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

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.