed his brother chose to write his story and gave to his lawyer and the document was stolen.

    Like

  32. shelly permalink
    September 25, 2011 7:25 pm

    I found that interesting that VG shows Evan’s diary to the rest of the world the day Chacon testified.

    Like

  33. shelly permalink
    September 5, 2011 4:40 am

    According to Gutierrez, Jordan was a very clever boy for his age

    At 4, he wrote a note of support with his phone number in it.

    Like

  34. Teva permalink
    September 4, 2011 5:34 pm

    @Shelly

    Therefore, if she is on the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) in Britain then any complaints about unfair coverage, and slandering of Michael Jackson will be unattended. She already enters with a bias.

    Like

  35. shelly permalink
    September 4, 2011 4:49 pm

    I found that

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tina_Weaver

    Tina Weaver is a British newspaper editor.

    Weaver started her career at the South West News Service, then worked for the Sunday People from 1989 to 1992 before spending a year at the Daily Mirror, then joined Today.[1] In 1994, she was named the Reporter of the Year for exposing Michael Jackson’s relationship with young boy’s in 1994. When Today closed, Weaver moved to the Daily Mirror, and became Deputy Editor in 1998. She also launched and edited the Mirror’s Saturday magazine, M.[2]

    In 2001, Weaver became Editor of the Sunday Mirror,[2] and in 2008 she was appointed to the Press Complaints Commission.[1]

    Like

  36. J. Mason, New York, NY permalink
    June 22, 2011 5:51 pm

    @ lcpledwards

    Thank you. I appreciate the sensitivity here and the dilemma you face by sharing even excerpts from the offending material. It’s a double-edged sword — but then most swords are.

    Like

  37. June 22, 2011 12:23 pm

    “I truly think that you should be careful in in whom you are giving the book and for me it would be better to not give it at all.”

    Ares, thank you! I’ve also come to the same conclusion. Especially since we agreed that we would not post any hater’s information without a proper rebuttal of it. I will go on with Gutierrez’s book but will take special care that none of his lies goes unattended.

    And of course no porn or ped-lia in this blog.

    Like

  38. ares permalink
    June 22, 2011 12:11 pm

    “I would be really happy if readers helped me by expressing their point of view.”– Helena

    I truly think that you should be careful in in whom you are giving the book and for me it would be better to not give it at all. People may come here and ask it for other reason i.e use it against MJ. A pdf or this kind of files are easy to be distributed and especially through internet and it’s not nice to be us the one spreding this kind of dirt about MJ through VG book. Not everyone intentions are pure.This is what i think. Let’s not be us the ones who will distirbute a free slanderous piece on MJ.

    Like

  39. June 22, 2011 9:38 am

    “This Gutierrez book is still available on Amazon but I won’t spend $500 for it. Is there a site in which the book can be read? Thank you”

    J.Mason, there is no site where the book can be read as the book is actually banned in the US as pornography (it was sold in the US under the counter in gay shops only). I really don’t understand how the Amazon may be breaking the rules so openly. That is why I have a problem with sending it to you – I was about to do it but decided against it at the last moment.

    Really don’t know how to solve this dilemma. If we freely send out the book we will be spreading slanderous information about Michael, and if we don’t some really serious researchers may be devoid of an important research tool. I would be really happy if readers helped me by expressing their point of view.

    Like

  40. lcpledwards permalink
    June 22, 2011 1:24 am

    @ J. Mason
    I will send you 3 links to download VG’s book. Check your email later tonight!

    Like

  41. lynande51 permalink
    June 22, 2011 1:20 am

    Either David or I can provide you with a downloadable copy if you go to contact us and send us your private email we would be happy to send it to you. I originally purchased the book and then scanned it and uploaded it to Adobe.

    Like

  42. J. Mason, New York, NY permalink
    June 21, 2011 11:01 pm

    I agree that defenders of Michael Jackson must read even distasteful materials at times in the course of our work as vindicators. This Gutierrez book is still available on Amazon but I won’t spend $500 for it. Is there a site in which the book can be read? Thank you.

    Like

  43. Suzy permalink
    June 20, 2011 3:10 am

    Thanks, Shelly.

    Like

  44. shelly permalink
    June 19, 2011 11:04 pm

    Blanca Francia has nos shame, she sold her story before her deposition.

    22-28 5085-5086 MESEREAU: Okay. Was it after that deposition that you were interviewed by Hard Copy? BLANCA FRANCIA: No. MESEREAU: It was before? FRANCIA: Oh, before I met with him, with — at my deposition? No, that interview was before. MESEREAU: So the interview with Hard Copy was before the deposition — FRANCIA: Yes. MESEREAU: — right? And that’s the interview you were paid $20,000 — FRANCIA: Yes. MESEREAU: — to do, right? FRANCIA: Yes. MESEREAU: And that’s the interview that you had your friend Evangeline help you arrange, right? FRANCIA: Yes. MESEREAU: And then after you were paid, you said you paid her some money, right? FRANCIA: Yeah

    She said the people at Hard Copy are not honest but on the other hand she had a good relationship with the National Enquirer

    “Mitteager on March 23, 1994, that: “ the reason why Lydia Encinas is involved is because she speaks Spanish and she’s got a good relationship with Blanca.”

    Like

  45. shelly permalink
    June 19, 2011 10:04 pm

    This is the article suzy

    Boy, Oh Boy, Jackson Report Maid-to-order For Fleet Street

    BY GEORGE RUSH

    Thursday, January 26, 1995

    Will Michael Jackson buy the silence of another boy?
    London’s Today newspaper reported yesterday that lawyers for the singer have been hammering out a deal with attorneys for a 15-year-old who claims he was molested by Jackson.
    The youth is said to be the son of Blanca Francia, the former Jackson maid.
    Francia, 39, was a witness during a 1993-94 investigation into charges that Jackson had molested the 13-year-old son of a dentist-screenwriter. She told police and the media that she saw Jackson naked with young boys. She also said she saw boys sharing his bed and bath.
    Now that Jackson has made a multi-million-dollar settlement with the dentist’s son, Francia is said to be pressing for money for her own child.
    Lawyers are working on a settlement in excess of $1.5 million, Today reported, adding: “The exact figure and the wording of the deal is still being negotiated. But Jackson’s lawyers will insist any payment is not an admission of guilt.”
    Francia worked for Jackson for five years beginning in 1986. During depositions, she claimed that Jackson told her, “Whatever I saw is none of anybody’s business. And that he liked me, and that if I [was] asked by anyone, not to tell anything about him.”
    She has said that Jackson would reward her with money and gifts. “I would keep my mouth shut to keep my job,” said the immigrant from El Salvador.
    But she grew disgusted, she claimed, when she found Jackson lying with her 9-year-old son on a sleeping bag. She said that she later discovered $300 in her boy’s pockets. Finally, she says she felt “I was prostituting myself.”
    Jackson’s family and lawyers have challenged Francia’s earlier comments, saying her credibility was undermined by payments to her from “Hard Copy.”
    Jackson’s lawyers have also said Francia has never claimed to have seen Jackson molesting boys.
    The Today story comes two weeks after another British report that there exists a security videotape capturing Jackson in a compromising position with a boy. Allegedly, the date-coded tape was made last month.
    But even reporters who work the edge of the Jackson-scandal territory have their doubts about the video claim, which traces to a freelancer named Victor Gutierrez.
    “Victor is becoming a bit of a loose cannon,” said one tab vet. “His main sources are in the family [of the dentist’s son]. Outside of them, his stories don’t hold up so well.”
    By deadline, Jackson lawyer Howard Weitzman did not return calls seeking comment on the alleged Francia settlement. Weitzman recently announced that Jackson planned to file a $100 million suit against Today and another British newspaper, as well as “Hard Copy” and KABC radio, based on their “defamatory” coverage of the alleged sex-video.
    Yesterday, a spokesman for “Hard Copy” told me Jackson’s lawyers still have not served the show with legal papers.
    The spokesman said the suit-threat “was an attempt by Mr. Weitzman’s office to discourage ‘Hard Copy’ and other news media from continuing their independent investigation.” Defiantly, the show’s producers are “looking into” a story on Francia’s rumored settlement talks.

    http://articles.nydailynews.com/1995-01-26/gossip/17968446_1_blanca-francia-jackson-lawyer-howard-weitzman-victor-gutierrez

    Like

  46. June 19, 2011 9:33 pm

    “I have read most of all the above and feel sick to my stomach that so much attention can be given to such disgusting rubbish. Also, how on earth did Victor Gutierrez get permission, and was able to publish such dreadful books containing such controversial material which surely amounted to libel? So distressing. I wouldn‘t want to waste my money buying them. I don’t think it is helping to vindicate Michael by putting this stuff on line for anyone to read, frankly.’

    Nina, I understand your concerns that writing about VG’s book will not help Michael’s vindication. Directly probably no, as its content is too salacious and too shocking. But since we are involved in a kind of an on-line investigation this book may help to understand:
    – where most of the accusations came from, their origin and main source
    – who Victor Gutierrez is and what role he is playing in this story
    – how the whole thing started and whether it was Evan Chandler or Victor Gutierrez who triggered it off
    – the motives of Victor Gutierrez
    – and many other things the ultimate goal of which is reaching for the truth of what was done to Michael Jackson, how and why it was done.

    As you have probably noticed I am not even trying very hard to refute Gutierrez because refuting his lies is the same as “refuting” a fantasy book about Harry Porter, for example.

    My primary goal is finding out who Gutierrez is and I hope very much that one day we will be able to give a direct answer to that. This, in my opinion, will be the day when we learn the whole truth about Michael Jackson’s case.

    Like

  47. shelly permalink
    June 19, 2011 1:21 am

    I really wonder what Birchim was doing with the National Enquirer. Did he spoke to VG or not? Lol

    Like

  48. Suzy permalink
    June 18, 2011 3:22 am

    @ Shelly

    “On January 26, 1995, journalist George Rush reported in a New York Daily News article tactfully titled –
    ‘Boy, Oh Boy, Jackson Report Maid-To-Order For Fleet Street,’ – that the British newspaper Today had
    published a story reporting that it had been discovered that Blanca Francia had used a National Enquirer
    reporter, Lydia Encinas, as her translator when she was interviewed by police in 1993/4 as part of the
    criminal investigation of Jackson.

    Paul Barresi, tabloid broker and investigator – after listening to a series of illicitly taped conversations recorded by reporter Jim Mitteager (now deceased) and left to Barresi when Mitteager died – discovered that an Enquirer reporter, Lydia Encinas, had helped to transcribe Francia’s interview statements with the police in 1993.

    Back then, the Enquirer, were actively offering substantial incentives to anyone with a ‘molestation’ story to sell on Jackson – all sanctioned by the Enquirer’s then editor, David Perel.

    In addition, the Enquirer, as well as paying an undisclosed sum of money to Francia for her story with
    Encinas, were also effectively ‘shadowing’ her in order to stay close to the Jackson investigation. It is not
    known whether or not police investigators knew Encinas was a tabloid reporter, but as many of police’s
    ‘leads’ in the Jackson investigation were tabloid-led, it is unlikely this revelation would have prevented
    them from using Francia to advance the case.

    On April 4, 2005, journalist, Michelle Caruso, then working at the Daily News, reported in a piece about
    the upcoming ‘prior acts’ testimonies in Jackson’s 2005 trial, that the ‘Mitteager Tapes’ included sessions with then Enquirer editor – David Perel, telling Mitteager on March 23, 1994, that: “ the reason why Lydia Encinas is involved is because she speaks Spanish and she’s got a good relationship with Blanca.”

    On the tape, Perel would go on to say that Francia’s grasp of English was “sixth grade level ” at best.
    Caruso tracked down the Los Angeles Detective, Russ Birchim, who had interviewed Francia in 1993, to
    verify the story. Caruso reported that Birchim told her, “ Lydia Encinas was not the translator. But I did
    meet with her in Los Angeles.” Caruso also noted, that when asked to explain why, in the course of a
    criminal investigation, he had met up with a National Enquirer reporter in the first place – Birchim
    refused to elaborate.

    Caruso concluded. “ By opening the door to this story, District Attorney Tom Sneddon may bite off more
    than he can chew. The maid, her payment from Hard Copy and the resulting lawsuits are less about
    Jackson than about the greed and ambition that surround him. In unraveling the mysteries of Jackson’s
    ‘prior acts,’ Sneddon could leave room for Thomas Mesereau to openly investigate the connections
    among all these people. And that would make a much more interesting story than almost anything we’ve heard so far.”

    Source: http://www.stereoboard.com/pdfs/Michael-Jackson-The-Making-Of-A-Myth-Part-I.pdf

    Like

  49. lynande51 permalink
    June 18, 2011 1:06 am

    Shelly there is a picture of the 2 of them in the book. They are sitting together and if you look at the chandelier in the background it looks like the ones in the photos of Neverland. Who knows maybe he got her to take him to family day with her.

    Like

  50. shelly permalink
    June 17, 2011 6:55 pm

    @suzy,

    I don’t think she hardly spoke english, she did her deposition in english in 1994, a’d she started working in the US in 1975.

    Like

  51. Suzy permalink
    June 17, 2011 6:48 pm

    @ Shelly

    I think he probably did. VG said as a South American it was easy for him to make friends with MJ’s South American employees, such as Blanca Francia and Orietta Murdock. I think it’s very probable that he did talk to both. Blanca Francia hardly spoke English, so she probably appreciated a “friend” who spoke her language and who gave her ideas about how to get money.

    Like

  52. shelly permalink
    June 17, 2011 5:36 pm

    By the way, in Blanca’s testimony VG is never mentionned. Did she really talked to him or is it just VG talking out of his ass.

    Like

  53. stacy2 permalink
    June 17, 2011 1:50 pm

    “I have never seen so many witnesses provide so much salacious, disturbing testimony, and I’ve never seen so many witnesses crumble so quickly under cross examination and I don’t think I’ll ever see it again. I mean, it almost became a circus. People would get on the witness stand and say that they’ve seen the most horrific things on the planet. There would be a huge silence in the courtroom. You could cut the intensity with a knife, and then when I would cross exam them, they would all just splatter”—–Tom Meseraeu

    Like

  54. shelly permalink
    June 17, 2011 11:16 am

    From her cross exam

    “Q. You heard giggling and laughing, right?

    9 A. Yeah.

    10 Q. And all you could see was a shadow through

    11 the glass?

    12 A. The glass, yes.

    13 Q. And that’s because the glass was fogged up,

    14 right?

    15 A. Yeah.

    16 Q. Okay. You only saw one person in the

    17 shower, right?

    18 A. I saw him in the shower and the little kid.

    19 Q. But in your deposition you said you could

    20 only see one person, but you heard giggling, right?

    21 A. Yeah, but I hear two people —

    22 Q. You heard two people. You could only see

    23 one through the glass, right?

    24 A. Mostly, yeah. Mostly.

    25 Q. Do you remember you were asked in your

    26 deposition, “Did you hear anything else other than

    27 Michael laughing?” And you said, “No”?

    28 A. Yeah. 5124

    Like

  55. shelly permalink
    June 17, 2011 9:59 am

    Did Blanca ever knew Robson? From her direct testimony

    “Q. Do you know where Mr. Robeson — where Mr.

    2 Robeson – an eight-year-old – where Wade Robeson

    3 came from?

    4 A. Yes. From a different country. I mean,

    5 from another country. Switzer —

    6 Q. Do you know which country?

    7 A. No, I don’t remember.

    8 Q. But you recall that it was from a different

    9 country?

    10 A. Yeah.

    11 Q. Was it an English-speaking country or a

    12 country with a different language?

    13 A. Different language.”

    Like

  56. nan permalink
    June 17, 2011 4:40 am

    vg book is almost laughable , but .I am glad it was discussed on these boards because it gives me more insight into what mj was up against with these prosecutors and sheriffs…shows me they were just completely out of their minds when it came to even trying to look at things objectively regarding Michael Jackson…. .Here you have this figment of this vg own imagination, and mj has won in court and the guy owes him 2 million and cuts out of the country…and the d.a.rejects the jury findings and believes VG..Once you get past her initial shock and replace it with logic, it just falls apart and yet you have Sneddon and his team actually questioning people about it in court…Talk about drinking the kool aid.I really hope one day all this stuff comes out in the mainstream press..It is really horrible that the media went along with this witch hunt, all for ratings , and didnt calll sneddon out on all this….

    Like

  57. shelly permalink
    June 17, 2011 12:29 am

    @nina

    Some people will but you have to admit that to believe it you have to be very close to people like VG. You won’t change their mind anyway.

    Like

  58. June 17, 2011 12:04 am

    Thank you, Carm for that. Shelley, you have a point, of course. I just worry that some people might believe it, take it as gospel, like the millions who believed the lies in the tabloids. Anyway, thank you for replying.

    Like

  59. shelly permalink
    June 16, 2011 11:36 pm

    @nina

    I don’t really agree with that, because it helps understand how crazy those people are and how his ex employee had zero credibility.

    Like

  60. Carm permalink
    June 16, 2011 10:51 pm

    Nina, if it makes you feel better the book was banned in the U.S. for its graphic content and Gutierrez was successfully sued for defamation of character by Michael. I don’t believe the book was ever made available to the general public, as least not in the U.S. Even if it was no sane person would have ever taken it seriously.

    Like

  61. June 16, 2011 10:31 pm

    I have read most of all the above and feel sick to my stomach that so much attention can be given to such disgusting rubbish. Also, how on earth did Victor Gutierrez get permission, and was able to publish such dreadful books containing such controversial material which surely amounted to libel? So distressing. I wouldn ‘t want to waste my money buying them. I don’t think it is helping to vindicate Michael by putting this stuff on line for anyone to read, frankly.

    Like

  62. semy25 permalink
    June 15, 2011 3:11 pm

    well that site is clearly made by MJ haters who think they know everything….

    Like

  63. Truth Prevail permalink
    June 15, 2011 2:40 pm

    @Rodrigo i have been on that site and it shows no proof that mj was a CM they use a trip in a train and and a alleged phonecall which has never been proved and to further discredit it the guy that said it took place made a memorial on gonetoosoon.com the site just mixes words up in order to make it fit there own agenda but sum1 as stupid and pathetic as yourself would fall for.There Desperate Just Like You!

    YOUR JUST ANOTHER COPY & PASTE JOB!!! SEEK HELP….. FAST!!!

    Like

  64. June 14, 2011 6:13 pm

    Victor Guitirezz knew all the sex and other crimes MJ ‘committed’.
    Victor is a telepathic lama from Chile and can read peoples minds.
    No, really this is a serious matter, especially as it has inspired so many other writers,journalists and talkshow hosts for decades.And who knows for how long into the future.
    Many thanks to all who have posted here.

    Like

  65. nan permalink
    June 14, 2011 4:52 pm

    I just wanted to mention something regarding the false allegations regarding Mj and a few families..I have noticed that if this subject comes up with people , many people bring up his changing skin color/plastic surgery , .I had seen somewhere that Bashir had brought that up to MJ FIRST, and then went into his voice over about the millions he gave to settle a suit , as if to say , if he was not totally truthful about this , it would lead you to believe he wouldnt be truthful about criminal acts…this , of course he did on purpose.

    .This could be done to any of us…..I am a few inches taller and weigh a few pounds less according to my drivers license,lol, and there are only a handful of people in my life that know I have an abusive ex husband….i always leave that out……..I have also been a Brownie/Girl scout leader,…, had kids dumped on at my house like a hot brick etc by busy parents and have been alone, one on one ,countless times with other people children,,… Kids were always happy to be around me because we would go blueberry picking , do things they would enjoy, even if I didnt particularly feel like it myself., i hated to say no…….I even have a small unattached guest house, that was a garage at one time, at our Summer home, that I never let young children stay in by themselves..I always made them stay in my tiny little ranch house where I could keep an eye on them as they were my responsibility….. never even occurred to me until I saw what MJ was put through , how lucky I was someone didnt decide to target me, accuse me of something ..and take my assets.. and the thought that someone like Tom Sneddon.might be ready willing and able to use the power of his office to help them must be like your worst nightmare ….

    Mj might have over identified with children but these families always seemed to seek him out and he had a tough time turning people away..he always wanted to be helpful..not just to children , but the elderly, and his community in general, as well….People in need, because he had felt he had such abundance in his life….I saw an article that I thought was interesting as to what his hopes were for Neverland and what his intentions were for its use….according to his friend,he had plans to turn part of it into a hospice for children,in the 90s
    http://www.innermichael.com/2011/06/heartbreak-and-neverlands-dream/.

    Like

  66. shelly permalink
    June 14, 2011 1:53 pm

    What did Carl Tom said about the settlement?

    Like

  67. shelly permalink
    June 14, 2011 1:07 pm

    Is it really worse than the VG book?

    Like

  68. lcpledwards permalink
    June 14, 2011 12:22 pm

    @sent25
    If you think MJWML was bad, just wait until I post my rebuttal to Carl Toms’ “Dangerous Liaisons” later this year!

    Like

  69. June 14, 2011 6:22 am

    Oh my God..I just wasted my time reading that book…it’s filled with so much nonsense.. I think my IQ dropped a few points just reading that garbage

    Like

  70. June 14, 2011 4:03 am

    I sent you a new e-mail adress via ‘Contact Us’ form…I hope it works…TY:)

    Like

  71. lcpledwards permalink
    June 14, 2011 3:26 am

    @ Semy25

    Your email address failed, so you can you please send us a private message via the Contact Us form and give us another email address? Thanks!

    Also, I deleted your comment because it contained your email address, and that’s private information.

    Like

  72. lcpledwards permalink
    June 9, 2011 1:00 am

    Guys, just ignore Leigh! She’s a troll who was here a few months ago, pretending to be a fan, and I fell for it hook, line, and sinker. I don’t want you guys to waste anymore brain cells on her, as we have much more important things to research at the moment.

    The only good thing about her comment is that it validates how irrational and close-minded haters are. As usual, she offers nothing of any substance or value; just the usual tired drivel.

    Like

  73. Anna permalink
    June 8, 2011 11:31 pm

    @Leigh

    I think it’s unfair to generalize all MJ fans as thinking and believing the same way about everything where MJ is concerned. Most fans who visit this site believe that Michael was innocent of the allegations, that’s one thing most of us here agree on (and their are others things we agree on). That’s the purpose of the site, to Vindicate MJ. I do know for a fact that we don’t all believe the same way about everything where Michael is concerned in the different aspects of his life.

    Are there fans who think Michael was an angel or a saint? Perhaps, but it’s unfair to think all fans believe that way. I certainly don’t think a majority of fans who comment on this site think that way.

    On the flip side I certainly wouldn’t brand all non-fans as haters. Or assume that people who don’t like Michael’s music must think he’s guilty of allegations or believe he was the tabloid caricature. My mom isn’t crazy about most of Michael’s music and doesn’t know most of his songs like I do, but she still thinks he was a great entertainer, humanitarian and innocent of the allegations. By the way admiring someone for being a humanitarian has nothing to do with thinking they are an angel or saint. I have the same admiration for people in my community who volunteer for worthy causes and relatives of mine who have dedicated their lives to humanitarian causes. I certainly don’t think any of these people are saints, including Michael Jackson, I can still admire their good deeds and want to follow their example.

    I also don’t think determining that Michael was innocent based on the facts of the cases means that fans think he was an angel or saint either. A person (famous or not) can be a human being with faults and flaws and not be a p-phile. A person (famous or not) doesn’t have to be a saint or an angel to not be guilty of crimes against children.

    I will admit that this topic of vindicating Michael is something many of us here feel very passionate about. I for one as well as many here believe that media was extremely bias and sensational in their reporting. The whole truth about both cases as well as other aspects of Michael’s life were not covered extensively by the mainstream media and sites like this are on a mission to get the whole truth out there in regards to this information.

    Readers who disagree with the mission or content of this site have the simple option and choice of ignoring it.

    Like

  74. Alison permalink
    June 8, 2011 10:12 pm

    Vindicatemj and rockforeveron – absolutely. because whilst Michael Jackson is our main concern here, the issue of truth and justice and how both law enforcement and the media can lie to the people should be of the utmost concern to everyone. This is about Michael but really it is not only about Michael, its about everyone who has been wrongly accused, convicted even, and this COULD happen to any one.

    Like

  75. Alison permalink
    June 8, 2011 9:59 pm

    @Leigh – “Elvis Presley will always be remembered and be praised,” – maybe, by the over 55’s only.
    “The Beatles will always be remembered and be praised,” – yeah, OK but still by the more mature generation.
    “Madonna will always be remembered and be praised,” – really??!! she was good but she has had her day.
    “Frank Sinatra will always be remembered and be praised,” – no, don’t think so, and he was a wife beater.
    “Prince will always be remembered and be praised,” – OK but only mainly by his original fans.
    “The Rolling Stones will always be remembered and be praised,” – yeah, OK, but they are a group and a rock group.
    “David Bowie will always be remembered and be praised,” – he was good, but his fans are his original ones. and he WAS an actual serious drug user / addict.
    “Cher will always be remembered and be praised” – now thats just going far too far, most people have forgotten about her.

    Michael Jackson on the other hand continually has new generations of fans who appreciate his talent. His music is seriously non-boring, is always fresh and relevant and his dance continues to amaze and inspire. He was also at the top of the sexy performers scale.

    @Rockforeveron:
    “I think it’s funny that it’s the haters who always believe MJ was capable of so many vast and extraordinary cover ups and manipulations, as if he were in fact a God.”
    “I’m sure when Victoria Beckham lied for years and years and years about her boob jobs it meant that it was a private matter and none of your business, and not that she’s a huge “liar” and “manipulator.” – absolutely! why should anyone have to tell the whole truth just because someone has the nerve to ask nosey questions that are none of their business, nobody would have any privacy at all if just because someone asks something you have to tell them.

    “Was that next to his Diana Ross and Elizabeth Taylor shrines? I wonder who he got to build and monitor all those..” – He He! LOL!

    Like

  76. June 8, 2011 9:47 pm

    “I find it curious people don’t seem to care about what the truth about this was. If you still have problems with MJ; fine. But to act as though the truth is irrelevant…?”

    Rockforeveron, you are right – this is the most surprising thing of all. One would imagine that some new facts will make people stop and think “What if we were wrong in our accusations?” But now I see that they simply deny themselves the possibility of even a small doubt! Their approach is “We are not listening no matter what you say!” And what if our words and facts are the truth itself?

    This is something which is extremely difficult for me to understand. For me the truth has an absolute value. All people can make mistakes and be occasionally fooled by someone’s lies, but choosing a lie voluntarily? Not wishing to know the truth at all? Being happy with the lies and never giving the other view even the benefit of the doubt? Living all your life sticking to a set of notions and never bothering to check whether they are true or not? All this is equivalent to wasting your life away!

    Why do these people come into this world? To live their life in lies and die in them too? Then is it worth living it at all?

    Like

  77. Suzy permalink
    June 8, 2011 9:23 pm

    @ rockforeveron

    “I’m starting to think it’s just a hater who wants to act like a fan”

    All haters say: “I used to be a fan, but….”

    That’s the oldest and lamest trick ever.

    But maybe some of these were really fans but more fair-weather fans who turned their back on him on the first occasion and went with the popular flow (like this person says he lost him during the first allegations) and somewhere deep inside they feel ashamed of themselves for that, so they need to keep themselves in this delusion that he was guilty or/and at least a “manipulator” and generally a bad person. It’s easier than to admit to themselves they have been disloyal and brainwashed by the mass media. It’s like they NEED a reason to hate him. Strange. If he’s so irrelevant as Leigh suggests (all of the mentioned artists will be remembered more, according to him), why does he obsess about MJ so much that he keeps coming back here with posts like this?

    Like you said it’s also interesting how these people keep bringing up that fans think MJ was a god or something. I don’t see such fans, but haters always bring it up. It’s almost as if THEY think he was some kind of god and therefore they need to fight against him to “protect” their own gods…

    Like

  78. June 8, 2011 9:08 pm

    @Ares

    This is a place were people spend large amount of their personal time to find evidence that a man was wrongly accused of something that he never did. And so far the evidence that prove that are overwhelming. What you have done besides spreding your biased opinion and insulting us? I think that this is not a place for you.

    Well said.

    I find it curious people don’t seem to care about what the truth about this was. If you still have problems with MJ; fine. But to act as though the truth is irrelevant…? It makes me suspect that for these people the truth is irrelevant because they judged him so harshly and so unfairly and they do not wish to have to realize that now, in light of his death. They want to be left alone to continue to hate him based on past judgements.

    And it’s funny, I also do not believe MJ was obsessed with children A shrine to children? Was that next to his Diana Ross and Elizabeth Taylor shrines? I wonder who he got to build and monitor all those, Mike had a shrine to shrines!

    @Suzy I thought this person sounded familiar. I’m starting to think it’s just a hater who wants to act like a fan in order to try and make us doubt what is done here, you know?

    Like

  79. Suzy permalink
    June 8, 2011 9:05 pm

    @ Leigh

    You have been here a couple of months ago and said the same thing. It’s getting boring. Like Ares said, nobody forces you to like him and visit MJ sites.

    Like

  80. ares permalink
    June 8, 2011 9:02 pm

    @Leigh

    If you have this opinion about MJ then why do you visit this site? You don’t like him, fine. Leave those who do in peace. We don’t bother you with our opinion,we don’t come to you space and disturb you, so don’t bother us with yours. By the way, none here said that MJ was saint or angel, you are making those things up. This is a place were people actually do a research and present factual evidences about the allegation made against MJ.This is a place were people spend large amount of their personal time to find evidence that a man was wrongly accused of something that he never did. And so far the evidence that prove that are overwhelming. What you have done besides spreding your biased opinion and insulting us? I think that this is not a place for you.

    Like

  81. June 8, 2011 8:58 pm

    If that’s how you view Michael, then that’s how you view him. It seems you have some anger issues there you might need to let go of, this is my medication for such a problem: stop checking out MJ fansites.

    And most fans don’t believe he was a Saint or angel, on the contrary; I think it’s funny that it’s the haters who always believe MJ was capable of so many vast and extraordinary cover ups and manipulations, as if he were in fact a God.

    I’m curious about what he lied about though… His vitiligo? Nope. Lupus? Nope. Lisa Marie marriage? Nope. His kids being his? Nope. His father beating him? Nope. His innocence? According to the FBI, DCFS, 2 grand juries and a third jury in 2005: nope.

    Wait… let me guess, he lied about his plastic surgery? Oh golly, I guess he’s the only person in Hollywood who has never confessed in excruciating detail every ounce of surgery he’s had. I’m sure when Victoria Beckham lied for years and years and years about her boob jobs it meant that it was a private matter and none of your business, and not that she’s a huge “liar” and “manipulator.”

    Like

  82. Leigh permalink
    June 8, 2011 8:43 pm

    Elvis Presley will always be remembered and be praised, The Beatles will always be remembered and be praised, Madonna will always be remembered and be praised, Frank Sinatra will always be remembered and be praised, Prince will always be remembered and be praised, The Rolling Stones will always be remembered and be praised, David Bowie will always be remembered and be praised, Cher will always be remembered and be praised (just to name a few), but I can’t say the same for Michael Jackson. He’s one artist that has this massive stigma attached to his name and will only be remembered for abusing/molesting children. Despite if he molested children or not, he had this ‘thing’ about children and was obsessed with children, that it’s not any wonder why people are ‘sickened’ or ‘suspicious’ by his behavior.

    Like I said I was a huge, massive Michael Jackson fan but he lost me during the first allegations and especially dangling his youngest son. I’m not claiming or thought of Michael to be perfect but some Michael Jackson fans are delusional and blinded by Michael’s massive flaws, faults and wrong doing, especially when it came with children. He took a shrine to them. How is that normal and healthy. And to top it off, to say he would kill himself if there were no children on this Earth. Isn’t committing suicide a sin? So Michael would take his own life just like that?

    I find it sick and unhealthy for his obsession with children. I think Michael was a manipulator, liar, he’s been taught to lie since he was a young boy, especially the Motown years. Michael isn’t God, Michael isn’t an angel, Michael isn’t a saint but some fans on here treat him as one and look at him like some God like figure. He was human that needed, desperate HELP for his sick obsession with children.

    I can’t fault the media, here. Michael clearly brought this upon himself. That’s how I see it.

    Like

  83. monica permalink
    June 8, 2011 5:56 am

    @ David
    Thanks for the links. I just found the Dear Gavin Arviso site again today. I saw it months ago but didn’t know what to make of it at the time. It looks helpful and has a purpose for us.

    I’m looking forward to the Lies Post. You are all so logical in your refutations. I have learned so much thanks to you guys.

    Wow…a year. You will soon have your Doctorate in Michael Jackson! I love it.

    Like

  84. stacy2 permalink
    June 8, 2011 2:08 am

    @david

    Ok i just sent my email to the contact us form.

    Like

  85. lcpledwards permalink
    June 8, 2011 1:37 am

    @ Stacy2
    I tried to send you a private email about your request for a PDF of “MJWML”, but both emails were returned “undeliverable”. Is your email address correct? Try using the “Contact Us” form, and I’ll reply to you there.

    Like

  86. lcpledwards permalink
    June 8, 2011 12:59 am

    @ Monica
    This is David. Trust me, you’re not betraying MJ by reading MJWML! In fact, I wish more fans would take the time to read the anti-MJ trash so that they could learn how to refute them!

    I understand your distrust of sites like The Smoking Gun, especially when you consider how they twist the info that they publish to make MJ appear gulty (for example, they said that Jordan’s description matched, and therefore MJ was pressured to settle as a result, but of course they never explain why he wasn’t arrested). Fortunately, here is an official, unbiased site that was set up by order of the California court system. Due to the overwhelming demand for official trial documents, they ordered that this website be set up in order to allow people to download documents, without any media spin! Here is the site:

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/

    If you go to the “Court Events” tab, you see a list of most (but not all) of the pleadings that were filed by both the defense and prosecution. These are the foundation of the trial, and a lot of our research is based on these pleadings, because we want to know EXACTLY what happened behind closed doors. You can search for them by name under the “Documents” tab. Unfortunately, you cannot download the transcripts from that site anymore, but you can get all of the major witnesses here: http://deargavinarvizo.com/

    I have ALL of the witnesses, and in an upcoming post I will chronicle each lie that was told, one by one (i.e. Lie #1, Lie #2, etc.), by the Arvizos, Neverland 5, and the Francias. Unfortunately, I’m so backed up with research that it’ll be at least a year before it’s ready, but it’ll be worth the wait!

    Like

  87. stacy2 permalink
    June 7, 2011 12:57 pm

    i would like to read the book. Can someone send me the pdf?

    Like

  88. Monica permalink
    June 7, 2011 5:47 am

    Thank you for posting this. I plan to read the book. David Edwards sent me the PDF. I have to remind myself I’m not betraying Michael in doing so b/c we need to know our facts to put the filth to rest. But in regards to the legal documents (ie., testimonies, declarations, etc) online…I am so distrustful. For example, the smoking gun site; do you think we are able to view the real thing there and/or other sites (documents untampered with)? Unless it is through public records from the courts I am leary. So much about Michael has been so distorted I just don’t always have confidence in all these documents floating around. Just wondering…
    Thanks for all you do for Michael.

    Like

  89. Suzy permalink
    June 7, 2011 3:18 am

    @ Helena

    I think this is why VG’s book was banned in the US. Because it was deemed child pornography.

    Like

  90. June 6, 2011 8:36 pm

    Gutierrez’s writing is much more pornographic than anything the police say they found at Neverland.
    Gutierrez, it is rumored, made up a lot of his material after stitching together bits and pieces of speculation from the maid who worked for the Chandlers, the family at the center of the 1993 case against Jacko.” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151774,00.

    Shelly, it is marvelous! I mean Roger Friedman’s statement that Gutierrez’s book is much more pornographic than anything the police found in Neverland! IT IS SHEER PORNOGRAPHY! It even seems to me that Victor Gutierrez used the book as a pretext to share with us his most intimate sexual (and very suspicious) thoughts. He got away with it only because he presented them as “Jordie’s” – otherwise none of it would have been possible in print.

    Like

  91. June 6, 2011 8:28 pm

    Alleged hush agreement surfaces in Jackson case Adam Sandler (2) Sep 7, 1993. A written agreement claiming singer Michael Jackson paid $ 600,000 to have child abuse
    allegations lodged against him kept quiet surfaced Friday. Jackson’s reps have called the agreement a phony, claiming it was used to blackmail the singer last year.

    Shelly, Lisa Campbell describes this “agreement” in her book King of Pop’s Darkest Hour, 1994 (I suggest everyone reads the book – it is an extremely accurate account of the events in the 90s):

    “Meanwhile a new document surfaced which looked to be an agreement between the Michael Jackson Organization and another young boy and his mother by which Michael Jackson agreed to pay $600,000 for their silence. The authenticity of this agreement was in question because of some very big problems with it The supposed contract dated 1992, was printed on plain paper, no letterhead, was titled “General Agreement”, and was not in legal terminology. Also, there is no such thing as the “Michael Jackson Organization”! But certainly if Michael were to enter into such an agreement his years of experience and his well acknowledged business acumen would certainly dictate he put just such an agreement in writing!

    The police said if the document was deemed to be authentic, a separate investigation would be opened to investigate it. No such investigation was ever opened. It does indicate however the lengths some were willing to go to for attention, and in most cases, money.”

    Like

  92. hana permalink
    June 6, 2011 8:10 pm

    @Suzy

    Yes that is what I said. The person that claimed to have contacted Brett posted a link to a Facebook which she said was the page she contacted but the link she posted wasn’t even Brett’s real Facebook. And the quote doesn’t even sound legit because in the quote Brett supposedly threatens to start blocking messages and will no longer speak about the allegations, yet he has no problem talking to shelly and others..lol…It’s obviously a fake but dummies on D’s blog believe its real.

    Like

  93. June 6, 2011 7:08 pm

    “And this is the reason why Mike didn’t sue for the most of the part. Because he knew that the stories would continue no matter what. And if he kept suing then he would have to spend all of his life in the court rooms, spending money in lawyers.”

    Fully agree with you, Ares!

    Like

  94. shelly permalink
    June 6, 2011 6:44 pm

    I think you can see that with the IP. I don’t think D is from France.

    Like

  95. June 6, 2011 6:40 pm

    What’s so wonderfully ridiculous about these arguments about Brett Barnes’ mother being a theif and Michael giving Joy Robson some money to buy a car – is that they want to say is that these two women are ruthless and would pimp out their sons for money/benefits from Michael, another way to show how Mike paid people off.… And yet, neither of them wished to pimp out their sons to the tune of a few million dollars like Jordie. So a few thousand grand is okay, but a few million? No! I have morals! My son isn’t worth THAT much!”

    A great point, Rockforeveron! Saying it the other way would also be a marvel: So a few million is okay, but a few thousand grand is not?

    What I mean is that no one is asking about the Chandlers taking millions but everyone is wondering why Joy Robson took some money from Michael to buy a car?

    Like

  96. lynande51 permalink
    June 6, 2011 6:01 pm

    It was a question that needed to be asked as you well know our D. seems to be able to lull people into believing she has their best interests in mind and uses the anonymity of the internet to disquise herself. No I don’t think any of you are her. She intitially goes to a MJ fan site and pretends to be one of them only to whip out a zinger in favor of her crusade after about 3-4 comments. She contacts people that she thinks she can get inside information from and uses them to repeat her gossip,(i.e. Pippa Hudson) because that is all her site is is gossip. I apologize if it in anyway hurt your feelings it was not my intention. My intention was to make you and others aware of what she and other detractors do time and time again. She has no qualms about contacting people unaware of her tactics to use them. The commentors to her site are proof of that. Also there is a going to be another link to the unredacted version of the Peoples Motion for admittance of the 1108 /1101 evidenc at trial in my post in a few minutes so you can read for yourselves what Chacon said originally and what his testimony turned out to be.

    Like

  97. shelly permalink
    June 6, 2011 5:31 pm

    No, Lynande, I never talked to D. When I talked to Barnes, it’s only via private message so no one can see what he told me.

    Like

  98. Suzy permalink
    June 6, 2011 4:42 pm

    @ Lynette

    I’m not familiar with FB (I’m not on it) and out of principle I’m not making visits to D’s blog, but I’d like to point out that the other day Hana mentioned here about that post D. put on allegedly from Brett’s FB. And Hana said that post is not from Brett’s real FB account but from some other FB account, so it could be it’s a fake account they are referring to.

    I don’t know if Hana can confirm this.

    Like

  99. lynande51 permalink
    June 6, 2011 4:28 pm

    @ Shelley,I’m not sure if contacting Brett on his Facebook page is exactly the best thing to do. It is a public forum and all kinds of people have access to it. Also in case you haven’t already noticed the person that writes under the name of Desiree has taken a comment from there and added her spin to it. So I guess I have a question about that. Are you the one that sent him information and was asking questions to have him clear things up and then passing that information on to her?

    Like

  100. shelly permalink
    June 6, 2011 10:55 am

    He said he doesn’t see why he should waste his time on someone who is so stuck in her mindset.

    Like

  101. shelly permalink
    June 6, 2011 10:49 am

    He told me everything was a lie and he doesn’t see why he should waste his time with that because he already told the truth.

    Like

  102. hana permalink
    June 6, 2011 9:56 am

    @shelly

    What did Brent say about D?

    Like

  103. Suzy permalink
    June 6, 2011 3:43 am

    @ Shelly

    I understand why he wouldn’t sue. He could contact Blogger though (the site which hosts D’s blog). Here are their rules:

    http://www.blogger.com/content.g

    Of course, Blogger shutting down her blog probably wouldn’t help either on the long term. She would just re-locate her blog, like that other hater website did.

    Like

  104. June 5, 2011 10:07 pm

    What’s so wonderfully ridiculous about these arguments about Brett Barnes’ mother being a theif and Michael giving Joy Robson some money to buy a car – is that they want to say is that these two women are ruthless and would pimp out their sons for money/benefits from Michael, another way to show how Mike paid people off.

    … And yet, neither of them wished to pimp out their sons to the tune of a few million dollars like Jordie. So a few thousand grand is okay, but a few million? No! I have morals! My son isn’t worth THAT much!

    Like

  105. Truth Prevail permalink
    June 5, 2011 9:12 pm

    I Understand now plus brett probaly feels he has debunked and told the truth in court and probaly knows he can testify in 100 courts saying michael did NOT Molest him but sick minds like desiree will still says he has been molested!

    Like

  106. June 5, 2011 8:00 pm

    Maybe Victor Guitirrez wrote in a state of p-lic mastubatory trance,
    at times introducing a bit of romance into the story.That´s why he did not notice the contradictions in the lies he produced.
    A really nasty side to the story is that Brett Barnes name is being dragged in over & over.He can´t get any damaged from V.G., but could sue everybody who has used the dirty lies about him to profit from the industry of persecuting Michael.
    The book should be analysed by a forensic psychiartist specialized
    in sex crimes.-
    Is it possible that NAMBLA supported him?He did a lot of work.And the languege per se is good.A translation by a member of NAMBLA?

    Like

  107. ares permalink
    June 5, 2011 7:29 pm

    And this is the reason why Mike didn’t sue for the most of the part. Because he knew that the stories would continue no matter what. And if he kept suing then he would have to spend all of his life in the court rooms, spending money in lawyers.

    Like

  108. shelly permalink
    June 5, 2011 7:15 pm

    I talked to him, he knows what D is saying about him. I don’t think he will do something. He coul sue her in Australia, but for what? It will cost him lots of money with lawyers and even if he win he will never see his money again and that will never stop the stories.

    Like

  109. Truth Prevail permalink
    June 5, 2011 3:53 pm

    I said this before brett barnes can take legal action against people like desiree who demand he was molested!!! slandering sum1 they have never met Pathetic!! i remember reading here a while back sum1 had gotten in touch with Barnes and had a transcript of there conversation if so you should post it up and i would be greatful of sum1 can direct me to his or his sisters facebook account. sum1 needs too show sum of the BS Thats being said about him!!!

    Like

  110. Suzy permalink
    June 4, 2011 1:30 pm

    Here is the website of Brandon Adams: http://www.bqadams.com/6.html

    So much about media suggestions Michael molested him and paid him off.

    Like

  111. shelly permalink
    June 4, 2011 12:50 pm

    Alleged hush agreement surfaces in Jackson case
    Written by Administrator
    Tuesday, 07 September 1993 15:43 –
    Variety Alleged hush agreement surfaces in Jackson case Adam Sandler (2) Sep 7, 1993
    A written agreement claiming singer Michael Jackson paid $ 600,000 to have child abuse
    allegations lodged against him kept quiet surfaced Friday. Jackson’s reps have called the
    agreement a phony, claiming it was used to blackmail the singer last year. The agreement is
    unrelated to the current accusations aimed at Jackson by a 13-year-old boy who claims he was
    molested by the pop star. The Jackson camp has claimed the allegations stemmed from an
    extortion attempt by the boy’s father. The two-page document, titled “General Agreement”
    and signed on July 7, 1992, specifies terms reached between the “Michael Jackson
    Organization” and the mother of a teenager. Terms of the contract call for Jackson to “have no
    contact of any sort” with the parties and to “not extort, harass, intimidate” one another. The
    agreement allows for the mother to get the money as long as the allegations are kept secret.
    The agreement was provided to the media by Ernie Rizzo, a Chicago-based private investigator
    who originally claimed he was working for the father of the 13-year-old boy. The claim was
    disputed by the father’s attorney, Richard Hirsch , who said Rizzo “does not speak for (and is
    not) employed by the father.” Rizzo said he was faxed the agreement at his Brentwood hotel,
    and believes there is a “50-50 chance it’s real.” “It’s a phony,” said Jackson security
    consultant Anthony Pellicano of the agreement. Pellicano added he was offered the agreement
    last year for $ 500,000. He declined to specify who contacted him, but said police were not
    notified of the extortion attempt. A police source said investigators had not yet seen the
    alleged agreement, and questioned its relationship to the ongoing investigation. “If it’s genuine,
    it would be a separate, possibly parallel investigation. It could also indicate a pattern (of
    behavior).” Source: http://www.variety.com/article/VR110285.

    Like

  112. shelly permalink
    June 4, 2011 12:43 pm

    I know ares, but someone was behind that.

    Like

  113. ares permalink
    June 4, 2011 11:03 am

    @Shelly

    “On one tape, Shea reads what sounds convincingly like a legal document drawn up between Jackson and a 12-year-old boy named Brandon P. Richmond, who is represented by his mother, Eva Richmond.

    Brandon, according to the document, received $600,000 from Jackson. He and Jackson would no longer have any contact with each other.

    Shea read the document, which is dated July 1992, to Mitteager the following year”

    This was fake. It didn’t exist.

    Like

  114. shelly permalink
    June 4, 2011 10:54 am

    “The coup de grace, Barresi says, happened later, when he listened to Mitteager’s tapes. On one of them, it’s noted that the LeMarques had tried to sell their story of child molestation at Neverland long before the first case broke in 1991.

    “They couldn’t get any takers,” recalls Barresi. “But why didn’t they just go to the police?””

    On one tape, Shea reads what sounds convincingly like a legal document drawn up between Jackson and a 12-year-old boy named Brandon P. Richmond, who is represented by his mother, Eva Richmond.

    Brandon, according to the document, received $600,000 from Jackson. He and Jackson would no longer have any contact with each other.

    Shea read the document, which is dated July 1992, to Mitteager the following year

    Like

  115. shelly permalink
    June 4, 2011 10:51 am

    I wonder if he wasn’t involved in that story

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151465,00.html

    He said he received death threat from Pellicano in 1992

    Like

  116. shelly permalink
    June 4, 2011 9:02 am

    There is also the story of MJ giving alcohol to kids.

    Like

  117. shelly permalink
    June 4, 2011 8:14 am

    @suzy

    You are right Suzy.

    Like

  118. Suzy permalink
    June 4, 2011 5:30 am

    Baby bones? Voodoo? Satanic cults?

    It sounds all too familiar. Weren’t those type of things mentioned in the McMartin case as well? Including the claim that Ray Buckey could fly and that the kids saw witches fly… There was something about a hot air balloon there too.

    Like

  119. shelly permalink
    June 3, 2011 11:48 pm

    Roger friedman was right

    “Sneddon Evidence Based on Banned Porn

    As of Monday’s ruling, people who appear in a 1997 book by Victor Gutierrez, “Michael Jackson Was My Lover,” have entered the Jacko trial’s cast of characters.

    The book was not published in the U.S. because Jackson won a libel suit against the author.

    Gutierrez’s writing is much more pornographic than anything the police say they found at Neverland.

    Gutierrez, it is rumored, made up a lot of his material after stitching together bits and pieces of speculation from the maid who worked for the Chandlers, the family at the center of the 1993 case against Jacko.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151774,00.html

    Like

  120. Teva permalink
    June 3, 2011 11:40 pm

    I tend to believe Victor Guitterez got the legal documents and hearsay testimony from Evan & Rothman. I really believed he approached Ray & Evan to write their book, but he went renegade.

    Why would the prosecution even try to introduce MJWML? More dirt, just throw whatever on the wall and see what sticks.

    Like

  121. shelly permalink
    June 3, 2011 11:38 pm

    I know Lynande, but I’d really like to read some interviews where someon asked him some real hard questions about how he wrote his book, when did he spoke to the Chandler, an interview with someone who would really challendged him.

    Like

  122. lynande51 permalink
    June 3, 2011 11:20 pm

    Testified to what? He was never a witness to anything.

    Like

  123. shelly permalink
    June 3, 2011 10:47 pm

    I I wish Victor had testified in 2005, so that we could have his cross examination.

    Like

  124. lynande51 permalink
    June 3, 2011 9:47 pm

    Now would be a good time to add some other information that seems to elude public knowledge. They ( the detractors) always ask why Michael didn’t sue the tabloids for all of the stories. Well for one thing every time they printed a story it would have been a new lawsuit. There was at least one story per week in a tabloid about Michael Jackson somewhere in the world. For another he did. And he won. And we have a deathbed confession of the inventor of most of those stories.

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1992-07-28/news/9207280481_1_jackson-daily-mirror-scar-tissues
    http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-retail-stores-not/4613638-1.html
    http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/keyword/tabloid
    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/14/local/me-jones14

    Like

  125. June 3, 2011 9:30 pm

    “Orietta Murdock, Blanca Francia, and the infamous Neverland Five. Of course once any of these allegations came to the courtroom in the 2005 trail all of the “contributors” said they met with Gutierrez but all of them denied that they made any of those statements. You could read Ralph Chacons testimony on the Dear Gavin Arvizo site, it was 4/7/2005 where during redirect cross he says he was never paid by Gutierrez and never gave him a statement and yet he is quoted extensively throughout the book”

    Lynette, and I suddenly remembered that Gutierrez’s book was on the list of those 14 items which the prosecution wanted to introduce as evidence (together with a pair underpants and odd socks left by some of the guests), but when the defense made a motion against using those items the prosecution readily agreed, asking only for the underpants and some other issues to be left on the list.

    This is a very telling gesture on the part of prosecution and shows how terribly hypocritical the whole thing was – on the one hand all of them used Gutierrez’s fantasies to smear Michael, but on the other hand they didn’t believe him themselves – because if they had believed they would have invited Gutierrez as a witness and would have insisted on it.

    If his revelations were so important why didn’t they turn him into a star witness?

    But no, they preferred to quote Gutierrez from behind Michael’s back and simultaneously never took Gutierrez into the public view to save themselves the embarrassment of it.

    Like

  126. June 3, 2011 9:05 pm

    “I don’t get the vaseline story. Jordan never said a thing about Barnes, except in the Gardner interview where he said MJ told him he did things with Barnes. If it was true, why it’s not in legal document. How can you take that story seriously.” – shelly

    Of course that story is a sick fantasy created by Gutierrez’s totally sick mind. If even a little bit of what Gutierrez says were true there would have been no problem to indict MJ in 1993. This is elementary logic! But Gutierrez doesn’t even bother to prove his fantasies – his method is simpler – shock the reader and pile one tremendous lie on top of the other. He knows that as a result at least some of the lies will rub off the poor victim of his slander.

    Like

  127. shelly permalink
    June 3, 2011 9:04 pm

    I think the “voodoo chanting” also came from Victor. Mc Manus said he had dolls for satanic cults, something like that.

    Like

  128. lynande51 permalink
    June 3, 2011 9:04 pm

    @Rockon, You missed Blanca’s version of the prosthetic nose LOL.
    @ Shelly, Once the Chandler’s signed those papers Feldman didn’t have anything to say about it he had done his job and was not the attorney anymore. Here is a link to an article I found confirming her podcast.
    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/judith-regans-podcast-confirmed/
    And then 4 months after that VG was hawking the “Diary” on Hardcopy. Thee sure can whip out a book in a heck of a hurry can’t they?

    Like

  129. shelly permalink
    June 3, 2011 9:01 pm

    To be honest, the Neverland 5 guy said he it looked like bones from a baby and the guards told him to say nothing to the police and according to them the bones were from a dog.

    Like

  130. June 3, 2011 8:58 pm

    I know this is deadly serious but…

    One of the Neverland said they found bones of a baby.

    I snorted out loud.

    Like you guys, I used to flinch at having to read all the mess these people have spouted. But now it truly is funny, it’s ridiculous, the contradictions, the absurdities, the obviousness at what they attempt. I’m surprised Maureen Orth didn’t use that baby bones thing in her little piece about voodoo seances.

    I wonder, if all the outrageous lies about Michael were compiled together one after another, would people finally be able to understand the ridiculousness of the “Whacko Jacko” situation? Elephant man bones, hyperbaric chambers, bleached skin, no nose, asexual, virgin, gay, pedophile, transgendered, sexually confused, hormonally castrated since a teen, hormonally castrated to prevent his sexual desires on kids in his 40s, schizophrenic, autistic, mentally regressed, addicted to drugs ranging from heroin to cocaine, tee-total, alcoholic, bought kids from : Klein, Lester, Fiddes, Macaulay, Miko Brando, Marlon Brando, molested only 2 kids, molested every kid in his sights, bought heterosexual porn for: sexier men, to entice kids, because he was perversely attracted to barely legal 18 year old girls, because of its retail value, faked both marriages because of the allegations, faked LMP because of scientology, voodoo chanting, molesting in front of guards and on planes, molesting in private with alarms to prevent people walking in, killing babies…

    What’d I miss?

    Like

  131. shelly permalink
    June 3, 2011 8:17 pm

    @lynande

    I know that link but I don’t think people like Feldman was happy with them publishing a book and he probably told them what the risks were (MJ filing a lawsuit against them, for example). They probably stopped once they realised that and Victor decided to screw them.

    Anyway, I don’t understand how Victor and the Neverland 5 can sleep at night knowing what they did ot MJ, Barnes, Culkin and Robson.

    At one point in the book you have the feeling they wanted to accuse him of murder. One of the Neverland said they found bones of a baby.

    Like

  132. lynande51 permalink
    June 3, 2011 8:02 pm

    Oh no they didn’t care how bad it looked at all.

    Like

  133. shelly permalink
    June 3, 2011 7:56 pm

    @lynande

    Or maybe they realised how bad they would look if the book was published just after the settlement. Maybe they said no to Gutierrez and he decided to screw them. Anyway, it explains why Ray said Victor was a sleazebag.

    Like

  134. lynande51 permalink
    June 3, 2011 7:44 pm

    Actually I think the Chandler’s tried to have their own version published but no publisher would do it. When that didn’t happen they went with Victor who because of the salacious content had to have it self published in Chile. I think once they saw his finshed product is when they realized what he really was.

    Like

  135. shelly permalink
    June 3, 2011 7:23 pm

    I mean in the book, he spoke about Ray who caught the fan Denise Pfeiffer (lol) in Evan’s house. How did he knew that and how did he get the legal documents? It can’t be from the maid.

    Like

  136. shelly permalink
    June 3, 2011 5:10 pm

    I was wondering one thing, Ray said he tried to publish the book after the settlement, maybe he asked Gutierrez to be the ghost writer?

    In Gutierrez’s book, there is a letter from Evan to Rothman where Evan said he tried to avoid the court in order to protect Michael, is it a real one? Why would he tried to protect the alleged abuser of his son?

    Like

  137. June 3, 2011 5:01 pm

    “In the book, Gutierrez claimed Evan thought it would have good for June if she could marry MJ. I think the quote is exactly the same as the one in ATG, I wonder where did he get that quote?”

    Shelly, he probably heard it from Evan (I am sure Gutierrez did talk to him). But what is much more interesting is that Ray Chandler and Gutierrez thought it necessary to mention it.

    Like

  138. June 3, 2011 4:20 pm

    Dear friends,

    I received criticism regarding the title of the post and decided to change it. The reason why I initially left the original title was the need to sometimes quote something the way it is for browsers to pick up the post (if someone searches for the book). However I was told that giving the name the author would be enough – so hence the changes.

    I also have to say that two full days have been lost for me because my computer crashed again (whoever put a hand to it must be very happy with the news). This has delayed part 2 on the book about Gutierrez but I hope to do it in the near future.

    Like

  139. June 3, 2011 1:21 pm

    Fogot to mention important player Barry Rothman .Also Uncle Ray, brother of Evan.

    Like

  140. June 3, 2011 12:08 pm

    Evan sends for an anaesthesiologist to medicate Michael while at Evans
    and got a severe headache.Strange behavior.Could have given him whatever.Sounds like entrapment.Same Dr Torbinger who later gave Jordan the Sodium Amythal.They must be real good buddies.Torbinger is
    one link in the crime against Michael.
    In the beginning there was a chance meeting at Rent a Wreck.Most of us know how frustrated and helpless you feel when your car breaks down.Reportedly Michael first called 911.And then you know how thankful you feel when some bystander comes to your help.
    Little did he know what was to follow.
    A very nasty, criminal chainreaction that started quite innocently.
    The nasty started with psych.case Evan who saw an opportunity to realize his grandiouse, megalomaniac plans with money from Michael.
    He boldly asked for 20 mln to start with for his movie dreams
    Michael was not willing and knew Evan did not have that much talent, a bit he may have had.Then other characters enter the chain event, an
    obsessed lawyer LF, a real life true pervert VG, who had been drooling for Michael for years and also brother Ray with his book.,many “journalists” with scandalously deceptive motives, MB,DD;MO
    and later an obsessed prosecutor TS.Their stories spread illwill against Michael worlwide.Over the years this led to the death of Michael,death delivered by murray.And still those lies are present and will be used to free his murderer.P.S. not to forget OW!
    .

    Like

  141. shelly permalink
    June 3, 2011 11:21 am

    In the book, Gutierrez claimed Evan thought it would have good for June if she could marry MJ. I think the quote is exactly the same as the one in ATG, I wonder where did he get that quote?

    Like

  142. Suzy permalink
    June 3, 2011 3:56 am

    @ Alison

    It’s interesting that ATG claims that these were Monique’s observations. In the Schwartz-Chandler convo Evan is adamant that he doesn’t want Monique to be involved in any of this, he doesn’t want her to attend the meeting and so on.

    Also Monique told him he was out of control and “you don’t want to really do this”:

    2 MR. CHANDLER: The only reason that I’m

    3 meeting with them tomorrow is, the real fact of the

    4 matter is —

    5 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    6 MR. CHANDLER: — because of Monique.

    7 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    8 MR. CHANDLER: Monique begged me to do

    9 it.

    10 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    11 MR. CHANDLER: She said, “You’re out of

    12 control” —

    13 MR. SCHWARTZ: Can Monique be there?

    14 MR. CHANDLER: Tomorrow?

    15 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    16 MR. CHANDLER: She wanted to be there,

    17 but —

    18 MR. SCHWARTZ: I want her to be there.

    19 MR. CHANDLER: I wouldn’t let her.

    20 MR. SCHWARTZ: Why? Why not?

    21 MR. CHANDLER: Because June hates

    22 Monique.

    23 MR. SCHWARTZ: That’s not true.

    24 MR. CHANDLER: Well, you know

    25 something?

    1 MR. SCHWARTZ: That is not true —

    2 MR. CHANDLER: Now —

    3 MR. SCHWARTZ: — at all.

    4 MR. CHANDLER: Well, really! Well,

    5 then that makes Jordy a liar, and that makes

    6 Michael a liar.

    7 MR. SCHWARTZ: Why?

    8 MR. CHANDLER: They both told me that

    9 Monique — that June —

    10 MR. SCHWARTZ: Wait. You can’t see

    11 that whole thing?

    12 MR. CHANDLER: What?

    13 MR. SCHWARTZ: That’s woman jealousy.

    14 MR. CHANDLER: I don’t care what —

    15 MR. SCHWARTZ: It doesn’t matter —

    16 MR. CHANDLER: The problem is you’re in

    17 love with her so you keep on making excuses.

    18 MR. SCHWARTZ: Wait, wait.

    19 MR. CHANDLER: I’m not in love with her

    20 anymore. I don’t even like her anymore.

    21 MR. SCHWARTZ: You don’t know about

    22 female jealousy?

    23 MR. CHANDLER: I don’t care about that.

    24 MR. SCHWARTZ: That has nothing —

    8 MR. SCHWARTZ: But why wouldn’t you

    9 want Monique there? I would feel much more

    10 comfortable.

    11 MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous,

    12 inaudible), that’s why.

    13 MR. SCHWARTZ: Pardon me?

    14 MR. CHANDLER: Because June hates her,

    15 so I don’t want to —

    16 MR. SCHWARTZ: She does not hate her.

    17 MR. CHANDLER: Of course she hates her.

    18 MR. SCHWARTZ: She totally respects her

    19 and doesn’t hate her.

    20 MR. CHANDLER: Well, then, Jordy is a

    21 liar and Michael (inaudible) —

    22 MR. SCHWARTZ: Wait, wait.

    23 MR. CHANDLER: — because they told me

    24 verbatim, together —

    25 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah?

    1 MR. CHANDLER: — that June hates

    2 Monique.

    3 In fact, they went even further and

    4 told me several of the things that June said about

    5 Monique.

    6 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    7 MR. CHANDLER: Okay? Now, maybe they

    8 went back and told June that Monique said things

    9 about her and —

    10 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    11 MR. CHANDLER: — (inaudible) lied.

    12 Maybe they’re lying. I don’t know. But knowing

    13 June, I don’t think that they lied. I think

    14 they’re telling me the truth.

    15 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    16 MR. CHANDLER: And I want Monique out

    17 of this completely.

    18 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    19 MR. CHANDLER: Because all that will

    20 happen is that June will convince Jordy that

    21 Monique’s a bad person and by her presence there

    22 she must have put me up to this whole thing —

    23 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    24 MR. CHANDLER: — and June will

    25 fabricate some great lie —

    1 MR. SCHWARTZ: Ahhh.

    2 MR. CHANDLER: — (simultaneous,

    3 inaudible) I’m only going there because of Monique,

    4 because, to tell you the truth, Dave, it would be a

    5 lot easier for me and a lot more satisfying —

    6 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    7 MR. CHANDLER: — to see everybody get

    8 destroyed —

    9 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    10 MR. CHANDLER: — like they’ve

    11 destroyed me, but it would be a lot easier.

    12 And Monique just kept telling me, “You

    13 don’t want to really do this,” and she finally

    14 [tape irregularity] for the sake of everything that

    15 we’ve all had in the past —

    16 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    17 MR. CHANDLER: — to give it one more

    18 try, and that’s the only reason, because this

    19 attorney I found — I mean, I interviewed several,

    20 and I picked the nastiest son of a bitch —

    21 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    22 MR. CHANDLER: — I could find, and all

    23 he wants to do is get this out in the public as

    24 fast as he can, as big as he can —

    25 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    1 MR. CHANDLER: — and humiliate as many

    2 people as he can, and he’s got a bad [tape

    3 irregularity] —

    4 MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think that’s

    5 good?

    6 MR. CHANDLER: — (simultaneous,

    7 inaudible) he’s costing me a lot of money.

    Like

  143. Alison permalink
    June 2, 2011 11:22 pm

    I said JRT’s book, that was a mistake, its in ATG, page 54 and 55:

    ” Monique reiterated her opinion that Michael was taking up too much of Jordie’s life. But this time she offered an additional observation. ‘Jordie doesn’t even know you’re in the room, Evan. Can’t you see whats going on? They’re in love.’
    The minute the L word left Monique’s mouth, Evan believed she was right………
    ‘Do you think its physical? Evan asked his wife.
    ‘I don’t know’ Monique answered ‘It could just be infatuation. But whatever it is , its not good for Jordie’.

    ‘You’re right,’ Evan admitted. ‘Do you see how different Michael’s acting now?’
    ‘Oh absolutely! he took last weekend as some sort of approval. Now he’s showing his true colours.’
    …….’Maybe you should come right out and ask them……..’
    ‘Michael thinks he’s got me fooled so he’s letting his guard down’
    ‘ Okay’ Monique agreed ‘he’s not going to try anything here. Not with Cody in his room’

    “considering that the majority of Monique’s information about Jordie and Michael came secondhand from Evan, her take on things was pretty sharp. But it takes a professional to understand the mind of a p…le. So what if Cody happened to be in the room. All the better. Especially if he turned out to be as cute as his brother.”

    To me this sounds like the same p….le lie about romance et.c, because it says ‘THEY’ are in love, not ‘Jordie is in love with Michael’.
    I only offered it because it has the angle of Monique / Natalie telling Evan this is what is was.

    Like

  144. Teva permalink
    June 2, 2011 10:44 pm

    @lynande51

    Have you read all these books?
    ATG – RC
    MJWML – VG
    BCWYL – DD

    Like

  145. hana permalink
    June 2, 2011 9:19 pm

    Have you guys read our friend D’s latest entry on Brett Barnes? She claimed that one of her readers contacted him and he released a statement regarding her blog. I don’t think it’s legit because the link the person posted isn’t even Brett’s real facebook..lmao

    Like

  146. shelly permalink
    June 2, 2011 8:34 pm

    I think I find the link

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/jackson-hit-3-million-lawsuit

    They spoke about a 30 millions dollars house in Beverly Hills.

    Like

  147. shelly permalink
    June 2, 2011 5:55 pm

    @lynette

    I send you my email.

    Like

  148. shelly permalink
    June 2, 2011 5:46 pm

    I don’t get the vaseline story. Jordan never said a thing about Barnes, except in the Gardner interview where he said MJ told him he did things with Barnes. If it was true, why it’s not in legal document. How can you take that story seriously. I believe it came from the Neverland 5 as we can see it in a 2005 legal document.

    Like

  149. lynande51 permalink
    June 2, 2011 5:37 pm

    Shelly just go to contact us and give me your personal email and I will send you the book for you. I will look for th eoriginal Schaffle lawsuit and the portions of the countersuit that Michael filed against him but it will take awhile because they are are scanned docs from The Smoking Gun site. You could go there and find them if I can I will send you the link. I don’t know about where you are from but on Amazon here Diane Dimond’s Book and I believe the Ray Chandler book are available for a penny. At that price it would be worth it to get them for comparison.

    Like

  150. shelly permalink
    June 2, 2011 5:10 pm

    @lynette

    Yes, I’d like to read it, if you can make a pdf version of it, it would be very nice. I believe you said, you had the original Schaeffel lawsuit, could you make a pdf version of it? I’d like to read it.

    I made a mystake, I thought Gutierrez said the blow jib started in NY.

    Like

  151. Lynette permalink
    June 2, 2011 4:54 pm

    @Shelly, I don’t know if you have read Jordan Chadler’s Declaration or the transcripts of the alleged Gardner tapes but all accounts of the alleged oral sex start in Monaco during a bath. If you would like to have a copy of this book free of charge I scanned it and I have a PDF version of it for you. If you would like to read it I would be happy to send it to you. It is so much easier to compare the allegations made by the Chandlers and you can see first hand how every tabloid story from voodoo curses to secret rooms to prosthetic noses and skin bleaching originated with this man and his “sources” like Orietta Murdock, Blanca Francia, and the infamous Neverland Five. Of course once any of these allegations came to the courtroom in the 2005 trail all of the “contributors” said they met with Gutierrez but all of them denied that they made any of those statements. You could read Ralph Chacons testimony on the Dear Gavin Arvizo site, it was 4/7/2005 where during redirect cross he says he was never paid by Gutierrez and never gave him a statement and yet he is quoted extensively throughout the book. The prosecution was going to call orie The interesting thing about these statements are still being recycled by the “brokers” and the tabloids that bought them in 1995.

    Like

  152. shelly permalink
    June 2, 2011 3:04 pm

    Do we know when the blow job started according to Jordan in his declaration or the Gardner interview?

    Like

  153. June 2, 2011 2:35 pm

    “I have a question, is it in that book where MJ allegedly told Jordan that Barnes masturbates differently from them because he is not circumcised?”

    Shelly, yes, this marvel of invention is in this particular book.

    Why MJ, who was not circumcised, told Jordan that he was circumcised?

    Well, naturally Michael never “told” Jordan anything like that. However Gutierrez mentions (only once) that Jordan allegedly described Michael as circumcised (while Michael was NOT).

    A question arises here – why didn’t a seasoned liar like Gutierrez change the description into the opposite one in his book? Considering that the book was published in 1996 he must have known by then that Michael’s pictures didn’t fit Jordan’s story because of that non-circumsition issue.

    But it was most probably impossible for Gutierrez (even for Gutierrez) to make a U turn and start saying something totally different from what was said before – the media paid too much attention to the fact that Jordan allegedly said that Michael “was circumcised”. So Gutierrez had to stick to the original story as contradicting it would have been too suspicious on his part.

    BUT what was impossible in 1996 is possible now. Now people begin telling new fables and attribute to Gutierrez a different version. For example, recently I came across an article in a certain “Michael Jackson ” blog where the author claimed that Gutierrez said Michael was not circumcised. This is a lie and the usual practice of rewriting history.

    Like

  154. shelly permalink
    June 2, 2011 2:02 pm

    I have a question, is it in that book where MJ allegedly told Jordan that Barnes masturbates differently from them because he is not circumcised?

    Why MJ, who was not circumcised, told Jordan that he was circumcised?

    Like

  155. Teva permalink
    June 1, 2011 10:37 pm

    @Allison

    “JRT’s book it also says that – Natalie- told Evan that MJ and Jordie were in love.”

    I don’t recall reading that in any of JRT books.

    Like

  156. Jill permalink
    June 1, 2011 10:01 pm

    I’m utterly shocked at VG disgusting, nasty, perverted trash lies! What an evil SOB, I hope he goes to prison and rots in hell, all of them! As well as Tom slimdon should be prosecuted for the hell he put Michael through, he should have to pay big time, all of them. I pray for that everyday.

    Thank you again VindicateMJ for your fabulous work! The media needs desperately to read your site, I hope to God they do. As well as the ignorant, uneducated people who thought wrong of Michael before.

    Like

  157. June 1, 2011 4:41 pm

    “in JRT’s book it also says that – Natalie- told Evan that MJ and Jordie were in love. i will look out the exact quote.it was presented as a ‘knowing wife’ who had more understanding of the situation than Evan. it suggests Evan believed his wife. does VG’s book mention this?”

    Alison, no, I didn’t see VG’s book mention Nathalie’s conversation with Evan about Jordie “being in love”. But such a suggestion on her part would be understandable if both she and Evan discussed the matter between themselves (especially if VG initially planted that idea) and sought for an answer why Jordan preferred Michael’s company to Evan’s. However it doesn’t have anything to do with ped-lia – many people felt great Michael’s magnetism and spoke about it. They practically felt the air electrified in this presence.

    Like

  158. June 1, 2011 4:30 pm

    “she also stole a elvis presley picture and stole money!”

    TruthPrevail, I’ve reread Adrian McManus’s testimony and the story of their dissipation of their nephews’ money is rather interesting. Her husband had a brother who lost a kidney and went blind (he was evidently staying in hospital). His wife got involved in some love affair or so, and the nearly orphaned children were left in the care of Adrian McManus and her husband. However instead of taking care of these children they dissipated their money!

    27 Q. The prosecutor for the government mentioned
    28 a case you were involved in where you were sued by 5355
    1 Rosalie Hill, correct?
    2 A. Correct.
    3 Q. You were sued by Rosalie Hill as the
    4 guardian ad litem for two children, correct?
    5 A. Correct.
    6 Q. The children were Shane McManus and Megan
    7 McManus, correct?
    8 A. Correct.
    5 Q. Judge St. John found that that money was to
    6 be held in trust for the benefit of those two
    7 children, right?
    8 A. Yes.
    9 Q. He found that you and your husband
    10 dissipated those funds, right?
    11 A. I believe so.
    12 Q. He found that you and your husband violated
    13 that trust, right?
    14 A. I believe so.
    15 Q. He entered a judgment against you and your
    16 husband for $30,000 — excuse me, 30,584.89,
    17 correct?
    18 A. I believe so.

    Like

  159. June 1, 2011 1:59 pm

    “How do you know that Adrian McManus was talking about the 1993 allegations when they raided and not 2005?”

    TruthPreval, when Adrian McManus was testifying at the 2005 trial she said she worked in Neverland from August 29, 1990 to July 31, 1994. Consequently the only raid she could be a witness to was the police raid in the year 1993. To avoid further questions I’ve added this information now to her picture in the post.

    Like

  160. Truth Prevail permalink
    June 1, 2011 1:28 pm

    who also stole a elvis presley picture and stole money!! Shame on her!!

    Like

  161. Truth Prevail permalink
    June 1, 2011 1:26 pm

    @Suzy Right she was one of the neverland 5 who got fired right and then was crying about wrongful termination.

    Like

  162. Suzy permalink
    June 1, 2011 12:11 pm

    @ Truth Prevail

    McManus wasn’t working for Michael after 1993.

    Like

  163. Truth Prevail permalink
    June 1, 2011 12:02 pm

    VindicateMJ How do you know that Adrian McManus was talking about the 1993 allegations when they raided and not 2005?

    Like

  164. Hana permalink
    June 1, 2011 10:51 am

    @Ares

    Because MJ has that kind of effect on people. Love him or gate him, you just can’t get enough of him.

    Like

  165. dialdancer permalink
    June 1, 2011 8:48 am

    “If you think that the author uses the word “ped-le” in every other sentence because of his limited vocabulary you will be wrong here. This is a well-known hypnotic method – even if no facts are provided the mere repetition of the word imprints the desired image in people’s memory simply due to the frequency of its use.”

    This is a well known trick by writers. In an article about a speech given by a former President he inter-spaced the name Saddam Hussein with the phrase “war on terror” for the 911 attacks approximately 9 times during a 30 minute speech and Bin Laden twice. We forgot who we were suppose to be hunting for 911. Brainwashing by reiteration.

    Like

  166. Alison permalink
    June 1, 2011 8:40 am

    also just gotta say this – i just think if Neverland had already been emptied of all stuff before the raid then it would have been obvious and sneddon would have taken steps to demand stuff back – especially the mattress- and would have charged them all for obstruction if this had been true.
    and whoever heard of the police giving advance notice to suspects about raiding their property with a search warrant! its usually kept very quiet isn’t it?

    Like

  167. Alison permalink
    June 1, 2011 8:33 am

    in JRT’s book it also says that – Natalie- told Evan that MJ and Jordie were in love. i will look out the exact quote.it was presented as a ‘knowing wife’ who had more understanding of the situation than Evan. it suggests Evan believed his wife. does VG’s book mention this? if not i wonder where JRT got it from.

    I wonder what film company Natalie worked for and if she could have had some connections with VG through that.Like you say Evan seems unstable and open to malicious suggestions by people, could have been direct from VG or maybe it started through someone he trusted such as his wife.

    Like

  168. Suzy permalink
    June 1, 2011 7:36 am

    One more part from the Schwartz-Chandler convo in addition to what I posted yesterday:

    7 MR. CHANDLER: As time went on, the

    8 times between when he did call or see Cody got

    9 longer and longer and longer and longer until [tape

    10 irregularity] anymore.

    11 And you know what? He would do the

    12 same thing to Kelly. Kelly just happens to have to

    13 come along because June has to happen to come

    14 along —

    15 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    16 MR. CHANDLER: — but if [tape

    17 irregularity] now, June wouldn’t be in the picture

    18 and neither would Kelly, any more than I am.

    19 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    20 MR. CHANDLER: They would have dumped

    21 her a long time ago. They even told me [tape

    22 irregularity]. They can’t stand her.

    23 MR. SCHWARTZ: Wait. Jordy can’t stand

    24 June?

    25 MR. CHANDLER: Yeah. Neither one of

    1 them like her. They don’t like anybody but each

    2 other.

    3 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    4 MR. CHANDLER: They don’t like you, and

    5 they don’t like me and they don’t like her. They

    6 don’t want anybody coming between them. [tape

    7 irregularity] got to be eliminated.

    8 You go ahead and you see — you tell

    9 June. You tell June to start saying “No” to

    10 everything they want —

    11 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    12 MR. CHANDLER: — and see what happens.

    13 The only reason she’s there is because

    14 she says “Yes” [tape irregularity] favorite as long

    15 as I was saying “Yes.”

    16 Trust me. I don’t know what’s happened

    17 to Jordy except he doesn’t care, literally does not

    18 care, if he would ever see him again. He hopes I

    19 would go away and not bother him. That’s [tape

    20 irregularity].

    21 MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, I know that’s not

    22 true.

    23 MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous,

    24 inaudible) Michael.

    25 MR. SCHWARTZ: I know that’s not true.

    1 MR. CHANDLER: I’m telling you. But

    2 that doesn’t matter, you know. I’m not taking it

    3 personally. I’m just trying to do what I have been

    4 led to believe is the right action to take so that

    5 he’s not harmed.

    6 I mean, Unfortunately, June and [tape

    7 irregularity] because in order to protect Jordy

    8 certain things are gonna have to come out, and

    9 those two are not going to have any defense against

    10 it whatsoever. They’re just going to be [tape

    11 irregularity] violently destroyed.

    12 MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think that it

    13 helps Jordy?

    14 MR. CHANDLER: Yeah, it’ll help Jordy

    15 because he won’t — he’ll never see Michael again.

    16 That’s —

    17 MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, do you think

    18 that —

    19 MR. CHANDLER: And he’s probably never

    20 gonna see June again if I have to go through with

    21 this.

    22 MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think —

    23 MR. CHANDLER: Unless I’d let him.

    24 MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think that would

    25 affect him?

    1 MR. CHANDLER: What?

    2 MR. SCHWARTZ: That he was — that this

    3 was done by force?

    4 MR. CHANDLER: You mean that Michael

    5 did this to him?

    6 MR. SCHWARTZ: No, that you, like, are

    7 forcing him not to see someone or take him away

    8 from his mom?

    9 MR. CHANDLER: Well, I am gonna force

    10 him not to see —

    11 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, but do you think

    12 that’s the right way to do it?

    13 MR. CHANDLER: Yeah. I’ve been led to

    14 believe that it’s the right thing to do.

    15 In fact, it’s the right thing to do

    16 because how do you know? You don’t know what —

    Like

  169. Suzy permalink
    June 1, 2011 4:27 am

    @ Nan

    “Essentially was he put on trial regarding what was written in this book?…”

    Isn’t that mind-blowing? But yes, the prosecution took most of their stories and theories from VG’s book! And most of their witnesses were people under VG’s influence too! And don’t forget this is a guy who was caught lying big time and ordered to pay millions to Michael! And the prosecution still used his stories.

    Chacon, McManus, Abdool, the Francias, the Chandlers, Bashir – they all were in connection with VG!

    @ Teva

    “The sad and ironic thing about this episode is – had it not been for the 2005 trial there would be no direct refute to some of VG’s claims, and I think you mentioned that in a previous post.”

    Indeed it’s sad. That’s the only positive aspect of the trial: at least it came out that those old stories were all lies.

    Like

  170. ares permalink
    June 1, 2011 1:34 am

    I haven’t read the post yeat but i saw that picture of VG with that MJ impersonator and something bothers me. Maybe is a stupid question but i have to express it. We have Diane Dimond who, according to her, knows for a fact that MJ was a ch/m with tons of victims, who she expected to speak out after MJ death and we have VG, who also knows for a fact that MJ did horrible things to young boys. But if those people know for a fact that MJ was this monster, this sick human being who took advantage and destroyed the lives of so many innocent young kids with his actions ,then how come DD pays money in order to have a hat that belonged to MJ, how come she has photos of his in her house and how come VG takes pictures with that MJ impersonator or goes to see This is it. I don’t understand it. They think the worst of MJ, they believe that he was a sick human being,they even wrote books about it yeat they keep wanting to have some kind of connection or assosiation with MJ. For me this is the most amazing thing. How can someone wants to have anything to do with someone that they think that is a p/le? That to me is just sick. As sick as they accuse MJ to be.
    I hope my question makes sence. It’s night over here and i have been studing for my exams all day.

    Like

  171. Teva permalink
    June 1, 2011 12:24 am

    @VindicateMJ

    After reading some of those excerpts I too am suspicious of VG’s sexual proclivities. I would like to advance that if his mind didn’t conjure up the romance novel he probably had help from member(s) of a certain organization that starts with “N”. I was revolted reading some of those passages because that is the reaction of a normal thinking person. I would never liken a sexual relationship between a child and adult as a romance, there is NO such thing as consensual sex between a minor and an adult. These 2 could never be classified as a “couple” so why say it?

    I think him stressing that EC never called it “child abuse” is also a tactic. Pedophiles don’t think they are abusing children, and he wants the book to read like a harlequin novel. I think the book was calculated also as a stepping stone to bigger things, VG did say he wanted his book to be theatrical production. I think like EC he wanted to ride a wave to stardom, but it didn’t quite turned out the way he planned – DD stole his thunder.

    The sad and ironic thing about this episode is – had it not been for the 2005 trial there would be no direct refute to some of VG’s claims, and I think you mentioned that in a previous post.

    Like

  172. Hana permalink
    May 31, 2011 10:14 pm

    Don’t forget about the neverland 5. Their testimonies were also influenced by Victor’s book.

    Like

  173. nan permalink
    May 31, 2011 10:04 pm

    “On Monday, June 21, Jackson surprisingly arrived in New York. “He called the number which I had left him, and asked my mom if she could take me to the hotel where he was staying. We couldn’t believe it. Michael had followed me to be together,” related Jordie.

    While in New York, Jackson showed a side of himself that Jordie had not known. “Michael told me that we were going to spend a very special day and night together. But then my mom decided to leave Lily at the hotel with me. This enraged Michael so much that he asked me very strongly, as if I had never seen him, ‘What is your sister doing here? We won’t have any privacy! We won’t be able to do anything!’ When my mother left, Michael slammed the door and began to break the lamps, mirrors and tables in the room.”

    I was just reading this part and starting to feel sick because I read a lot of the transcripts and hadnt realized why they were fighting tooth and nail over this stuff because i have never read this guys book.
    This is also wrong because arrangements to go to n.y.were made by evvy and paid for by Michael because he was to meet up with them later , after Junes brothers wedding……I believe June and Lily had the room across the hall from Jordan and MJ….Mesereau made sure to ask June about this trip and specifically who made the travel arrangements, perhaps, so as to clarify it was no surprise visit by Mj…..June invited him , I suppose so he would pick up the tab., as usual…. ..I remember she said something about she didnt know who was paying for the rooms and Mesereau asked her if she paid for it and , she had to answer … no……..MJ was always picking up the tab for these deadbeats..
    Essentially was he put on trial regarding what was written in this book?…WOW..I really had no idea about that ..I just got the sense it was a really hotly contested thing regarding Junes testimony..
    I feel like the fog is beginning to lift off this stuff..
    This Victor guy has been flying under the radar for a long time

    Like

  174. May 31, 2011 6:39 pm

    Suzy, these episodes are fitting in very well with a possible Gutierrez’s influence on Evan Chandler. I will be saying it too soon of course – as we haven’t covered the whole of the book yet – but Gutierrez’s aim when speaking to people was both slandering Michael and simultaneously conveying an idea to them that their boy had an “infatuation” for an adult man which might be “real love” (please read what Gutierrez said in the name of Jordan about his “love for MJ misunderstood by others”). The possibility of such (sexual) infatuation is constantly promoted by pedophiles – Thomas O’Carroll’s whole book is about it!

    Gutierrez hints that breaking that “relationship” may be more damaging than closing one’s eyes on it – this is why he is so dramatic about Jordan’s suicide drawing. Only he explains it not by Jordan’s pangs of conscience (which I see here) but by the fact that Jordan was devastated that he had betrayed his “lover”. Frankly, it is the first time I hear such an interpretation from anyone at all. But Gutierrez specifically mentions that Jordan’s suicide drawing was NOT because he felt shame for his “sexual acts” but because his father had betrayed him and he would never see Jackson again (the tragedy of “a ruined love”) :

    The idea that he would have to testify in court against his “first love” depressed him so much that, before going to bed that night, he drew a picture of a boy jumping off of a building and another person yelling at him to stop from behind. The drawing also showed a figure on the pavement covered with blood. This was a message. It was a suicide note. Evan found the paper the next morning. When he saw the drawing, he wrote on it the sentence “Don’t let this happen!” He thought that the reason for the suicide note was that Jordie had been sexually abused by Jackson.

    Jordie’s reason for suicide was not because he felt shame for his sexual acts with Jackson. He was depressed because his father had promised him that nobody would know. Now his own father was negotiating and planning to go to court to tell all. His father had betrayed him. He also understood that his relationship with Jackson would never be the same. At night, he had nightmares that he wouldn’t see Jackson.”

    If ever Gutierrez spoke about it to Evan Chandler in his usual confident manner and said that “it is love” I can easily imagine Evan getting extremely agitated at hearing such an opinion and immediately consulting “experts” whether a thing like that is possible. He even asked Michael that “f…ing question” to deal with the matter directly and was pacified by his answer and convinced of no wrong by his reaction. But even if there was no molestation – which Evan probably only half-believed – he regarded Jordan’s “infatuation” as very harmful in itself.

    It was probably following Gutierrez’s sick ideas that he started thinking that “Jordan had made his choice” and absolutely correctly says that “Jordan is not old enough to make such a decision” and that Michael is “harming him this way”.

    WHICH WAY? He said it himself that he didn’t have the slightest idea what was going on between them! All he knew was a pedophilic version he got from someone of a possibility of his son falling in love with a male adult and that was quite enough for him to get infuriated. It doesn’t matter to him that there is no molestation proper – he doesn’t want it whatever it is! Especially if he cannot keep an eye on it! The boy is slipping away from him into an unknown future and none of them is listening! So here he goes with all his threats and all his nastiness and his demands for money as the situation is also extremely favorable for him becoming a millionaire … However it is clear to him that the case is not for a criminal court. What will he say there? That he suspects that his son has fallen in love with an adult guy?

    Like

  175. Suzy permalink
    May 31, 2011 5:03 pm

    So here are some quotes from the Schwartz-Chandler convo:

    2 MR. CHANDLER: I kept saying, “No, this

    3 is okay. There’s nothing wrong. This is great.”

    4 It took experts to convince me [tape

    5 irregularity] that by not taking action —

    6 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    7 MR. CHANDLER: — my son was going to

    8 be irreparably damaged for the rest of his life

    9 [tape irregularity]. That was what I heard.

    10 MR. SCHWARTZ: Because his friend is

    11 older, or because of all the seduction?

    12 MR. CHANDLER: Well, you know, age in

    13 and of itself is not a harmful thing.

    14 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    15 MR. CHANDLER: But it could have been

    16 used to advantage, and in some ways Michael is

    17 using his age and experience and his money and his

    18 power to great advantage to Jordy. The problem is

    19 he’s also harming him, greatly harming him, for his

    20 own selfish reasons. He’s not the altruistic, kind

    21 human being that he appears to be.

    22 MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think —

    23 MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous,

    24 inaudible) selfish motives here.

    There were some “experts” whom Evan always refers to and says it were these “experts” who convinced him of something that is “harmful” to Jordan in their opinion. What exactly this something is, it’s never explicitly stated in the convo, because Evan says his lawyer (Rothman) told him not to tell anybody anything or else he might blow it. At one point Dave explicitly asks him: “Do you think he’s fucking him?” To which Evan says: “I don’t know. I have no idea.” And elsewhere it’s also clear that he has nothing, only suspicions which were put in his mind by those “experts”. Despite of not being sure, from the way Evan talks it’s clear it’s already prepared that he will accuse Michael of molesting Jordan and this is what he cannot talk about.

    His comment about how age is not really the issue here, is interesting. Let’s keep it in mind.

    Now some more quotes about the “experts” behind Evan:

    MR. CHANDLER: What do I do? I mean,

    7 in the opinion of these experts, I would be a

    8 negligent father if I did not do what I am now

    9 doing.

    10 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    11 MR. CHANDLER: In fact, in their

    12 opinion I have been negligent not to put a stop to

    13 [tape irregularity] opinion.

    14 I happen to agree with them now. I

    15 didn’t agree with them at first.

    ———————

    12 MR. SCHWARTZ: But why would you want

    13 him to hate you, and why would you want to put him

    14 through that —

    15 MR. CHANDLER: Because all I care about

    16 is what happens to him in the long run.

    17 MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, the long run, is

    18 that going to be healthy in the long run?

    19 MR. CHANDLER: According to the

    20 experts?

    21 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    22 MR. CHANDLER: Absolutely.

    23 According to the experts, if it goes on

    24 the way it is, he’s doomed. He has no chance of

    25 ever being a happy, healthy, normal human being, no

    1 [tape irregularity].

    2 MR. SCHWARTZ: So what happens if you

    3 force him not to see him?

    4 MR. CHANDLER: Not to see Michael?

    5 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    6 MR. CHANDLER: Nobody’s saying for sure

    7 what will happen. Most people’s feeling is that

    8 he’s gonna go on and hate me for a long time and

    9 then some day when he gets older he’ll thank me.

    ————————–

    9 MR. CHANDLER: You want to know

    10 something? You don’t even have to ask me. You

    11 could — as you said before, you want to sit down

    12 and talk to the people I spoke to —

    13 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    14 MR. CHANDLER: — you’re going to have

    15 a chance to do that if you want to. You go and ask

    16 the experts —

    17 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    18 MR. CHANDLER: — and you won’t have to

    19 ask. They will be there anyway.

    20 There’s not one person in this world

    21 [tape irregularity] can’t find a person —

    —————————-

    12 MR. CHANDLER: I never did before, but

    13 when her getting her last word is now going to be

    14 harmful to Jordy, yes, I am going to step in, and,

    15 again, I’m not telling you this is my — my opinion

    16 was formed by —

    17 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    18 MR. CHANDLER: — but this is my

    19 perception of [tape irregularity] professional

    20 opinions to make sure I wasn’t going off the deep

    21 end here.

    ——————————

    Evan acts like it’s a consensual romance between Michael and Jordan. Like they were “lovers” instead of Jordan being Michael’s victim. What crazy parent thinks of the alleged molestation of their kid as such?

    20 MR. CHANDLER: Yeah. At that point he

    21 liked us better than — Jordy too. Jordy’s the

    22 same as Michael. It was a simple divide and

    23 conquer. They felt us both out.

    24 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    25 MR. CHANDLER: They saw who was going

    1 to let them do what they wanted to do, and then

    2 they made their choice.

    3 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    4 MR. CHANDLER: And until I had a talk

    5 with Jordy one day at [tape irregularity] —

    6 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    7 MR. CHANDLER: — they were gonna come

    8 live with me. They were gonna pack up, leave

    9 June’s house, and come here.

    10 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    11 MR. CHANDLER: That’s what they were

    12 going to do, because they were getting more

    13 resistance from her than they were getting from me.

    14 You cannot tell this stuff — you cannot — I’m

    15 confiding in you, okay, Dave?

    16 MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.

    17 MR. CHANDLER: Right? That’s —

    18 MR. SCHWARTZ: Absolutely.

    19 MR. CHANDLER: Nobody’s to know this

    20 conversation —

    21 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    22 MR. CHANDLER: — (simultaneous,

    23 inaudible) except you and me; is that right?

    24 MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.

    25 MR. CHANDLER: You promise me?

    1 MR. SCHWARTZ: I promise you.

    2 MR. CHANDLER: Okay. What I’m telling

    3 you is that Jordy and Michael are users.

    4 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    5 MR. CHANDLER: They had — they were

    6 gonna — they had their own relationship.

    7 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    8 MR. CHANDLER: They want to carry it

    9 out the way they want to carry it out. They don’t

    10 want anybody getting in the way [tape

    11 irregularity] — least resistance, and that’s the

    12 way they’re going. They simply divided and

    13 conquered, and June went along with it. And she

    14 was wrong because she did it to the detriment of

    15 Jordy.

    16 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    17 MR. CHANDLER: Jordy is not old enough

    18 to make these kind of [tape irregularity] that he’s

    19 making.

    20 MR. SCHWARTZ: But is that a huge life

    21 decision?

    22 MR. CHANDLER: Oh, you bet it is.

    ————————————

    12 MR. CHANDLER: I said I think

    13 he’ll — I said he may or may not hate me now —

    14 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    15 MR. CHANDLER: — but he’ll definitely

    16 hate me tomorrow.

    17 He’ll hate me, why? Because I’m taking

    18 Michael away from him. That’s why.

    ————————————-

    19 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    20 MR. CHANDLER: And that’s a —

    21 MR. SCHWARTZ: So you really think

    22 Michael’s bad for him?

    23 MR. CHANDLER: I know Michael’s bad for

    24 him.

    25 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    1 MR. CHANDLER: You know how I know

    2 that?

    3 Why would somebody, Dave — if you tell

    4 me this, think of this logically. What reason

    5 would he want us split up — [tape irregularity]

    6 would he want me out of the way? What would be the

    7 reason, unless he has something to hide?

    8 MR. SCHWARTZ: But —

    9 MR. CHANDLER: I know what he has to

    10 hide. I happen to know what it is.

    11 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    12 MR. CHANDLER: But I can’t tell you.

    13 MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.

    14 MR. CHANDLER: I’m just asking you in

    15 terms of logic. You know me. I’m not — I’m a

    16 pretty liberal guy.

    17 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    18 MR. CHANDLER: I don’t get in anybody’s

    19 way, okay? So, I mean, what reason would he want

    20 me out of the way to such an extent that neither

    21 one of them will take my phone calls, neither one

    22 of them will talk to me?

    23 MR. SCHWARTZ: I think Jordy’s taken my

    24 route of just withdrawing.

    ——————————————

    The most chilling part is the very end:

    15 MR. CHANDLER: They’ve had four or five

    16 times that I’ve called them [tape irregularity]

    17 haven’t wanted to get in a conversation with me

    18 about it, and I believe they don’t want to get in a

    19 conversation with me about it is because they know

    20 they can’t defend their position.

    21 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    22 MR. CHANDLER: [tape irregularity] to

    23 cut — I mean, I’m young, I’m really liberal. As

    24 far as I’m concerned, anybody could do anything

    25 they want. That’s my philosophy. You guys can do

    1 whatever you want. Just be happy. Don’t get hurt.

    2 So . . .

    So even though Evan thinks (because of no evidence, but because of what “experts” told him) Michael is molesting his son, it’s not really the issue for him, because he’s liberal and “you guys can do whatever you want. Just be happy. Don’t get hurt”? WTF?! (The issue for him is rather that Jordan and Michael cut him off and weren’t communicating with him.) Maybe I misunderstand something here, but this is my impression.

    Who put the twisted idea on his mind that child molestation is just another form of consensual romance? I don’t know but I smell influence from VG here. Could he be one of those “experts” telling things to Evan?

    I personally think if Michael had really been a p. this family would have been like paradise for him! A boy, who (according to haters) enjoys the molestation and considers it a consensual romance. A father who is really liberal and doesn’t mind as long as you don’t cut him off. And who even offers him to build an addition to his house so that you can move in with his son. Wouldn’t a real p. just love it? Instead, Michael, when Evan suggested him to move in with Jordan, that’s when he started to distance himself and cut off Evan and stopped communicating with him. That in itself shows what he thought of it.

    Like

  176. May 31, 2011 4:51 pm

    “Evan’s attitude is shocking on so many levels, but the most shocking is that he acts like it would be some kind of normal, consensual love/sex relationship IF his suspicions were right.”

    Suzy, it is a long time since I read Evan’s conversation with David Schwartz so I can’t remember all the details but my overall impression of Evan Chandler is somewhat different.

    I think his views on Michael had a very big share of disbelief that he could be guilty of any mol-tation- but his mind was terribly unstable and was poisoned with suspicions (which were probably planted by VG) and hard feelings that he was “no longer accepted by the rest of the gang”.

    He couldn’t understand that he had alienated Michael himself by asking all those crazy questions and was consumed with all sort of theories why they didn’t want to associate with him any longer. Some facts in VG’s book led me to believe that someone was constantly feeding those thoughts into his mind because Evan’s scarce meetings with Michael simply could not suggest him thinking of any “molestation” on his own. Evan did believe Michael and always said he liked him!

    I am checking and rechecking VG’s book and from his almost daily filthy accounts it follows that Evan could not possibly know that Jordan sometimes stayed with Michael at night – at least until May 1993. So why would he ask that strange question about ‘f…g’ his son out of the blue? Could it be that someone suggested this idea to him and Evan decided to startle Michael just to check his reaction? By the way Evan was satisfied with Michael’s answer and admitted that he believed him.

    I think that Evan was really concerned about the well-being of his son (in his own peculiar way). This does not rule out all the other factors – his greediness, nasty temper, suspicious nature and a highly unstable mind. We shouldn’t forget that we are talking of a person who beat both his wives (at least on several occasions), had a fight with David Schwartz, attempted to kill his own son and eventually committed a suicide. Awful temper, nasty character, exceptional greediness and an ill mind – but no ped-le and no man who would prostitute his son. Use him and mentally abuse him by various ideas in order to extract money from Michael, but not prostitute him.

    However I haven’t reread Evan’s phone conversation for a long time and would be interested to know what led you to believe that Evan could accept a man/boy love. In my opinion he never thought that way – his ‘specifics’ was different.

    Like

  177. Truth Prevail permalink
    May 31, 2011 4:44 pm

    The 2005 trial vindicated MJ of arvizo accusations and in a way also 1993 because if 2005 trial never took place The VGS Lies about 1993 would never have been debunked like mcmanus etc..

    sad MJ had to withstand that bogus trial.

    Like

  178. ares permalink
    May 31, 2011 2:56 pm

    @Rodrigo

    http://www.chokkacenter.com/blog/Fitness-and-Its-Role-in-Treating-Mental-Illness

    I think the informations on the link will be very usefull for you and your friend, desire.

    Like

  179. Suzy permalink
    May 31, 2011 2:00 pm

    I’m translating the Schwartz-Chandler conversation for my blog. Evan’s attitude is shocking on so many levels, but the most shocking is that he acts like it would be some kind of normal, consensual love/sex relationship IF his suspicions were right. (He says he has “no idea” if it happens.) He’s only upset about him being “cut off” from Jordan’s life and that “they” don’t talk to him. He says several times that he is a liberal guy suggesting that he would actually be open to such a relationship between his son and Michael if that’s what they wanted. (I’m sorry I don’t have the exact text in front of me now. I will look into it when I get home.) It’s totally shocking.

    He also says he didn’t believe the accusations at first it were “the experts” who convinced him of that. One has to wonder who those “experts” were? Barry Rothman? Victor Gutierrez? Both?

    The way how Evan thinks of child m. as some kind of consensual romance gives me the impression of influence by VG already being present.

    Like

  180. May 31, 2011 1:26 pm

    I have not had the opportunity of reading this crap,but have come upon several out takes on line.The material was products of a sick mind and fantasy.Only more incredible is the fact that a DA would give it any credence.

    Like

  181. May 31, 2011 10:23 am

    “The prosecution also asked wade robson about Michael throwing rocks at a lions cage. That was also mentioned in Victor!s book.”

    Hana, this is a marvellous episode! I am planning to write about it in the next part. Hopefully there will be several more posts about Gutierrez.

    [Guys, I am sorry that I was not very much present here for some time – had reasons for that – but I intend to go on with the work with the Heavens’ help]

    Like

  182. Hana permalink
    May 31, 2011 10:18 am

    The prosecution also asked wade robson about Michael throwing rocks at a lions cage. That was also mentioned in Victor!s book.

    Like

  183. Hana permalink
    May 31, 2011 10:10 am

    Lol If the prosecution used this book to build their case then no wonder why they lost…lmao

    Like

  184. May 31, 2011 9:54 am

    “I now see that Tom Sneddon had hung on every word of this book and that is why he specifically asked June Chandler on the stand where Brett was sitting in the limo when they came to pick up the Chandlers….as if it was a major thing…..She said he was sitting NEXT to Michael.”

    Nan, thanks a lot for this comment! I’ll immediately add it to the post. It turns out that almost every question asked and answered at the 2005 trial is meaningful if you know what implication it has and where to look for a background for it.

    Yes, Tom Sneddon, Diane Dimond, Maureen Orth and Co. were avid readers of Victor Gutierrez’s nonsense. The defense team probably also had to study VG’s book with a notepad in their hands. I was incredulous to find out that grown-up people like Sneddon and Mesereau had to fight over why a lamp was broken in a hotel room or who sat next to whom in a car. Previously some of these questions baffled us but now they acquire a meaning. And all this shows how much importance was and is still being attached to VG’s “legacy”.

    Victor Gutierrez’s role has been totally underestimated by us! And what is interesting about it is that no one pointed at VG as a source of all that dirt.

    Like

  185. May 31, 2011 8:38 am

    I read a sick man’s delusions here. We all know who that proven liar (with a very specific agenda) is. Only morons (of his peers) could believe that fiction. Among other endless things, poor dreamer VG should finally learn that it was June who wrote that letter when Michael was in hospital. June’s efforts to meet MJ are discussed in detail in part 1 of “HIStory vs EVANstory”.

    Like

  186. May 31, 2011 4:00 am

    Thanks vindicatemj for reading this crappy book so we don’t have to. You ensure we know the pertinent information without having to endure the whole thing ourselves. I’m truly grateful.

    Like

  187. nan permalink
    May 31, 2011 3:53 am

    I never in my life thought I would be smiling, while going over the cr@p written by that guy..WOW. what a load of rubbish..
    I now see that Tom Sneddon had hung on every word of this book and that is why he specifically asked June Chandler on the stand where Brett was sitting in the limo when they came to pick up the Chandlers….as if it was a major thing…..She said he was sitting NEXT to Michael..
    And the broken lamp incident they discussed in court…I guess that pervert Sneddon must have been just daydreaming about that episode…LOL
    At times, I have a hard time believing that the prosecutors really believed that Michael had committed any crime as I know they made a big deal about MJ going to Bermuda with Mac and his friends family .Knowing this family was interviewed by the Washington Post and they didnt believe the accusations regarding MJ, and thought the police were out of control,….They knew enough not to call this family in to testify ….as they were on Jacksons side…… I just dont even know why they brought half this stuff up in their case..The more I look at it , the more I just think Tom Sneddon was just a brutish bigoted old fool…I also wonder if originally Victor and Evan were in cahoots and then turned on each other…Ray Chandler seems to resent this guy cutting into his enterprise..Thank you for posting this..

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Summary and Analysis of the Lies of Michael Jackson’s Former Maid Blanca Francia « Vindicating Michael

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: