Skip to content

Victor Gutierrez and his fantasy book about Michael Jackson. Part 3. JUNE CHANDLER & other BAD CHARACTERS

June 20, 2011

First I need to apologize for making longer breaks than usual between the posts – I am now away from home and have to attend to a lot of various things. However there is no cloud without a silver lining – since so much time has passed since the first two posts about Victor Gutierrez’s book of lies it became clearer than before that it is impossible to analyze this delirious literary product seriously. Having to refute it is not only boring but is also meaningless – in the same way as it would be meaningless to “refute” a fantasy story about Harry Porter, for example.

Victor Gutierrez on Chilean TV

However the person standing behind this book is real and that is why our primary goal is to see who this person is. As you already know all prior information about Victor Gutierrez (I mean his unaccounted for attendance of the NAMBLA conference) and the first two posts about the unique style of his book reinforced our suspicion that Gutierrez has something to do with NAMBLA – so let us keep this suspicion firmly on our mind and be constantly on the lookout for other signs which may point in the same direction.

The first two parts focused on Gutierrez’s most prominent lies which by now have formed an indispensable tool kit of every Michael Jackson’s hater. The remaining lies are either totally indecent (these will be omitted altogether as nothing will force me to repeat this filth here – this isn’t a porn site) or are lesser in quality but more numerous in numbers instead. So the reader will probably understand how mammoth a task we are facing here – since every single sentence is a separate lie the only option it leaves us with is a simple enumeration of them (and even this alone will take several posts). The option of the truth told by Gutierrez will hardly be considered here at all as only realistic options are being looked into in this blog.

However if Gutierrez is not telling the truth it becomes our task to find it behind the totally absurd façade the author is painting for us. Is it possible? I think it is – only we need to bring some system into our research.

With pornographic lies being excluded from the discussion Gutierrez’s remaining lies fall into main two categories – lies told about the “good guys” meant to whitewash them and raise sympathy for these highly moral people who had to suffer in the hands of a predator,  and lies about the “bad guys” meant to show them as weird, crazy and downright evil.

You have probably guessed that the indisputably positive characters of Gutierrez’s fiction story are members of the Neverland Five gang plus several good guys like Larry Feldman and a couple of other Michael’s detractors – while the “bad guys” are all Michael’s supporters including those whom you would never expect to find on Michael’s side of the barricade.

This black and white division on the part of Gutierrez is, in my opinion, is an extremely interesting research tool – this way Gutierrez himself tells us who is a one hundred per cent enemy of Michael Jackson and who is Michael’s friend or has the potential of finding himself among Michael’s supporters for the simple reason that he might one day tell the truth about his story.

Why is Gutierrez splashing a lot of unnecessary dirt on some people? Most probably because he wants to neutralize these people in advance and minimize the possible effect of anything good they might say about Jackson one day. So to preempt this unpleasant outcome lies are thrown at these people in a precautionary manner in order to compromise them and their possible words of support in respect of Michael Jackson.

As a result of these manipulations Gutierrez’s narration turns into a kind of a fairy tale meant for very simple minds where the “good guys” (like the Neverland five gang, for example) are impeccable – honest, brave, humane, compassionate, heroic, etc., while “the bad ones” are irresponsible, greedy, evil, crazy, prone to stealing things and prostituting their sons. To make the readers lose their last illusions the “bad guys” are portrayed as having extremely bad habits like drinking or drug addiction, for example.

Please tell me frankly, do you remember any drunkards and drug addicts in Michael’s surrounding during the 1993 defamation campaign? You don’t remember any? Then it will certainly come to you as a big surprise that Gutierrez depicts, for example, KIT and PAT CULKINS (father and mother of Macaulay Culkin) as highly irresponsible parents who, though traveling to Neverland with all their seven children, were in the habit of smoking marijuana with a baby in their hands while their son Macaulay was being molested, groomed or whatever in the next room!

If I hadn’t read Kit Culkin’s book I could have probably believed this fantastic lie, but I have read the book and do know what a prim, correct and proper person Kit Culkin is – that is why I nearly fell off the chair when Victor Gutierrez suddenly told this lie, which in my opinion is totally unnecessary (if you understand what I mean).

Macaulay Culkin with his sister Dakota, far right, and mother Pat, father Kit, and siblings Kieran, Christian, Shane and Gwen at the premiere of Home Alone

What has Kit Culkin done to Gutierrez that he depicts him in such a nasty way? Nothing, except the fact that one day Kit might tell the truth about what happened or rather not happened to his children in Neverland.

Well, Kit has written his book about Michael Jackson by now (called “Lost boy”) and over there Kit Culkin does indeed tell the whole truth about Michael, often accompanying it by critical comments and even sarcasm – but what he stresses on many occasions is that he never saw any remote signs of any “molestation”, and also that Michael always treated all his children totally equally, without making any difference between boys and girls, and that Michael was just a big child whom Kit Culkin wanted to scold like his own children but refrained from it at the last moment remembering that he was their host, etc. etc. etc. – thus depicting  Michael as someone extraordinary, naughty but absolutely innocent.

Though Kit Culkin’s book deserves a proper post on its own I cannot resist quoting some pieces from it now. Please see what Kit Culkin says about Michael as a person – he describes him as shy and prissy as the “Victorian old maid” and says Michael couldn’t bring himself to utter even a word of profanity or speak about sex:

  • …Michael Jackson the Child was not the very first thing that I would come to realize about the man.  The very first thing that I would come to realize about him came instantly and went to the characteristic that most all people must (perfectly must) observe of him at first meeting; and this has to do with the fact that he is a fellow who, seemingly above all things, is inordinately shy. When the lights go up and the music starts, he is in his element (a fish in water). When the lights go down and the music stops, he is no longer in his element (a fish out of water).  Simple as that.
  • I liked Michael very much when I first met him, and continued to regard him highly in the succeeding years.  However odd a fellow he may have been, and whatever his faults and flights of fantasy, I ever thought him a rather decent man and (in a quite literal sense) a gentleman (he who treats with all others as though they too be gentlemen). And, what is more, I found him to be highly democratic and absent all snobbery, often treating so- perceived important people with next-to-no particular regard, while perfectly lavishing his attentions on people of similarly perceived little standing.
  • The truth is that Michael Jackson is many things and many, many of them good.  He is genuinely thoughtful and kind and sweet and generous and possessed of a big heart; attributes that are not to be easily dismissed in a world that is so very often sadly bereft of such qualities.  The one is that Michael is always very prissy and proper and prim, and the very essence of the proverbial Victorian old maid.  Profanity, vulgarity, bad language and all such other improprieties of speech are things that just might cause him to all but faint.  And as to sex itself, this is a something that he can’t bring himself to even mention or give thought. In a moment of unintended self-revelation, he himself once told me (with his hand cupped over his mouth in a gesture of “I shouldn’t”) about how a highly popular female entertainer (I’ll withhold the name) had once “exposed herself” to him (his words) just to see how he would react; a confession that caused him to visibly blush, I noticed, and through layers of pancake yet!

Kit Culkin’s seven children

And this is what Kit Culkin says about Michael treating boys and girls in a totally equal manner:

  • I should here say that Michael ever seemed to genuinely like all of my kids (as they him), and quite equally so, I noticed, for I never found him in his visits or ours to be exclusionary or one to play favorites (holding one or some in higher esteem than the others; this sort of things).  Indeed, he seemed ever to treat with them all quite democratically and as though they were all of them (himself included) brothers and sisters of equal standing.
  • 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 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.

And this is an extremely funny piece from Kit Culkin about Michael’s childlike ways:

  • “When once breaking up a couple of my boys’ rough- housing, I found myself admonishing them, and then turning to Michael to rhetorically ask, “And how can you just allow this to happen?!”, only to notice that Michael, with his hand pressed over his mouth and his eyes darting furtively between one son and the other, was acting just as guilty as they; a something which then caused me to turn to my fifteen year old son Shane, who was not involved, to put this question to him instead.

“What am I doing?!”, I couldn’t help but immediately ask myself.  “Here I am bawling out our thirty-something year old host, while at the same time asking my oldest son, who was less than half his age, how he could allow this to happen!”

Michael the Child, you see, wasn’t identifying with me, the adult.  He was identifying with the children; and such would always seem to be the case, no matter how old or how young my offspring might be.

And this quote is about what Kit Culkin thought about the “molestation” thing and what he would have done if he had ever, ever noticed anything bad in Michael’s behavior (though he never did). It is quite long but worth reading:

  • “First of all, I never saw or heard anything at all during my early days of knowing Michael to suggest that he was a pedophile.  I would note that a busload or two of kids might arrive at the estate of an afternoon and be taken straight to the amusement park or the movie theatre, and then just as swiftly be bused back off the grounds.  In fact, I believe that there was an entire office in an adjacent building and an entire staff that was responsible for overseeing these visits; and I noted also that on no occasion at all did any of these children ever get asked to the house for any reason whatsoever.  These were all strictly well-planned and well-supervised excursions, and the people who made them up quite apart from the people (such as those of my own family) who were actual guests. And while we’re on the subject of guests, this list was hardly confined to children. Indeed, adults roamed most everywhere, many of them from the world of government, including (just for instance) former President and neighbor Ronald Reagan, together with “Just-Say-No” Nancy, as well as Secretary of Defense William Cohen and not a few others that I’ve since forgotten; none of whom certainly gave one the feeling that the estate was (goodness knows) a den of pedophilia.
  • Second of all, and speaking of dens of pedophilia, my kids never slept with Michael.  I need mention this because on the Bashir program Michael admitted that he did sleep with children; and well he may have, but he never slept with mine.  One should note that in saying quite specifically that he had indeed slept with a number of my kids in a group, that he was then in the process of immediately backtracking in attempts to undo the damage of his having made the above-cited confession (a little like the “but I slept on the floor” afterthought). … As I say again, he never slept with my children.  I can’t speak to much after 1994, after which time my child custody case would commence and I’d come to have no say whatsoever as to perfectly everything in my children’s lives, and would never again accompany any of them to Neverland (their mother at one point even ‘hiding’ two of them from me there; my days at the place then being done), but prior to this time, whenever at Neverland they always had their own quarters, as did their mother and as did I.  Michael’s bedroom (an enormous room with alcoves and dressing rooms and a fireplace and French doors leading out to a private garden, as well as a stairway leading to the entire upstairs) was almost always an open place to hang out in, as was most all of the rest of the house.  My children would sit on the bed, as would I, to play cards or checkers, or watch television or whatever, but then we would do so most everywhere else also.  They might of occasion fall asleep there, just as they might of occasion fall asleep most anywhere else, and at most any daylight hour.  While they had a bedtime, I rarely enforced it, as they were, after all, at Neverland to play; and as is most always the case with children (as any parent will tell you), they never enforced it themselves, thinking that they should get some rest so as to be better rested to play again the coming day.  Children don’t worry about “the coming day”.  Therefore, I was constantly and most usually after suppertime, having to round them up and often carry them (sometimes by golf cart) to their accommodations. They’d fall asleep watching a movie at the movie theatre or playing with the toy trains in the toy trains room, and there was one occasion, I well remember, when one of them was actually found asleep on the carousel!  Most certainly there was the time, when Mack fell asleep on Michael’s bed and I was (as ever) yet again put to the task of carrying him to his quarters, that Michael pursued me to rather vaguely express (what certainly seemed to me at the time) some concern that I not think anything untoward about the situation (which I didn’t), but such was the full extent of anything that even to this day I can recall as ever even slightly hinting at the possibility of anything improprietous (and, I should add, I only think to think-on and mention this in the light of plenty of hindsight).  So, as I say, there was really nothing in these days to truly suggest pedophilia. And then remember also (of course) that these were times when nobody, either publicly or privately, had ever even so much as raised the issue about Michael.
  • Third of all, and because I think this important, one should remember that I was always there, and that Michael (whatever his possible designs) wasn’t all that stupid, or suicidal.  One miss-step and I’d have broken his neck for him, together with any-and- every other part of his anatomy that I might have been able to catch.
  • Fourth of all, and because I think this important also, none of my children, either by word or action or sense-of-feeling, ever reported or otherwise conveyed to me that pedophilia was a part of the menu at Neverland or anywhere else that they might happen to be with Michael; and they were all of them, you should know, perfectly wonderful reporters, particularly when it came to one another.  In fact, there was rarely anything that they ever enjoyed doing in life quite so much as filling my ear with anything-and- everything that they felt just might get the other in trouble.  And then, of course, there were those many elements of their conversations that went from “Eeew!” and “Gross!” to “You Dork!” and “You Perv!” that bespoke a perfect aversion to anything-but-anything that wasn’t quite on the up-and-up and straight-and-narrow.  As I say, somewhere along the line I believe that I would have picked up on something if anything between any one of them and Michael had been amiss, because I always felt myself attuned to both them and to elements of this regard (the hairs on the back of my neck standing on end sort of thing)”.

After his dismissal from Neverland Phillip Lemarque ran a restaurant and when his venture failed, started in 1997 a successful porn site called “Virtual Sin”

Now that you have read Kit Culkin’s meticulous parental account of what he saw or rather didn’t see in Neverland wouldn’t it be interesting to return to Victor Gutierrez’s narration and see what lie Gutierrez is telling about this highly responsible parent?

It was Stella who worked as a cook at Neverland. It seems that Victor Gutierrez cannot tell even his own lies properly!

The crazy lie about the Culkins is put into the mouth of Phillip Lemarque – who is naturally one ofGutierrez’s “good guys”. As a side note let me say that it was while he was trying to repay his $455 000 debt that he tried to sell his Macaulay story for $100-500 000, depending on whether he saw the molesting hand inside or outside Macaulay’s pants (see the Smoking gun for details please).

When he and his wife Stella, who was the real chef at Neverland (accuracy has never been the strongest point of VG), were talking to Gutierrez, they said that the molestation and marijuana events allegedly took place while Michael and Macaulay were waiting for the good cook to come and bring them some French fries – which immediately conveys to the reader the idea that the best moment for molestation is when a molester is waiting for a visitor who may enter his premises at any time:

“When Macaulay visited Jackson at the ranch, according to Phillip Lemarque, the chef at the ranch, the orders for the security guards were strict. Nobody should follow the singer or use flashlights when he and Macaulay went to the Jacuzzi [a note for the uninitiated – he Jacuzzi was placed in the open air and in such a way that anyone could see what was going on there].

Sometimes Jackson would take Mac to the ranch’s private movie theater. There were two rooms with beds behind the wall of the theater. According to Jackson, the beds were meant for the sick children who visited him.

 According to the chefs taped testimony, however, “Jackson stayed all night with the boys from seven at night to eight in the morning playing and watching pornographic films.”  Where were Macaulay’s parents? According to the tape testimony of the cook’s wife Estella, who lived and worked at the ranch together with her husband, “Macaulay’s parents were in another room smoking marijuana with their baby in their arms.”

The cook observed Jackson’s obsession with Mac: he claimed to see Jackson’s hand inside the boy’s pants. “It was near two in the morning and Michael asked me to bring him French fries,” Lemarque explained to Detective Rosibel Ferrufino”.

With smashing news like that, I mean “Macaulay’s parents smoking marijuana with their baby in their arms”,  one tends to forget even that pants molestation nonsense…. And this is being said about Macaulay’s father whose behavior and moral standards are so correct and so annoying that even his whole family sought separation from him? Oh, how I would love to see Kit Culkin’s reaction to the above and his comment on the rabid lies told about him by Victor Gutierrez! You can like or dislike the disciplinarian Kit Culkin for his severe methods of bringing up children but imagining this prim guy and his wife smoking marijuana with a baby in their arms is like imagining prosecutors Tom Sneddon and Ron Zonen smoking marijuana in a court room while examining witnesses!

If the power of Gutierrez’s imagination has not knocked you off your feet yet here is another lie about not only a potential but real friend of Michael Jackson – ELIZABETH TAYLOR.

In the opinion of Victor Gutierrez Liz Taylor practically recommended Demerol to Michael as “it made you feel good”. From the way Gutierrez describes her in the book one would never guess that Dame Elizabeth Taylor was the one who grabbed Michael at the worst moment of his life and took him to Europe to a rehabilitation clinic to wean him off this very Demerol. The lie about this honorable woman who almost advised Demerol to Michael Jackson while “lying in hospital next to his bed at UCLA” (?) is put by Gutierrez into the mouth of Evan Chandler:

“Michael told me his Liz Taylor story and how she had gotten Demerol while lying in a hospital bed next to his bed at UCLA. Liz told Michael that she didn’t have any pain, but that Demerol ‘made you feel good.’ So she threw a temper tantrum until the doctors relented and reluctantly gave her the Demerol. After the doctors left, Michael and Liz Taylor laughed at how she had fooled them.”

Have you noticed an interesting tendency about Victor Gutierrez – most of his lies are told via someone else? Who said that Gutierrez is insane? No, all his moves are completely sane! Moreover, they are also well-calculated and practical – too practical for an insane mind! By using the method of attributing his own lies to someone else very few of them can be actually traced to him personally, and this is a perfect way to avoid a possible accusation in libel, isn’t it?

Surprisingly but this Gutierrez’s method works best when it comes to slandering Michael and …. the Chandlers.  The problem is that Chandlers, same as Jackson, were forbidden to speak to the press (but allowed to speak in court) because of their mutual confidentiality agreement, so Gutierrez applied to Evan Chandler a very cunning maneuver – first he squeezed from Evan whatever there was to squeeze from him and embellished it in his unique style to the point of no recognition, and then turned most of it against his main source of information. However since Evan Chandler couldn’t speak to the press and admit that he supplied Gutierrez with all those ideas, thoughts and documents like venereal disease tests, etc. (showing that Jordan was healthy by the way), he couldn’t make a counter blow against Gutierrez and our Victor happily slipped through this loophole finding a perfect way of getting away with everything he said about both Michael and the Chandlers!  No wonder Ray Chandler would later call Victor Gutierrez a “sleazebag”.

In the meantime our sleazebag of an author goes on with slandering anyone who may potentially say a good word about Jackson. The next candidate is of course DEBBIE ROWE. Not knowing that Debbie Rowe would later become Michael Jackson’s wife Gutierrez says that she had no doubts that the man “was a pedophile” – only she regarded it as “sweet and innocent”. VG portrays her as a complete imbecile who shrugged off the fact because she was receiving presents from Michael (like a new organizer, for example).

Now that we know that Debbie became mother to Michael’s two children the lie about her thinking him to be a ped-le acquires both a sinister and a hilarious meaning – it is simply impossible to imagine that knowing all that she would bear him children and leave them in his sole custody at that! Debbie Rowe is definitely no imbecile and no criminal to do that…

When Gutierrez was writing his book he didn’t know that getting away with a lie about Debbie wouldn’t be an easy job. Indeed how could Gutierrez know that some nurse would play such an important role in Michael’s life and would leave a testimony about him being a perfect parent both in a documentary and in court? At the time it was totally impossible to predict a thing like that, so our carefree Gutierrez lies about Debbie Rowe without batting an eyelid, putting his fantastic story into the mouth of her anonymous friend (as usual). Given that what he is describing most probably never happened the embellishments he adds to the story remind us again of our suspicion of his membership in NAMBLA:

There “was no doubt that her patient and friend was a pedophile. “Debbie told us about Michael Jackson,” remembered one of her friends. “She said that he would read magazines about boys while we were treating him for his acne problem. She told me that Jackson said that the reason for looking at the magazines of boys between the ages of 7 and 13 years old [are there any such magazines at all?] was that it was the only thing that would alleviate the pain. On other occasions, he would arrive with Italian magazines of boys and nude babies [so in Italy there special magazines about boys and nude babies?]. Debbie made a photo album of boys from various magazines for Michael. Each time we administered the anesthesia or any other thing that would cause him pain, he would look at his photo album [what a hilarious idea – we should suggest Playboy as a form of anesthesia to male patients]. To everyone, the behavior seemed degenerate and unpleasant, but for Debbie it was something sweet and innocent. Debbie played Jackson’s game, and continued to receive presents and money, such as a computerized organizer.”

During the 2005 trial Debbie Rowe would absolutely stun the prosecutors by saying only good things about Jackson and praising his exceptional parenting skills, so out of the two opposite versions I surely select Debbie’s serious testimony made under oath and leave Victor Gutierrez’s hilarious hallucinations to those who like indulging themselves in slander, malice, rabid lies and other similar types of mental perversion. Here are several pieces from Deborah Rowe’s testimony:

26 Q. In that interview, what kind of a person did

27 you say Michael was?

28 A. Generous. To a fault. Giving and kind. 8019

1 Q. Anything else do you recall saying?

2 A. Good father. Great with kids. Put other

3 people ahead of him. Things like that.

6 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. What is it that

7 you were intending to represent in this interview?

8 A. Michael as a wonderful person and as a great

9 father and generous and caring.

10 Q. All right. Did you have information as to

11 Michael Jackson as a wonderful father?

12 A. As I’ve known him?

13 Q. Yes.

14 A. Yes.

22 Q. And you, throughout that nine-hour period,

23 were very positive about Michael Jackson, right?

24 A. Yes.

13 Q. Did you have any preliminary conversation

14 with him [producer of the interview] prior to the commencement of this

15 interview?

16 A. Absolutely not.

17 Q. Was that by your choice?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And why is that? Why was that?

25 A. Because I didn’t want anyone to be able to

26 come back to me and say that my interview was

27 rehearsed, that someone told me what to say.

28 Mr. Jackson knows no one can tell me what to 7964

1 say. I tend to speak my own mind, and I didn’t want

2 the interview to be construed as something other

3 than what it was, which was a cold interview.

Debbie is a no-nonsense woman, isn’t she? Absolutely not the kind who would think that being a ped-le “is sweet and innocent” as Gutierrez puts it? And she speaks very positively of Michael though she is a witness for the prosecution and is still in dispute with him over their children? Because she knows him inside out and for more than 20 years too and accompanied him on two tours (Dangerous and History) and during the second one she was his wife (as we also learn from her testimony)? So this woman surely knows what kind of a person he was?

By the way did you notice Gutierrez saying that to everyone except Debbie, Michael’s alleged behavior in Dr. Klein’s office seemed degenerate and unpleasant? And these anonymous ‘everyone’ should naturally include Debbie’s boss – DR. ARNOLD KLEIN? Then wouldn’t it be interesting to learn what Dr. Klein said about Michael at the time?

Forget what Dr. Klein lied yesterday about Michael’s alleged homosexual ties with his fat assistant and the opposite he is telling about him today – the doctor is scared like hell that he will be held responsible for giving Michael Demerol, Propofol or whatever, and is therefore going to extremes offering various pretexts why Michael frequented his office.  What is really interesting is what he said about him back in the 90s – and at the time Dr. Klein was absolutely confident that Michael was a straight heterosexual guy and that no parent should ever worry about leaving children with him.

When actress Carrie Fisher approached Klein with a question allegedly asked of her by Evan Chandler he said it point blank that Michael preferred women and there was nothing to worry about for Evan Chandler. This story is so well known that even our liar Gutierrez has to reiterate it in his book – so who else he referred to when saying that “everyone” in Klein’s office thought Michael’s behavior “unpleasant” will remain totally unclear to us:

“Dr. Klein was sleeping when he got the call. The actress [Carrie Fisher] explained who Evan was and the reason for his concern. Dr. Klein responded that Jackson was a heterosexual and that there was nothing to worry about. Evan felt better”.

The next potential supporter of Michael Jackson whom Gutierrez is handling in his book is LAUREN WEIS. Does this name sound familiar to you? It surely does, because Lauren Weis was no other but the lead prosecutor for the L.A. District Attorney’s office in the 1993 case. On September 1 she interviewed Jordan Chandler and a month later would send him a letter saying that the investigation was in full swing:

 Wednesday, September 1. Jordie was scheduled to give yet another statement, this time to the Los Angeles assistant district attorney, Lauren Weiss. She would be the lead prosecutor for the District Attorney’s office. Allred was by Jordie’s side. While Jordie was waiting to enter, he was nervous and worried. He wondered about what the authorities would to do to Jackson. He asked himself how things got so far. Also present during the interview were Detective Ferrufino, and the court secretary, Patty Watson. Jordie repeated his prior testimony, and added more details about Jackson’s body. More than a month later, the prosecutor sent Jordie a letter thanking him for cooperating and answering the never ending questions.

“Dear Jordan,

It was a pleasure to meet with you on September 1, 1993. I am sorry it wasn’t under different circumstances. I want to thank you for your cooperation and willingness to answer what must have seemed like an endless series of questions. We haven’t spoken since the time of our interview and I just wanted to let you know that the investigation of your case is proceeding full speed ahead. I expect that we will make a filing decision sometime early next year. Hope all goes well with you at school and in your personal life. You are a great kid!

Sincerely,

Lauren Weis”

Lauren Weis would later say that she had no idea how Gutierrez obtained that letter and expressed skepticism about the accuracy of Gutierrez’s “research”. Gutierrez retaliated by placing the responsibility for closing the investigation on her shoulders. The investigation didn’t result in any charges because there was no incriminating evidence found (of course),  but in Gutierrez’s opinion the lead prosecutor was simply afraid of Michael  as he was “too powerful” for her (as if there was no Gil Garcetti reinforced by Tom Sneddon behind her back!).

The fact that Gutierrez is forced to lie about the reason why no charges were made against Michael Jackson is a clear proof that the many months of investigation by Tom Sneddon’s department brought them to a nil result. Jordan’s description of Michael’s genitalia was taken in Lauren Weis’s office and evidently in her presence (she is somewhat vaguely named by Tom Sneddon in this motion) and she surely had an opportunity to compare the description with the actual photos – so if this highly qualified and credible prosecutor didn’t find anything incriminating about Michael Jackson after that we may be sure that there was simply nothing to find.

How do we know of her very high qualification? The information below will show that Lauren Weis was absolutely no spring chicken in investigating child molestation cases. Her colleagues named her Prosecutor of the Year in 1999. Her full credentials are provided here where Lauren posted her biography when applying for a position of a judge with the Los Angeles Superior Court ( it seems she was elected to it as the LA Superior Court list of 2011 names Lauren Weis among their ranks).

In order to slander this prosecutor who might be a highly credible source of real truth about Michael Jackson Gutierrez refers to some anonymous sources (again), who allegedly confided in Gutierrez as if he were a universal priest taking confessions from all of them:

September 1 st. The prosecutors held a press conference and announced they were ending their investigation of Jackson. After the news was official, morale was low for the police officers who had worked on the case for more than 14 months and interviewed over 400 people. Many of these detectives told me that “Sooner or later the King of Pop will fall.” Others said “We are keeping our eyes wide open, waiting to put the cuffs on Jackson. Remember, we had a good case. It was the assistant D.A. Lauren Weiss who didn’t want to file charges against Jackson. She told us “I’m not going to go against Michael Jackson. He is too powerful.” We were shocked. It is political shit from the D.A. that we had to get used to.”

“They had a good case” and it was only Assistant D.A. Lauren Weis who ruined it? As if she was the only in the case!

The case was actually investigated by FOUR parties, neither of whom charged Michael Jackson with any crime:

  • Tom Sneddon, the Santa Barbara District Attorney and his people,
  • the Santa Barbara  Sheriff Jim Thomas and his detective Deborah Linden,
  • Gil Garcetti, the Los Angeles District Attorney, his Deputy Laureen Weis and their Detective Rosibel Ferrufino,
  • the Los Angeles Sheriff department.

And the “findings” in the investigation were heard by two Grand juries, neither of whom indicted Michael Jackson either!

So how could Laureen Weis single-handedly close the case and why she would be afraid of the harassed and humiliated Michael Jackson is beyond my understanding.

Excerpt from Lauren Weis’s biography submitted in application for a post of a L.A.Superior Court judge. http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcInglewoodJudgeBirnsteinBio.html

I suspect that after all the fantasy stories you’ve heard about the “frightened’ prosecutor Lauren Weis, the Culkins smoking marijuana, Liz Taylor taking Demerol while lying next to Michael in a hospital, Debbie Rowe considering her best friend and husband a ped-le, as well as earlier lies about a bleeding lion, non-stop diarrhea, a baby skeleton in the grave, Wade Robson dancing in the street for a piece of bread, the stealing habits of Brett Barnes’s mother, you think that now you know what to expect of our absolutely unrivaled liar?

June Chandler in 2005

No, you do not! You haven’t heard yet what Victor Gutierrez says about JUNE CHANDLER. In addition to usual stories about her taking expensive gifts from Michael Jackson for her closing eyes on Jordan’s “molestation”, another lie told by Gutierrez about June Chandler is that this woman had a drinking habit and drank so much that she was unable to get to her room on her own!

The story is naturally told by the “good guys” of the Neverland five who naturally reported these deplorable incidents to Victor Gutierrez:

“June knew that her son was enjoying the attention of the singer and her daughter was playing with some toys. Isolated, she started to drink. On future occasions, her consumption of alcohol would result in the security guards having to assist her back to her room at the ranch. Jordie and his family spent five days with Jackson at the ranch, and each day the activities were the same. That is to say, Jordie having fun with Jackson, Lily playing alone, and June getting drunk and occasionally talking to Jackson, who gave most of his attention to her son.”

“Isolated, June Chandler started to drink”? Never have I heard a more hilarious and misfitting lie! After reading June Chandler’s steel-like testimony in 2005 all I can only say is that I have never seen a woman less suitable for the role of a drunkard and more capable of controlling herself, her emotions and behavior than June Chandler!

This woman is simply an embodiment of self-control and cold calculation. The material she is made of is either concrete or stone. No wonder she was the only one who ventured making her appearance at the 2005 trial – her confidence is such that even eleven years of being devoid of any communication with her son she doesn’t look a bit worried about the fact. No, she is still smiling, still glamorous and is still in absolute control over her emotions. You can think whatever you like about June Chandler but saying that she is capable of drinking due to ‘being isolated’ is saying something which is totally out of character for this woman.

What could be the goal of Gutierrez of portraying June Chandler as a drinking woman? The idea behind it is to show that she was an irresponsible mother who overlooked the damage done to her son.  Given that a mere look at June Chandler will dismiss as a total nonsense the idea that she could overlook anything at all, the only way out for Gutierrez was to say that she loosened her control due to her “drinking habits”. Or such a description could be just revenge on his part…

But what is most important to us is that via all these lies about her Victor Gutierrez firmly places June Chandler among Michael Jackson’s supporters. June Chandler cannot of course be called a friend to Michael Jackson as her later testimony at the 2005 trial would be somewhat at variance with her attitude to Michael in the 90s, but the only thing this change of attitude shows to us is that this woman knows very well which side her bread is buttered on.

After being accused by Evan Chandler – who hated her and envied her success in life – of being the primary reason for all their misfortunes, this woman learned her lesson and attended the trial as a spokesperson for the family in order to voice their official position on this matter and simultaneously win back some approval from the rest of the Chandlers. It is noteworthy though that even in these circumstances she didn’t say anything bad about Jackson and reiterated again that she didn’t know anything of any “molestation”.

Despite June Chandler’s somewhat adjusted statements at the trial her earlier approach was evidently so pro-Jackson that even our liar Victor Gutierrez had to admit that she and her husband David Schwartz totally ruled out the possibility of any molestation or at least doubted Evan’s allegations very much indeed. This fact makes Gutierrez’s story about June Chandler terribly contradictory – if you listen to what he says about her you won’t be able to make head or tail of his story, so incoherent his lies about June Chandler are.

Gutierrez starts with a surprising revelation that he was apparently present when Michael Jackson arrived at June Chandler’s house and she suggested that Michael should sleep in her room (the offer he naturally refused as he “preferred Jordan’s bed” according to Gutierrez).

Given that there was no way Gutierrez could know of this intimate conversation – as there was never a thing like “Jordan’s diary” and it is highly unlikely that June would share this observation with Gutierrez herself, the author is thus telling us of a situation which he even theoretically could never learn of, especially from June Chandler who at the time was surely not on Gutierrez’s side.

So how Gutierrez would know of the following event will remain a secret to us:

p. 36. April 7, 1993:

“Upon arriving at his apartment, Jackson immediately called Jordie. June was next to her son so that she could hear him responding to Jackson’s questions, saying only “yes” or “no.” The conversation made June suspicious and she waited for Jordie to hang up the phone so she could ask him why he was speaking that way. Jordie answered with some lie that occurred to him at the moment. June realized Jordie was lying and decided to call Jackson to inquire about their conversation. Jackson begged June not to get angry with Jordie, explaining that it was just a game between them. He asked June to come pick him up since his limousine had already left, so that he could speak to her more comfortably at her home, and she agreed. Upon arriving at the singer’s apartment, June saw that Jackson was dressed in his pajamas, and without even getting dressed, he got in the car. Jackson and June didn’t discuss the matter that night. When it was time to go to sleep,June offered to let Jackson sleep in her room or another room, but Jackson without hesitation said he wanted to sleep with Jordie in his bed, and she allowed it. That night was the first time Jackson slept in the boy’s bed”.

June “offered” to let Jackson sleep in her room? How many of us would do the same if Michael Jackson came to our home to stay the night? Okay, okay, probably many would, so I’ll correct my question – with what intentions could she have suggested a thing like that to him? See my point?

On the other hand such a question is probably nothing extraordinary on the part of June Chandler as only a week before that – while in Las Vegas – all the four of them slept in one and the same room the first night they stayed at the hotel (though the suite was a three-room one). This fact surprised Tom Sneddon examining June Chandler no less than it is surprising us now:

1 Q. And who was in your room when you first got

2 there? Who was staying in your room?

3 A. Jordan, myself, Lily and Michael.

4 Q. All in the same room?

5 A. Correct.

Did you notice that the quote (not this one, but the earlier one about the telephone talk) shows how much on her guard about her son’s well-being June Chandler was? A simple yes-and-no conversation over the telephone made her so suspicious that poor Michael Jackson had to come to her home to give her personal explanations! So how much more careful this woman should have been in other cases then – for example, when Michael and Jordan were staying alone in a hotel in Monaco? Aren’t all these discrepancies totally inexplicable if we listen to Gutierrez’s fantasy version of the events?

The more you look at Gutierrez’s BS the more impossible and meaningless it gets. So after all those suspicions over a simple yes-and-no conversation – which made June Chandler so worried that took Michael home for a serious conversation – she allowed him to sleep in the boy’s bed? And for the first time too?  Especially if you recall that the “first time” was a week before that, in Las Vegas, after they had allegedly seen the Exorcist movie?

I see that you remember the Exorcist well-publicized story, so it will probably surprise you that it is June Chandler who doesn’t remember this landmark event with which the whole ‘relationship’ allegedly started. When asked about the Exorcist at the 2005 trial June Chandler answered something indefinite about her being “told about it”:

3 Q. Okay. At some point did you all see an

4 Exorcist movie?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Do you recall anyone watching an Exorcist

7 movie?

8 A. I was told Jordan and Michael watched an

9 Exorcist movie.

This is what I said to you at the very beginning of this post – it is impossible to discuss Gutierrez’s version seriously. When people lie it is totally useless to try and find some logic in their narration – one thing will contradict the other and this other will contradict the third. The only thing you can do in such a situation is register lies just as they come and shake your head at their incredulity in the process.

Our next contribution from Gutierrez is a lie that it was Michael who asked for a permission to come to June’s home “in order to be closer to Jordan” and that June allegedly agreed to it as it was an “honor to her” (despite all her suspicions):

“They returned to Los Angeles on Sunday, April 25. This time, Jackson did not go to his ranch or the “hideout.” Instead, he asked June if he could stay at her house so he could spend more time with Jordie. June accepted his request as if it were an honor”.

The reality is different of course – in her testimony at the 2005 trial June Chandler somewhat unwillingly admitted that it wasn’t Michael who wanted to come to her house but he “was invited” there – evidently by her, which gives a totally new coloring to the story:

16 Q. Now, were there occasions after you got back

17 from Las Vegas — let me — where Mr. Jackson

18 actually was invited to stay at your residence where

19 you lived at this point in time?

20 A. Yes.

Gutierrez is not in the least worried about his contradictory lies – on page one he tells you that June Chandler was suspicious over the ‘developing relations between them” and on page two he says that June was annoyed by Evan Chandler’s questions and said that there was “absolutely nothing” bad between Michael and Jordan and the only thing she was concerned about was his increasing influence on the boy:

While at the ranch, June telephoned her ex-husband. Evan recalled “I sensed the tension in her voice. The conversation was brief and direct. She warned me ‘Michael has too much control over Jordie. If you don’t do something about it, you’re going to lose your son.’ I was surprised to hear this, since every time I talked to June she told me that Jackson was a great person.” Evan asked June if she thought something bad was going on. “Absolutely not!,” June responded,annoyed.

June was both concerned that Evan was not spending time with his son, and suspicious about the developingrelationship between Jackson and Jordie. “Michael was becoming the masculine adult influence for Jordie.[ ] On Saturday morning, Jackson had to travel to Boston and Philadelphia on a business trip with Michael Milken, the financier and friend of Jackson’s, who had just finished serving a prison sentence in California for fraud. [All Michael’s friends are so bad that they are either former or current prison inmates according to Gutierrez].

June, Lily and Jordie went to see Jackson off at the Burbank Airport. [All the three of them went to see him off? With affectionate relations like that Michael could indeed mistake them for ready-made family for himself. And now please prepare yourself for a complete soap-opera which is allegedly told by a teenage boy].

“Our good-bye was very emotional,” Jordie said. “Tearspoured from Michael’s eyes and from mine. It was hard for us to be apart. I told him I wanted to be with him twenty four hours a day, and he touched my face and told me that he would like to be with me twenty five hours a day.”

When June and her children returned to the ranch after dropping Jackson off at the airport, June called Evan. As Evan remembers it, his ex-wife was a different person from the one during their prior conversation. “The tension in her voice wasn’t there anymore. She spoke to me very happily about how marvelous Neverland was, and that Jordie was having the time of his life, that there was nothing to worry about, and that Michael was enchanting. She told me that what she had said before was nothing and to forget about that.”

Have you noticed that the earlier yes-and-no telephone conversation is in no way comparable to the affectionate scene at the airport of “touching the boy’s face” and torrents of tears during their tender parting? But then June Chandler grew terribly suspicious and now, despite all the drama of it, she doesn’t notice a thing? Shouldn’t we suggest Gutierrez’s hilarious script to a theater of the absurd where it truly belongs?

Now for a little bit of a change here comes a grain of truth from Victor Gutierrez which suddenly coincides with June Chandler’s testimony in 2005 but which, in its turn, contradicts Ray Chandler’s description of the same event. In contrast to Ray Chandler’s favorite story about the “30 days running” spent in June’s home, when Michael allegedly came to June’s home under the cover of the night (which was “confirmed” by the driver who said he had brought Michael “every night and picked him up in the morning”), Victor Gutierrez – to our big surprise – contradicts this story as firstly, he never mentions any 30 days and secondly, he says that Michael came at three in the afternoon, just in time for the family dinner for the four of them:

p. 43:  Jackson left the house in the mornings when Jordie took off for school, and returned at three in the afternoon when Jordie returned from school”

June Chandler said the same at the 2005 trial:

7 What would happen when Jordan would go to school?

8 To your knowledge, what did Mr. Jackson do?

9 A. Michael would leave.

10 Q. And approximately what time would he return?

11 A. After Jordan came home from school.

12 Q. And so was this the routine that was

13 followed during the time that Mr. Jackson was

14 staying at your residence?

15 A. Yes.

27 … did he

26 have dinner at your house?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. And was it usually you, he, your son and 5682

1 daughter at dinner?

2 A. At times.

3 Q. Who else would join you for dinner?

4 A. That’s it.

24 Q. And how long consecutively do you think that

25 that occurred?

26 A. Oh. It could be a week or two at a time.

The reason why Victor Gutierrez is telling the truth about Michael’s visits to June Chandler’s home is that he is trying to convey to the reader the idea that June Chandler tried to tie Michael to herself and had her own plans for him. To suggest the idea of her possible marriage to Michael Jackson, Gutierrez quotes Evan Chandler as saying that he thought that “it would be ideal if June married Michael Jackson”:  

p.45 “Evan who still had not met Jackson, who was waiting at the airport, remembers what he was thinking as the limousine pulled away from the house.”I thought that it would be ideal for June to divorce Dave and get married to Michael Jackson. She would finally have an excellent life with someone who would treat her with respect.”

June’s then husbandDavid Schwartz also thought in the same direction and thundered that “his wife was a disgraceful whore”:

p.55 “According to Evan, Dave later told him, “my bankers will no longer lend me money because they think my life is very unstable right now . This son of a bitch [Jackson] is destroying my business and my wife is a disgraceful whore. I told her not to accept money from Michael.” As Evan remembers, Dave hung up the telephone”.

 In reply to that June Chandler said in a telephone conversation with Evan Chandler that “she would sooner break away from David than from Michael Jackson” all of which suggest that shewas really willing to abandon poor 70-year old David Schwartz and was perfectly ready for Michael Jackson as husband number 3:  

“June, once again, called Evan, but this time to complain about what Dave had demanded of her. “Can you believe that he asked me to break away from Jackson as soon as possible? I would sooner break away from him than I would with Michael Jackson, because he has been so loving with me and the children. On the other hand, Dave has always been bad to us, especially with Lily”.

It is plain as day that June Chandler did indeed have far-reaching plans for Michael Jackson and according to several witnesses probably even reached some success in this matter. I doubt very much that Thomas Mesereau’s questions about June Chandler staying in Michael’s room for some “ten times” and even “dropping her clothes” or “ordering food” there were part of a mere small talk in the court room – neither of the sides at a trial ask questions that have no meaning behind them:

26 Q. And why were you in the bedroom those ten

27 times?

28 A. Because I’m Jordie’s mother. I’m allowed to 5700

1 go into the bedroom.

2 Q. Were you dropping clothes off?

3 A. Oh, I might have. I don’t recall.

4 Q. Did you ever sit down and watch T.V. or

5 anything in there?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. How often did you do that?

8 A. A few times.

9 Q. Did you ever have food delivered to you in

10 Michael Jackson’s bedroom?

11 A. I don’t recall.

12 Q. Okay. Did David Schwartz, to your

13 knowledge, ever visit Neverland?

14 A. No. No.

[…] 15 Q. Do you remember telling Michael

16 Jackson, “You’re like a magnet?”

17 A. I don’t recall.

18 Q. Do you remember telling Michael Jackson,

19 “You’re like Peter Pan. Everybody wants to be

20 around you and spend 24 hours”? [June Chandler included]

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. You told him, “Lily would too, except she’s

23 not old enough”?

24 A. Yes.

The Veritas project refers to Michael’s letter from Ray Chandler’s book and makes a conclusion about it which I fully agree with – the letter actually shows Jackson having a loving relationship with Jordan’s entire family, particularly Jordan’s mother June and his sister (whom he indeed always carries in his arms):

  • “[Boy’s name], you’re not only my cousin but also my best friend. I can’t stop loving your mother and sister. I have found true love in all of you. If more people were like us the world would change instantly. I have such golden dreams for you. I want you to be a giant in the industry. You are my new inspiration. I love you. Doo doo head. Applehead. Disneyland soon. Love, doo doo. Call soon, bye, doo doo head. Tell Mom I love her.”

Some witnesses at the 2005 trial noticed that  June Chandler behaved as if she were the owner of Neverland. Though Michael later began to avoid June Chandler, mother of Wade Robson testified that June was still ordering the staff as if she were their mistress:

  • “My impression of [June Chandler] is she wanted to be mistress of Neverland. She would order the staff around like she owned it. My impression of [her] is she was a gold-digger”.

Apparently her son Jordan Chandler also felt that way as according to Adrian McManus’s testimony he was rude and demanding with the maids. However their plans to become full-time owners of Neverland (and Michael Jackson) were doomed to a failure due to the unexpected intrusion of Evan Chandler who brought all their plans to a complete mess.

I don’t rule out that June Chandler could be very much in love with Michael as she does look very happy in the scarce photos of that period. And I also agree that there must be an element of calculation in what June Chandler was doing – it was simply impossible for her (or any other woman for that matter) to overlook the great benefits of being a spouse of Michael Jackson.

Look at June, Lily and Michael. He is happy to have a family at last and she is genuinely happy to have Him…..

But what I totally disagree with is Victor Gutierrez’s insinuation that June Chandler knowingly subjected the boy to a possibility of anything bad. Following the usual Gutierrez’s routine this innuendo is  attributed to a police investigator, and not Gutierrez:

“After June’s interview, the Department of Children Services decided that Jordie should stay with Evan. Rosato explained how they arrived at this decision “My superiors believe that Evan did not know what had happened.” Evan asked her if she believed June knew about Jordie’s relationship with the singer, and the investigator replied  “she had to have known.”

To disprove the insinuation about something inappropriate taking place in June Chandler’s house and her closing eyes on it due to her plans to marry Michael Jackson or because of valuable presents from him, I would like to remind you of one more character who has been totally forgotten by all of us in this truly dramatic story of Michael Jackson, June Chandler and her son.

This character is June Chandler’s live-in housekeeper who should have become one of the key witnesses in this whole molestation business. Who should have become – but for some reason didn’t.

She was mentioned by June Chandler in her testimony in 2005 and since then none of us has ever heard anything of this woman:

1 Q. And at this point in time, was Mr. Schwartz

2 living with you?

3 A. No, he wasn’t.

4 Q. So in the household was there anybody

5 besides you and Jordan and Lily?

6 A. My housekeeper.

7 Q. And was that a full-time housekeeper?

8 A. Yes, she was.

9 Q. 24 hours a day?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Did she live in the house?

12 A. Yes, she did. She was a live-in.

15 And during this time, did Mr. Jackson ever

16 spend the night at your residence?

17 A. Yes, he did.

What is astonishing about June Chandler’s housekeeper is that though she lived in June’s house and was surely a witness to everything that happened there 24 hours a day our nosy guy Gutierrez is not saying a word about this woman and even her name is not known to us (or at least to me). Considering that the housekeeper’s testimony should be as precious as gold to all of us, it would be top important to hear her story (if she tells there the truth of course).

I have searched the internet for a possible testimony of June Chandler’s housekeeper at the 2005 trial but to no avail… It seems that Tom Sneddon didn’t subpoena this particular maid out of all the key maids from Neverland or other homes involved in the case. This allows me to make a statement here that the absence of a salacious story from this knowledgeable woman and no news about her even from Victor Gutierrez is an indirect but clear proof that she had nothing bad to say about Michael Jackson – otherwise we would have surely learned about it from Gutierrez or some loud and nosy tabloid.

Since maids in every family are the most well-informed people about the intimate life of their masters I find the fact of her missing testimony exceptionally interesting and tale-telling. If the testimony of June Chandler’s housekeeper is not there it might be considered a proven fact that there was nothing to report.  Why hasn’t anyone wondered where this live-in maid is and what her story is? Or is it only me who is in the dark here and the testimony does exist and I simply don’t know about this remarkable fact? Please provide it to me if I am mistaken (only from a credible source of course – making it up now by a hater as a matter of urgency won’t do, thank you).

This live-in maid at June Chandler’s home is often mistaken with another live-in maid called Estela Rodriguez who used to work in the Jacksons’ home in Encino and who is naturally the one to whom Victor Gutierrez talked too.  According to Gutierrez’s version of the events this Estela Rodriguez allegedly told him that children did crawl into Michael’s bed even at that time but she never saw anything sexual in it:

“Estela Rodriguez worked as Jackson’s employee when Jackson was living at his parent’s house in Encino. She remembers several minors visiting Jackson’s house. “I remember Emmanuel well. He was very handsome and gracious. Michael bought him expensive toys with which they played with a lot. Michael would place him on his lap, kiss him a lot, and the boy didn’t appear to feel uncomfortable.

They were inseparable. Michael would take him to important meetings and record presentations. He would carry him in his arms, as if he were a baby. When he invited the boy to stay at his house, I prepared the guest bedroom, but when I returned the next day, the bed was still intact. Later I realized that the boy had been in the same bed as Michael, however, I never saw anything sexual,” said the employee”.

However, I never saw anything sexual,” said the employee. This is the key phrase in her whole narration. The fact that Emmanuel Lewis crawled into Michael’s bed like all other children is nothing unusual – all of them did as Michael always had his doors open and could never say “no” to any of them.

But what is top interesting in the Encino maid’s account is that she never saw anything sexual.Translated from the language of well-informed maids, who handle such intimate things as their masters’ bed linen and underwear, it means that there was nothing sexual to see – no stained sheets, no “semen” (so much adored by our opponent D.) and certainly no sh*t, blood or Vaseline (which are so much adored by Victor Gutierrez).

You will agree that in matters like these maids have a much better training and knowledge than any policeman – so if a maid says that there was nothing sexual we can be sure that there was none of it and close the matter as we have obtained first-hand information about the case.

So what do we have as a result of this small mental exercise concerning the maids?

1)     We have the testimony of a live-in maid in the Jacksons’ Encino house in which she says she saw Lewis’s bed intact but no sexual activity on any other beds whatsoever.

2)     We don’t have the testimony of a live-in maid from June Chandler’s home, the absence of which is a very big, even tremendous, proof of Michael Jackson’s innocence in respect of Jordan Chandler.

If Tom Sneddon didn’t get interested in this maid’s testimony and this woman is still keeping silent about who slept where in June Chandler’s home, it means that it had nothing to do with molestation and whatever this housekeeper had to tell to the prosecutor was evidently not in his interests to report. And though this document is actually missing, its absence is vividly speaking of Michael’s innocence in an indirect but loud way.

Whatever is the case with “30 days of sleeping in June Chandler’s home”, June Chandler herself was so sure of Michael’s innocence that even when confronted by Jordan’s story about an alleged molestation she said after some initial crying that she didn’t believe the story and said her son was brainwashed by his father. Please note that in his description of that notable event Gutierrez seems to be referring to Jordan’s diary again – evidently forgetting that the diary never existed – and is offering us a highly romantic explanation why Jordan wanted to stay by Michael’s side.

Gutierrez claims again that it was “love” and Jordan hoped that his mother would be “open-minded” and she would explain to his father that this relationship was “normal” and that she would “understand”…. If somebody tells me that this is no propaganda of ped-lia I will strongly disagree with these people, pointing out to them that Gutierrez could never possibly know Jordan’s most intimate thoughts and aspirations and what he is telling us here is nothing but his own thoughts and ideas:

“Evan told Jordie to call his mom and tell her the truth. Jordie knew that his mother was open-minded. He thought that she would understand his attraction to Jackson and that she would not judge him. He thought that his mother would convince Evan that his relationship with Jackson was normal and that nothing bad would happen. However, when Jordie told June that he and Jackson had had sex and that they were in love, June began to cry. Suddenly, June stopped and told Jordie that she was sorry but she had to do something and that she would call him back. June called Dave, and told him that she wanted to meet with her son in private so that he would not be intimidated into saying what Evan wanted him to say. However, she then called Evan, and said that she could not talk with Jordie because he “had been brainwashed.”

“I warn you,” June said to Evan, “I don’t believe any of the shit Jordie said. It doesn’t matter what Jordie is going to tell me. He’s going to say whatever you tell him to. ”

According to Evan, June and Dave wanted things to be like they were before”.

Dave Schwartz indeed never believed any of Evan Chandler’s suspicions:

p.88 “Evan explained: “Dave refused to even consider my suspicions of Michael’s bad influence over Jordie, and even more the possibility of a sexual relationship between them.”

p.89 “Dave said the reason for Evan’s behavior was either because he was trying to extort money or he was crazy”

p. 90 While Evan was preparing to leave his dental office, he received a call from Dave: “June made me listen to the message you left, and I have to tell you Evan, I think you’re crazy. Do you need money?”

Even when the police interviewed June Chandler and David Schwartz both of them (as well as their lawyer) still had doubts about any ‘relationship’ between Jordan and Michael:

p. 125 June was interviewed by Rosato, and Ferrufino, Dave, and Michael Freeman were present. Dave and June needed their lawyer to protect them from incrimination. Rosato noted that June and Dave said they had some doubts about Jordie’s description of his relationship with Jackson. June acknowledged that her lawyer told them that “I am not sure that all of this is true. I only believe 70% of it.”

…June’s lawyer, Michael Freeman, gave his own statement to the press. He said that his client did not know anything about the sexual abuse case involving June’s son. Her statement, made through her lawyer, was meant to dissuade the police from questioning her.

The last of the above quote shows that it would be a grave mistake on our part to think that if Gutierrez says that June and David rejected all those suspicions, it will be a sign of the author’s unbiased approach to the matter. The onlyreason why Gutierrez is telling the truth about June and David is because he wants to prove that the mother and stepfather used the boy for their own purposes, were ready to prostitute him and didn’t want to answer to the police for what they did.

According to Gutierrez the stepfather was interested in Michael supplying him with $4mln. in repayment of a loan to the bank, and June closed her eyes on her son’s deplorable fate as she had plans of her own and was showered by Michael with gifts as payment for her “silence” . Hinting again and again that both were ready to trade their son for their purposes Gutierrez says, for example, the following:

p.45 “That night June and her husband Dave took Jordie to the “hideout,” and dropped him off so that he could spend the night with Jackson”.

With Gutierrez’s ideas like that introduced to Evan Chandler and firmly implanted into his mind, it is no wonder that after Evan had done some brainwashing of his son, he managed to alienate him from his mother so much that Jordan totally refused to talk to her and even no longer cared for his half-sister Lily. Gutierrez provides a copy of a letter from Jordan’s attorney Patricia Phillips which says that Jordan’s mother had to call her, the attorney, to find out how Jordan was doing and that all presents sent to Jordan by June and his half-sister Lily remained unopened for years.

Frankly I now begin to understand why Jordan would stay away from his mother after all that happened to him. Imagine all the injustice of it the way Jordan sees it – though it was actually she who started the whole thing she somehow managed to stay away from all the horrors of the accusations, is acting now as if she had nothing to do with it and is actually enjoying all the benefits of the situation including the $1,5mln. she alleges she didn’t ask for! And all this while the boy was trashed by the media, police and all kind of doctors, was humiliated beyond description by the horrible allegations and was forced to answer for both of them?

His father, who didn’t participate in the initial trapping of Michael Jackson and got nothing from him but a Cartier watch at least had his bit of trouble as he was accused of the extortion – while his mother, who got valuable gifts, traveled to all those glamorous places and was even introduced to the nobility (at a party thrown by the Prince of Monaco in May 1993), managed to remain a “good girl” in the eyes of the media and the general public…. I have to agree with Jordan Chandler here – it does indeed sound that June Chandler managed to get away with it all, and even today is enjoying the whole limelight and all the benefits of the situation. It was her son Jordan Chandler who was thrown under the bus, had to handle it all by himself and it is his and not her name which will be forever tainted now (unless he tells the truth of course).

Telling now of the role his mother played in this ugly story will probably be too sensitive to Jordan though – she is his only remaining parent after his father’s suicide… No, life is so much more difficult than Gutierrez is trying to make it to be as this simple reconstruction of the events shows it.

Gutierrez says that Evan Chandler exerted very much pressure on Jordan to drive him away from his mother – so the very least we learn from this piece of news is that Jordan didn’t initially feel any hostility towards her and was separated from her not of his own free will:

Evan’s persistent efforts to influence Jordie against June were having the desired effect. Jordie’s hostility towards June had grown so strong that he no longer cared about his half-sister, Lily. For his birthday, Lily sent him a card she had made herself. “Dear Jordie, I love you, love, Lily.” Attached to the card was a wrapped gift (a skateboard was inside). Jordie tossed the card into the trash and left his gift unopened. Over a year had gone by and the present was still wrapped. “If the present was from June and Lily, Jordie didn’t want to have anything to do with it,” a close family member explained”.

As a typical bully Evan Chandler dealt with June extremely harshly and made it clear to Jordan that his only option was choosing between the two parents:

When June called to speak with Jordie, Evan told her that Jordie didn’t want to speak to her. Evan had told Jordie that, during the investigation, June had given some information to Jackson about Evan’s plans, and in exchange she had received gift certificates to expensive stores from Jackson. June denied this. She said that Evan was making things up so that he could stay with Jordie and take care of the money that he had gotten from Jackson. Evan left a note inside of the front door of his house with instructions to the gardener, maid or baby-sitters that the door should not be opened for June.

Please note that the story of Jordan’s dramatic relations with his parents is wrapped by Gutierrez into a very specific packing of his own, as even here he manages to introduce his unique touch of  a “man-boy love”. Our author is simply incapable of seeing anything else but perversion in a place where all the rest of us see the boy’s understandable depression at having to choose only one of the parents, the feeling of missing a friend and pangs of conscience anyone would feel if he slandered a person for nothing at all.

In fact Victor Gutierrez says it himself that Jordan knew he had betrayed Michael and was suffering from it. This idea is repeated several times in the book – and the only peculiarity of the narration is that our good guy Victor Gutierrez adds his favorite man-boy-love note to it:

June’s lawyer, Michael Freeman, gave his own statement to the press. He said that his client did not know anything about the sexual abuse case involving June’s son. Her statement, made through her lawyer, was meant to dissuade the police from questioning her. Meanwhile, Jordie had to go to a children’s clinic known as The Stuart House, a center for treating child abuse victims. He received a full physical from Dr. Elliot Schulman. He was tested for gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia and HIV. …The California Services for Minors requires that all sexually abused minors have to take these tests. The test results were in Jordie’s favor, as he was in good health physically. But not emotionally. He hadbetrayed his lover.

“Monday, September 6. June, Dave, Nathalie and Evan met with Gloria Allred and Nathan Goldberg at the Loews Hotel to discuss strategy for the soon to be filed civil complaint, and how to best handle the press. Later, Allred, Evan and Jordie met with Orietta. Orietta noticed that Jordie looked worried. “When I met Jordie, I noticed that he appeared to feel guilty about all that was happening around him.”

Jordan’s pangs of conscience were such that he drew a suicide picture of a boy jumping off the roof of a high building while someone from behind him is shouting at him – either trying to stop him or probably driving him to such an act. Gutierrez naturally explains it by Jordan’s unending “love” for an adult, but if we forget about this nonsense the important fact that remains is that the picture is probably real and this means that Jordan did indeed feel terrible about what he had done:

Jordan’s suicide note. Evan found it in the morning and added to it “Don’t let this happen”

Jordie was fearful and depressed about what had occurred at the meeting with Jackson, and about his father’s consideration of filing documents with the court. 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 feltshame 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 seeJackson. During the day, he took long naps, barely ate, and did not want to speak to anyone….

Following the theme of a man-boy love about which Victor Gutierrez suspiciously knows too much, an anonymous (again!) friend of Jordan Chandler who allegedly confided in Gutierrez, told him that Jordan had “sexual and erotic dreams” about Jackson.

Given that the same Gutierrez says that Jordan never spoke about Michael even with his best and most intimate friend Sonnet, whose picture is provided in his book, I doubt very much indeed that Jordan could have confided in anyone at all and especially about him having “erotic” dreams (and about a man too!). So what the most we are looking at here is the darkest and dirtiest corner of Victor Gutierrez’s own soul:

“Jordie couldn’t help seeing and hearing Jackson’s promotional campaign for his new album, “HIStory.” One Sunday, he entered his home and saw a copy of the magazine Entertainment Weekly. The cover of the magazine had pictures of several artists, including Michael Jackson. Jordie was pleased to see his friend, if only in a picture. Troubled by his son’s reaction, Evan grabbed the magazine away and threw it on the floor. Jordie got angry and marched off to his room.

Jordie revealed to a friend that he sometimes dreamt about Jackson, and that some of the dreams were sexual and erotic. He had been mostly isolated and had not had any other sexual relationships. His parents, having gotten the money they wanted, paid little attention to him.

Evidently supplied by Evan Chandler with information on how Jordan behaved after the settlement Gutierrez says Jordan missed Michael very much and hang on every piece of news which was connected with him:

Jackson released his new album “HIStory,” which was a play on words, referring both to the fact that the album contained a history of some of Jackson’s previous songs, and to his claim that he had a side to the story; that is, primarily the allegations of child abuse. Jordie purchased a copy of the album, and listened to it for hours.

Jordie was interested in the news and any other material referring to Jackson, even if nothing more than a simple magazine article: it was his way of being close to his former friend, the only way.

…His Christmas entertainment was listening to a CD while writing in his diary at the computer. On New Year’s eve there was no dinner or anything special. Jordie went to his room, closed the curtains, and cried in the darkness. The tears that fell down his face. It closed another year of difficulties, sadness and loneliness. Now the year 1995 was arriving. During this year, he would make a decision that would surprise his own family, and probably Jackson as well [emancipation from both of his parents].

Oh my God, our fiction writer Victor Gutierrez is describing Jordan’s torturous emotional life as if he was present there! His only pretext for doing so is “the diary” which Gutierrez says his soap opera is based on – so it seems that a couple of words should be said about this mysterious document too.

Gutierrez is extremely vague about its origin and its whereabouts. He never explains how he came to possess it and evidently doesn’t have it as he passed it over to lawyer Larry Feldman who in his turn “refused to turn it over to the police” (despite all the legal consequences of it). The implication behind it is that once the agreement was reached the lawyer withheld the key evidence from the police – which he definitely couldn’t do as the criminal investigation was still in full swing and Larry Feldman was definitely not ready to commit a professional suicide by withholding such a thing from the police and be barred from practicing law after that.

The situation with the missing diary is presented by Gutierrez as some form of a hilarious misunderstanding between him and police – he thought that the police knew everything about the diary while they had no idea about it. However when they learned about it, for some reason it wasn’t made available to them. Facing such a strange lack of cooperation, the police threatened to legally force Larry Feldman and Gutierrez to turn it over to them, but these heroic people categorically refused to do so. The police also asked Gutierrez how the diary came into his possession but naturally didn’t receive a reply….

All these questions will remain unanswered until the very last page of Gutierrez’s book. What do I think of Gutierrez’s explanation? I find it absolutely unbearable. To call it laughable or ridiculous is to say nothing at all – it is completely insane, this is what it is:

“…on Monday, May 9th 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. I received calls from colleagues who heard that the D.A. said that if I didn’t give them the diary and the photos, they would force me to do so legally. How did the photos and diary come into my possession asked the detectives and Jackson’s lawyers? Jackson’s lawyers were bothered, since Jackson had paid $20 million in exchange for the boy’s silence. Jackson’s people were concerned they had paid for nothing, since the truth would be known through this book”.

Sunday, May 22. It was time to celebrate Nikki’s birthday, who four days before had turned six years old. Jordie enjoyed the opportunity to drink champagne, four glasses being sufficient to get him drunk…..

You think I have shortened the quote, have omitted something important and then passed over to Nikki’s birthday? No, I haven’t. This is all we have from Gutierrez as regards his explanation as to how he came to obtain that “diary”and what the origin of the document was. No much, isn’t it? Especially in comparison with page-long descriptions of a man-boy love where first this is described, then that, then again this and then, after a pause, that again. So if you want to know where Victor Gutierrez drew inspiration for describing all those details, the only thing I can refer you to is the above explanation how Gutierrez came to know about them. If this explanation satisfies your inquisitive mind – well, I can’t help it –  it is your decision and your choice…

The final quotes from Gutierrez for this post will be about how Jordan Chandler felt on the eve of his emancipation from both of his parents. According to Gutierrez Jordan Chandler was going through the pangs of sorrow, nostalgia for Michael Jackson and anger for his parents. It was at this torturous moment of his life that the news of Michael Jackson’s marriage to Lisa Marie Presley reached Jordan. In his usual man-boy-love style Gutierrez says the following about Jordan’s reaction:

…Sunday, May 22. It was time to celebrate Nikki’s birthday, who four days before had turned six years old. Jordie enjoyed the opportunity to drink champagne, four glasses being sufficient to get him drunk. He had already gotten acquainted with drinking from his visits with Jackson. While Jordie drank, he didn’t know that two days later his ex-lover would travel to the Dominican Republic to marry Lisa Marie Presley, the daughter of the King of Rock, Elvis Presley.

Jordie could not believe what he was seeing on the TV, “It was a shock for Jordie.” one of his friends commented. “He was resting in his bed, and while he was watching the TV he saw the image of Jackson and it caught his attention. It was about his friend’s marriage. He said he didn’t believe it. ‘Michael hates women! He made me learn some phrases about how to hate women.’ Jordie thinks Michael got married so he could pass for a man [heterosexual].” No one was convinced, least of all his ex-lover.

Jordie was saddened by news of the marriage. Evan, trying to elevate his son from his depression, went out to buy him an expensive set of exercise equipment and weights. It was like a small gymnasium. But Jordie didn’t use it. He began to listen to a CD of Jackson’s songs, along with some others from Janet Jackson, and sang along by reading from the jacket of the disc. His father was worried. He saw that his son missed the singer.

And this final piece is being suggested to all our readers so that they are able to form their own opinion about Jordan and how he really felt about Michael Jackson:

Soon Jordie would receive some news that would relieve him from some of the pressure of being the boy who changed the life of the King of Pop. A representative from the OA’s office telephoned him, and told him “Michael Jackson will not be prosecuted, but if some day you change your mind and you want to testify against him, the case will be open for another six years.”

Upon hanging up the phone, Jordie felt “relief and peace,” according to what he told to his best friend. “No one would speak about it anymore.”

Jordie went to the swimming pool at his house where his stepbrother and Nathalie were, and jumped in with his clothes on. When his brother asked him if he was crazy. He answered, smiling and hugging him, “You don’t understand, but this is a good day.”

For some reason the last words stood out to me out of everything else. So upon hearing that the police didn’t find anything bad against Michael and that he would not be prosecuted Jordan was so relieved that he jumped into the pool in his clothes and said that “this was a good day”?

And this was said by the alleged “victim” of molestation?

By someone who allegedly didn’t like the many things that the “molester” had done to him?

Imagine Corey Feldman saying it about his molester? I mean the real one who had indeed molested him when he was a boy and about whom he told the police but they didn’t pay attention as they were solely after Michael Jackson?

Or at least imagine Gavin Arvizo reacting in the same way on the day of Michael’s acquittal? His throwing himself into the pool and saying that it was a good day?

Can any of you imagine any victim at all saying that?

“YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND, BUT THIS IS A GOOD DAY”!

Wow! And it is only the fact of it being reported by VG which steals half the joy of this revelation…..

188 Comments leave one →
  1. t (@wkatriina22) permalink
    May 2, 2015 5:03 pm

    My previous post disappeared. Just that it should be obligatory for poster szilvia09 to familiriase him-herself with this banned book, and study the life history of VG. Quite an interesting bit.

    Like

  2. t (@wkatriina22) permalink
    May 2, 2015 4:47 pm

    It should be obligatory for posters like szilvia and the likes to read MJWML. I know the book was banned and Michael took V.G. to court winning 2.700 $ mln or something like that. Also the poster, mentioned above, claims the info in this book was written By Jordan and Chandler. Please take note of the man-boy love expressed therein.I have not read it but many out takes.It must be nearly impossible, but not unthinkable to get hold of it today.
    Also above poster should familiarise him/her self of V.G.s life history. An interesting bit.V.G.s “hate” appears to me that of a lover rejected. That he was not, more likely desperately smitten and understanding he stood not any chance..VG had to leave US following the trial and naturally never paid.

    Like

  3. Rodrigo permalink
    January 3, 2013 5:10 am

    Thanks for that everyone.

    I agree with that, Lynette.

    They needed to convince everybody that Michael did these things, that it was all him. Reading every piece of paper written about Michael, his own words, info courtesy of Evan and Jordan, would to have been used. You can imagine Gutierrez doing it – Rothman and Evan sitting around discussing these things with eachother.

    It NEEDED to appear authentic from every angle.

    Like

  4. lynande51 permalink
    January 3, 2013 2:08 am

    Helena I left a link to the Ebony interview where he talks about conditioning quite a while ago. That interview was done in Feb. of 1992 so of course when VG was investigating Michael he would have been reading everything that was written about him. When you make up a lie like his it’s best to use something the person that you are lying about has said and use it out of context.

    Like

  5. January 2, 2013 8:14 pm

    Sadly, that’s usually the way people go about it, just twist words and mix truth with lies. This also reminds me of the prosecutions’ tactics. They tried to make it seem like a certain conversation was about Michael begging for Jordan to sleep in his room. When T-mez cross-examined June about this, there was a more logical story behind it – the conversation ended up being more about Michael and June’s relationship if anything.

    Like

  6. January 2, 2013 5:31 pm

    “In Gardner’s interview, Jordan said that Michael talked to him about conditioning. Saying adults were ‘conditioned’ and weren”t going to allow them to be together… Obviously what the kid has done is twisted Michael’s words, as he did. I bet the conversation involved Jordan asking Michael why the likes of Evan disagreed with their simple friendship.”

    Rodrigo, there is no doubt that Evan and all others were just twisting Michael’s words. When you look at Michael and the “others” it is totally amazing what different languages they talk. I think it wasn’t even intentional, they understood it the only way they were capable to understand them. A cynic will understand them in a cynical way, a pervert – in a perverted way. They are simply incapable of understanding these words in any other way and this is probably what Michael meant by adults being conditioned. Each is conditioned by his own system of thought, his reflections, feelings and values (if any) in life.

    “Michael probably discussed his music with the kid and others. Telling them the meaning of the songs.”

    Sure he did. This is probably how all those conversations about conditioning started.

    Do you remember the word “cosmic” which is so often regarded by Michael’s critics as a sign of something terribly sinister? “A cosmic relationship” between Michael and Jordan, the two of them being “meant for each other”, and all the other crap?

    Well, recently I found Michael saying this word to a girl, his life-long fan Talitha and laughed outloud at all those “experts” who built totally crazy theories around this word, Michael and “boys”. This is what Michael said to Talitha (she is writing about it in the chapter about Michael Jackson’s followers):

    Michael believes in destiny. During a phone conversation in September 2008, he told me:

    “It’s all cosmic, you know. We are connected to each other. We are drawn to one another. Even tonight, this phone call, it’s cosmic. You wanted to talk to me. And I wanted to hear your voice. And that’s why we’re talking now. The universe made it happen.”

    … Whenever Michael talked about his fans, he talked about ALL his fans. He wasn’t exclusive. He was inclusive. He said he could feel our energy and love from afar and it touched him deeply. We were ALL there for him, every one of us… every fan who was loyal to him and defended him, every fan who supported him through the trial, every fan who stood outside his hotel holding a banner, every fan who ever wrote him a letter or gave him a gift, every fan who cheered for him at a concert, every fan who channeled good wishes his way, every fan who loves him with all their heart, every fan who misses him deeply… every fan.

    http://www.michaeljacksonthelastangel.com/michael-jackson-followers.html

    Like

  7. January 2, 2013 4:55 pm

    http://www.jackson.ch/ebony1.htm

    Lacienega, what a great interview! Absolutely fantastic. I can’t believe that I missed it. Thank you so much.

    Like

  8. January 2, 2013 12:54 pm

    The “conditioning” thing comes from an Ebony interview in May 1992.

    http://www.jackson.ch/ebony1.htm

    I believe Victor likely used that in his artillery when he met Evan.

    Michael says things similar to that in many interviews, how as an adult you basically become too conscious of yourself, too inhibited, and how children and animals aren’t.

    But pedophile sympathizers like Victor see pedophilia in everything.

    Like

  9. Rodrigo permalink
    January 2, 2013 9:29 am

    In Gardner’s interview, Jordan said that Michael talked to him about conditioning. Saying adults were ‘conditioned’ and weren”t going to allow them to be together…

    Obviously what the kid has done is twisted Michael’s words, as he did.
    I bet the conversation involved Jordan asking Michael why the likes of Evan disagreed with their simple friendship.

    And I was listening to Jam, and their is a line where Michael says –
    “I’m conditioned by the system”

    How do we know that wasn’t a factor somewhere in Jordan’s twisting statements? Michael probably discussed his music with the kid and others. Telling them the meaning of the songs. How do we know that wasn’t used by them?

    Like

  10. lynande51 permalink
    November 20, 2012 6:33 am

    About that drawing it is important to know that Evan is the one that wrote on it. Not Jordan. At least according to his book it was him that wrote “don’t let this happen” at the top.

    Like

  11. October 28, 2012 6:40 am

    I have been looking for your post Aldebaranredstar. It makes sense that this is a homicide note.I wonder if any psychiatrist or psychologist ever saw it. Jordan´s psychotherapy has been mentioned here and there. So who was his therapist? Naturally everything that occurs in therapy is confidential. But was there really therapy? Maybe even the name is kept secret? Who referred him? I can only imagine what to do with a child in Jordan´s position.
    Of greatest importance would be his own feelings and his sense of integrity or lack thereof.
    You have to keep in mind that a 14yo is not emotionally as mature as an adult. If it was his choice at the time not be an active partcipant in any way, that would have to be respected. If an adult you would be more concerned about the thruth and the effect of his choices will have for his sense of integrity. He chose to stay with his father, even if a court decision ,if he in therepy had expressed distress re this a change would have been advised.
    Maybe the emancipation was a result of this? Now what he does as an adult is a different thing. He is rich beyond that of the ordinary person. That naturally has it´s effect and can make him unwilling to change his history.

    Like

  12. October 15, 2012 4:09 pm

    “This is not a ‘suicide’ drawing –it is a ‘homicide’ drawing.”- Aldebaran

    EXACTLY! I was looking for the exact word but couldn’t find it – of course homicide is much more precise! Jordan drew a picture to show what his father was doing to him – killing him by all that pressure and lies.

    By the way I put the picture into the text of the latest post https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/michael-jacksons-1993-casejordan-chandler-tom-sneddon-con-artist/

    Like

  13. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 15, 2012 8:00 am

    About the “suicide” drawing: what I see here are 2 figures on the roof–one is talking and the other is heavily highlighted (compared to the other figures). The other figures (3 of them) are off the roof: 2 are falling and the other is lying on the pavement. What I see here is 2 people who have pushed the other 3 figures off the building. One on the roof is talking–this is relatively inactive–the other closer to the edge is darker and more active, forceful.

    What I see here on the roof are the parents–June the talker–and Evan, the darker figure who is active–destructive in fact. The 3 figures are those who are being destroyed: they could be Michael, the one already lying on the pavement, Jordan himself, and the third might be Lily.

    This is not a ‘suicide’ drawing –it is a ‘homicide’ drawing. It is a kind of premonition of the 3 people who will be destroyed–Evan, Michael, and Jordan (although he is the only actually one still alive, he has lost his parents, his name, forced to live incognito, in hiding, threatened with exposure for his many lies).

    Like

  14. September 20, 2012 12:36 am

    “On May 9th, 1994 Michael was in the Dominican Republic with Lisa Marie waiting for he divorce from Danny Keogh to be finalized. The person has to stay there for two weeks. Then it was granted and they stayed there and got married to avoid the publicity. So in other words Michael was out of the country and preoccupied with far more important matters to him to have even known about the Diary story.”- Lynande51

    This is an important point. Besides Michael not knowing about that broadcast it shows how cunning these people were – they chose the moment when Michael was out of the country to make Evan’s diary public!

    “The saddest part of all is that Sneddon never once looked at this book and as a matter of fact did not want to bring it up in court.”

    Not exactly. First of all I myself read it somewhere (now the link to the source is lost, unfortunately) that Sneddon and his whole department studied Gutierrez’s book and used it for preparation of the 2005 trial.

    Also Sneddon included the books by Gutierrez and Ray Chandler in that notable list of evidence which they wanted to introduce into the 2005 trial, along with the “baby-dangling” episode, MJ’s cosmetic surgery and even the lyrics of some Michael’s songs. This was during the preliminary stage of the trial, and when the Defense objected to this “evidence” it is quite noteworthy that Sneddon agreed to drop everything (including Gutierrez and Ray Chandler) except some odd pairs of underwear found in a bag in a closet among some books and … Michael’s complaints about the injuries he received when they brought him into a police department in handcuffs. That was all he wanted to keep.

    The easiness with which Sneddon dropped Gutierrez and Ray Chandler’s “evidence” shows that he knew that they were worthless.

    Here is the full story about it: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/dirty-laundry-and-cocaine-in-michaels-home-it-was-a-set-up/

    Like

  15. September 20, 2012 12:09 am

    “What is interesting in his quote in the book he says that it is later that the police and Garcetti ask him for his version of the “diary” and yet we know that he was extensively questioned by the police just four days after the story broke.That is from an article in the LA Times from 1993.So there was an earlier version of his book” – Lynande51

    You mean to say that if he wrote the book in 1995, the materials he presented in 1993 could come from the first version of the book? I think that he provided them not with the book but with his collection of interviews, photos, etc. None of them impressed the police as Gutierrez himself complained that for the D.A. he was just “a poor Latino” and they did not take him seriously.

    He evidently forgot that previously he claimed that he was a undercover agent (who infiltrated NABLA and reported from their congress), and as a “government agent” he should have been treated by the D.A. in a much more respectful way.

    With Gutierrez it is always the case – he tells so many lies that one thing never agrees with the other.

    “what was confiscated by the police could not have been the diary”

    Right, and we know it directly from Gutierrez who says that he and Larry Feldman “refused to turn it over” (as if they could!)

    Like

  16. September 19, 2012 11:47 pm

    Here is another addition to the information about Evan Chandler’s diary which was read by Hard Copy in May 1994.

    This very post has a quote from Victor Gutierrez where he first of all, lies about the diary being Jordan’s and secondly, he admits that it was him who presented the diary to the world on May 9, 1994!

    Gutierrez says that after reading that diary by Hard Copy Larry Feldman was contacted by the D.A. Tom Sneddon (which is possible), who demanded that Feldman should turn over the diary to the prosecution. However Larry Feldman, the lawyer of Jordan Chandler, “refused to turn it over” according to Gutierrez, thus refusing to cooperate with the authorities and risking his reputation this way (which is totally impossible of course).

    No explanation is given how they managed not to pass over that diary to the prosecution. Evidently Gutierrez implies that the diary could come only from Evan Chandler who was covered by the confidentiality agreement, and this is why they did not want to disclose his identity, but this idea contradicts the rules of conducting a criminal investigation – no confidentiality agreement allows the people bound by it to refuse to cooperate with the police.

    There was even a special ruling from a judge at the time that instructed the civil attorney to pass over all his evidence to the authorities investigating the parallel criminal case. Here is the proof of it:

    “With two investigations proceeding simultaneously, sources in the Los Angeles legal community say Jackson is rumored to be spending about $100,000 a week for his defense. So far, however, he has lost several key rounds in court–failing to win a delay of the civil case and losing an attempt to prevent Feldman from turning over information to prosecutors who are pursuing possible criminal charges. http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-22/local/me-4447_1_michael-jackson

    This makes Gutierrez’s version of the story extremely ridiculous. He starts with a revelation that it was him who presented Evan Chandler’s diary to the world:

    …on Monday, May 9th 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. I received calls from colleagues who heard that the D.A. said that if I didn’t give them the diary and the photos, they would force me to do so legally.

    How did the photos and diary come into my possession asked the detectives and Jackson’s lawyers? Jackson’s lawyers were bothered, since Jackson had paid $20 million in exchange for the boy’s silence. Jackson’s people were concerned they had paid for nothing, since the truth would be known through this book”.

    Like

  17. Rodrigo permalink
    September 19, 2012 11:31 pm

    It’s amazing how deep it all goes, and I’m guessing well over 90% of people out there know NOTHING about it.

    Also. Just look at EVERYTHING Jordan said about Michael in his interview with Gardner and his depositions…Surely, I’m not the only one to notice he’s mimicing Evan’s thoughts and feelings regarding Michael?

    And look at what Jordan said about Michael and other kids trying to convince him to masturbate. He said so much, and yet there wasn’t one mention of porn or alcohol, which is what everybody was saying was essential to Michael grooming kids with.

    It’s obvious…Evan asked Jordan to remember EVERY little detail about Michael. Evan himself remembered every detail. This was told to Gutierrez, who could only make do with the info he had. Obviously from his time at NAMBLA, he knew EXACTLY how to twist Michael and the situation to help Evan.

    All that and people don’t know about it. Shocking.

    Like

  18. lynande51 permalink
    September 19, 2012 11:04 pm

    Exactly! Too many fans and journalist to boot ignored what was right in front of them back then or at least they didn’t question the source as they should have.
    When I first purchased the book alot of fans and fellow bloggers said that I shouldn’t read or recommend the “haters” books. I had to read them, they had information and I remember the day that I sat and read Gutierrez’ book. It was within a matter of the first few lines of the book that I realized what he really was and what his agenda would be. He never referred to Jordan as a child,ever.That was the first telling sign of his true character. He went out of his way to portray it as a love story and some people swallowed what he said as the truth,namely Diane Dimond and Maureen Orth.The saddest part of all is that Sneddon never once looked at this book and as a matter of fact did not want to bring it up in court. If it had been the world would have seen it for what it was and the entire 1993 case would have unraveled as a lie based on Evan Chandler’s greed and his pedophalic fantasies. The world would have found out that the Neverland Five met with him and the tabloid scouts who are thanked in the back of his book.
    Also don’t let anyone tell you that it was not the book that Gutierrez was sued for. Yes it was his public broadcast about the non existant vidoe tape that got him into court but if you look at when the broadcast about the diary came on you will know why that was not immediately addressed. On May 9th, 1994 Michael was in the Dominican Republic with Lisa Marie waiting for he divorce from Danny Keogh to be finalized. The person has to stay there for two weeks. Then it was granted and they stayed there and got married to avoid the publicity. So in other words Michael was out of the country and preoccupied with far more important matters to him to have even known about the Diary story.
    He wa however home in LA when the video story came out on the radio an dhe immediatly sued the parties involved. Diane Dimond only got out of it because she had Sneddon write a Declaration that he was in fact looking for the tape before she broadcast the story just to get her out of trouble.
    The truth is you don’t sue a video tape for lying about you. You sue the person that lied about the video tape. When he was found guilty slander it was Gutierrez that was found guilty not a video tape. If he was found guilty of malicious slander for the story about the video tape then it is him that is guilty of lying about Michael no matter what means he uses to do it.

    Like

  19. September 19, 2012 10:55 pm

    “if Michael was using porn to groom boys, then wouldn’t Jordan have mentioned it?”

    Rodrigo, this point was completely overlooked by the media. Even Gutierrez didn’t guess to embellish his story by saying that there was some porn in MJ’s home. And this is a clear indication that neither Evan, nor Jordan ever said it (and that neither of the maids saw the magazines either). By the way I doubt that Jordan ever spoke to Gutierrez, it seems that it was solely Evan Chandler/Victor Gutierrez’s collaboration.

    Also we should not forget that Brett Barnes, Macaulay Culkin and Wade Robson who testified at the 2005 trial could not conceal their surprise when they saw all those adult magazines shown to them by the prosecution. Sneddon asked them whether it was okay or not okay for MJ to have those magazines, but no one paid attention to the surprise these young men displayed.

    And their surprise shows that Michael had NEVER shown them anything of the kind and they could not even IMAGINE that he had those adult magazines at all. All of them spoke about it at the trial.

    So what’s the conclusion? The conclusion is that Michael Jackson never showed such magazines to children – either in 1993 or 2003.

    “Evan relayed what he knew of the situation, and Gutierrez helped him twist it based on his knowledge from being an obvious pedophile himself.”

    Exactly. You need to read that book with your own eyes to see this fact clearly. It is an open promotion of pedophilia, and this is the reason why the book was banned in the US.

    Like

  20. Rodrigo permalink
    September 19, 2012 10:32 pm

    It’s an essential part to understanding what really happened. People just aren’t aware that Evan had a pedo journalist helping him before the accusations were made against Michael.

    Also, if Michael was using porn to groom boys, then wouldn’t Jordan have mentioned it?

    He didn’t mention it because he wasn’t aware of it.
    And if Gutierrez knew of it’s existence at Neverland, then Jordan would have as well.

    Evan relayed what he knew of the situation, and Gutierrez helped him twist it based on his knowledge from being an obvious pedophile himself.

    Like

  21. September 19, 2012 10:23 pm

    Here is another addition to the timeline which I completely forgot.

    It is a fact that on May 9-10, 1994 (while the criminal investigation was still going on) the Hard Copy read out the so-called “diary” telling Evan Chandler’s version of the events. Yes, the diary’s authorship was officially attributed to Jordan Chandler’s father and not Jordan, and the text was written about Jordan, not by him.

    This diary was then published in Victor Gutierrez’s book (1996) where he started claiming that it was Jordan’s diary. This way Victor Gutierrez took Evan Chandler’s lies further. However Ray Chandler refuted this story and said that Jordan had never kept a diary.

    The mere fact of using Evan’s diary by both Evan Chandler and Gutierrez proves their close cooperation with each other during the period of 1993-1994.

    More details about it in Lynette’s post: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/to-victor-g-who-diary-was-that-again/

    Like

  22. September 19, 2012 9:42 pm

    Guys, I’ve supplemented the timeline concerning Victor Gutierrez’s and Ray Chandler’s books with some more facts.

    I forgot to mention that after Ray Chandler published his book on September 12, 2004 a week later he was subpoenaed by Michael Jackson’s defense team (!) to come to court and produce his documents there.

    After a tug of war for almost two months where the defense asked Ray Chandler to please come and accuse Michael Jackson in court (instead of the book) Ray Chandler won as he claimed protection under the Shield law as a publisher of his book.

    Here are the details of it: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/ray-chandler-subpoena-happy-end-for-the-dear-old-uncle/

    Like

  23. lynande51 permalink
    September 19, 2012 8:45 pm

    .
    Yes alot of our readers realize that Gutierrez was involved with this from the beginning but most of the general public does not. What is interesting in his quote in the book he says that it is later that the police and Garcetti ask him for his version of the “diary” and yet we know that he was extensively questioned by the police just four days after the story broke.That is from an article in the LA Times from 1993.So there was an earlier version of his book that was confiscated at that time by the police and he rewrote his version based on his and the Chandler versions.The second version had all of these different notes and copies of documents that only Evan Chandler could have givien him and some of them were even long after the settlement like the portion of Evan and Nathalie’s divorce papers that say that she was entitled to half of the settlement and that he retained sole rights to exploit said literary works. I guess we can figure out what literary wroks he was talking about.
    SInce it was within the first four days of the investigation what was confiscated by the police could not have been the diary as he showed it because half of the documents in there came after he was first questioned by the police.You’re right when you say timing is everything.
    Take forinstance all of the information from the Chandler’s regarding Jimmy Safechuck and Jonathan Spence. That had to have come from Gutierrez because by his own admission he was “researching” his book about Michael since 1984. That was information that the Chandler’s used when they coached Jordan prior to seeing RIchard Gardner because Jordan mentions each boy by name.That information came from VG no one else. What is glaringly omitted was any mention of the Cascio boys who actually spent time with Jordan.Wouldn’t you think they would have been included if this story was completely up to Jordan Chandler?They weren’t because they were not known to Gutierrez that’s why.

    Like

  24. September 19, 2012 4:37 pm

    “Here is what people don’t understand. While Gutierrez tells all these fantastic lies in his book,his book is the template for ATG.” – Lynande51

    I think that people understand it very well. Immediately after the 1994 settlement Ray Chandler was hunting for a publisher (as the video you found proves it). But the Chandlers were cowards and were afraid to break the confidentiality agreement for fear of losing their millions, so they used Gutierrrez as a sort of a pebble thrown into water to see what reaction it would get.

    They gave Gutierrez some “materials” (like a test of Jordan for venereal diseases which was negative – a seemingly meaningless gesture but full of nasty innuendo). Gutierrez incorporated it into his book adding his own pedophilia-oriented “embellishments” (hence the “sleazebag” name he earned from the Chandlers).

    When Gutierrez was sued by Michael in connection with that non-existent video-tape invented by Gutierrez (but which cast a shade on his book of lies too) and Gutierrez was fined for $2,7mln., it cooled the Chandlers off for long enough until the year 2004.

    Here is information about when and how All that Glittes was published:

    All that glitters

    Type of Work:
    Non-dramatic literary work
    Registration Number / Date: TX0005977462 / 2004-09-20
    Date of Publication: September 12, 2004
    Date of Creation: 2004
    Title: All that glitters : the crime and the cover-up / Raymond Chandler.
    Imprint: LasVegas : Windsong Press, c2004.
    Description: 271 p.
    Copyright Claimant: Windsong Press, LLC
    Names: Raymond Chandler 1946-
    Windsong Press, LLC
    http://www.copyrightencyclopedia.com/all-that-glitters-is-gold-the-rest-is-real-wood-part-2/#b

    The year of publication – 2004 – shows that the Chandlers decided to release the book after Bashir’s film and when Michael was already indicted by the Grand Jury and when they felt the overwhelming support of the media (and prosecution).

    The date of it, September 12, 2004 marks exactly 11 years since the Chandlers filed their lawsuit. It comes only several months before the beginning of the trial when Michael had his hands full with getting ready for it and had no time for the Chandlers. Ray Chandler takes advantage of it and makes rounds of the TV shows speaking of his book.

    Michael’s defense subpoenaes Ray Chandler as “a custodian of documents” but Ray Chandler fights it tooth and nail and finally seeks protection under the shield law as a publisher of his book.

    Let us make the timeline of the events:

    January 1994 – the settlement agreement
    Immediately after that (“while the ink is not yet dry on the agreement”) Ray Chandler starts shopping his manuscript but at the last moment either he or the publishers grow fearful as the project didn’t materialize.

    May 9-10, 1994 – the diary telling Evan Chandler’s version of the events is read on Hard Copy. The diary will then be published in Victor Gutierrez’s book and he will claim that it was written by Jordan. Victor Gutierrez takes Evan Chandler’s lies further this way, but the mere fact of using Evan’s diary by both of them proves their collaboration with each other

    1995 -1996 – Victor Gutierrez writes his book and publishes it in Chile
    1995 -1998 – Michael Jackson sues Gutierrez (and Dimond) and wins $2,7 mln. in his slander suit against Gutierrez

    At some point in time Ray Chandler goes to the law school where Tom Sneddon (among others) gives him lectures and becomes a lawyer in 2001. He also registers himself as a publisher in order to come under the shield law protecting journalists and publishers (date unknown).

    February 6, 2003 – Bashir’s film airs in the US
    Exactly the next day after that Jordan Chandler’s declaration is leaked to the press

    April 2003 – the official investigation of MJ’s “misconduct” is closed
    May-June 2003 – the Arvizos go to Larry Feldman, who sends them to Dr. Katz and they report the “case” to Sneddon
    November 2003 – the Neverland raid
    December 2003 – the charges are brought against Jackson

    April 2004 – Michael is indicted by the Grand Jury
    June 2004 – Diane Dimond makes public the 1994 settlement agreement between the Chandlers and Michael Jackson

    September 12, 2004 – Ray Chandler publishes his book All that Glitters (now available from Amazon “from $0,01”)
    September 19, 2004 – Ray Chandler is subpoenaed by Michael Jackson’s defense (!) as “a custodian” of authentic documents” which he claims he has
    November 8, 2004 – Ray Chandler seeks protection from the subpoena under the Shield law.

    February 2005 – the trial against Jackson starts
    June 2005 – Jackson is fully acquitted

    In 2005, after the trial, Diane Dimond publishes her own book about Jackson as a sort of damage control after Sneddon’s failure (now available “from $0,99”)

    October 2007 – Dimond, Gutierrez and Peretti round up the discussion of Michael’s “crimes” in a special film “What really happened” shown in the UK

    And after all that all of them think that the job of burying Michael Jackson is done.

    P.S. The information about Ray Chandler and his law degree is found in the Veritas project:

    “One could wonder how Ray Chandler, a lawyer since 2001, could commit such an act of fraud in a book not even worth the paper it is written on. However, considering that Chandler got his “law” degree from the very college where Tom Sneddon “teaches” law students every unethical thing he knows, one has to assume that Chandler took notes well from his master.”

    Like

  25. lynande51 permalink
    September 19, 2012 9:59 am

    You know as I was reading this article I remembered why I bought this book and sent it to everyone in the first place. I first bought it for the pictures in it. I had found different documents listed on the archived ATG site that Ray Chandler had opened first in 1997, then in 2004 when he finally released the book. I could no longer get the documents from that site and wanted to be able to read them.
    Here is what people don’t understand. While Gutierrez tells all these fantastic lies in his book,his book is the template for ATG. In other words all the basic info is the same.When you have a coincidence like that I think it is easy to see that the intention was to write the book but when Ray could not get it published on Feb 4th 1994 just days after the settlement I think Evan gave him permission to write this one.IT’s just that once theyread it and saw how Gutierrez really was that was when they decided that he was a sleaze bag (Ray’s words)
    So since it is beyond easy to see all the exaggerations and lies in this one then the one that was released by Chandler was nothing but lies too. It is that simple.

    Like

  26. Rodrigo permalink
    September 19, 2012 12:52 am

    Jordan Michael hated women?
    Frank said he and Michael liked checking women out?

    I believe Frank!

    He was Bad :p

    Like

  27. August 9, 2012 12:34 am

    As a fiction writer myself, this book is one of the best and pathetic forms of dadaist literature I have ever seen. Excellent post, which I can’t believe I hadn’t read earlier!

    (Dadaist: a form of art or writing that rejects reason and logic, prizing nonsense, irrationality and intuition.)

    Like

  28. July 23, 2012 12:46 pm

    “quick question..Did Jordie ever reconcile with his mom?” – Stacy

    I hear that yes, they reconciled, but am not ready to provide you with a source where I read about it.

    Like

  29. stacy2 permalink
    July 23, 2012 12:20 am

    quick question..Did Jordie ever reconcile with his mom?

    Like

  30. stacy2 permalink
    May 20, 2012 10:35 pm

    I would like to read victor’s book. Can someone please send me a link?

    email: suk901@aol.com

    Like

  31. paula permalink
    April 25, 2012 1:57 pm

    i miss macaulay..😦

    Like

  32. Truth Prevail permalink
    April 23, 2012 12:09 am

    This has nothing to do with the article but i wanted to post it somewhere. its about oprah and her conniving ways you would want to read it🙂

    http://wendyista.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/report-whitney-tells-oprah-youre-liar.html

    Like

  33. April 17, 2012 12:10 am

    “If you want some true insight into what Sneddon’s soul is like you should read the argument before the court about showing Larry Nimmers film. While he was making his case against the use of it he said that the message from Paris about I love you daddy get better soon was and I quote “obvious propaganda“. It takes some kind of hate to say that about a little 6 year old girls message to her father.”

    Lynette, Tom Sneddon said THAT? That Paris’s message was obvious propaganda? These people have nothing sacred in their souls!
    I guess this gang of people considers that Paris’s tears and cry out at her father’s funeral were also sheer propaganda?

    Like

  34. Truth Prevail permalink
    April 14, 2012 10:11 pm

    “It’s like one big happy family isn’t it? lol”

    It sure is its like they all live in one big beehive🙂

    Like

  35. nannorris permalink
    April 14, 2012 9:30 pm

    Sneddon is incredible…Propaganda..lol..well i think he didnt like the idea of the kids backpacks being shown either because it might look like a family lived there,,,instead of the “beast he visualized”
    I wonder what they all thought when in mj memorial pamphlet , people were using the phrase RUBBA as a term of endearment rather then the disgusting way theory were trying to portray it..
    It was no secret phrase to imply dastardly stuff.lol
    I was watching Prosecutor Zonen on his trip with his wife to New Zealand i think it was……….
    he looked a little pensive for someone on the trip of their life,,
    I hope he is having second thoughts..lol

    Like

  36. lynande51 permalink
    April 14, 2012 8:37 am

    I dont have to hear the people with a malicious agenda cry UNCLE to know that MJ true character is coming to the forefront in the general public..
    All I had to do is see Ron Zonen mini stroke when the sweet old lady interviewing him for the local show told him MJ was innocent,…

    @ nan
    If you want some true insight into what Sneddon’s soul is like you should read the argument before the court about showing Larry Nimmers film. While he was making his case against the use of it he said that the message from Paris about I love you daddy get better soon was and I quote “obvious propaganda“. It takes some kind of hate to say that about a little 6 year old girls message to her father.

    28 MR. SNEDDON: Judge, as I indicated earlier, 11266
    1 I believe that this — a good deal of what’s in this

    2 video is inadmissible. And particularly

    3 objectionable is those parts that deal with having

    4 staff out there doing things, basically scripted

    5 or — “scripted” is probably not a good word to use

    6 in light of everything that’s happened in this

    7 courtroom, but certainly the way they’re performing

    8 on the video and performing for the camera

    9 specifically.

    10 Secondly, there are some parts about this

    11 that there is no way to establish that this is the

    12 way that the premises looked at the time of the

    13 events in February and March of 2003. And I believe

    14 this video, portions of it were filmed earlier this

    15 year and maybe portions of it recently, and we know

    16 for a fact that certain portions of it are different

    17 from when we went out there, when members of the

    18 sheriff’s department went out there in December of

    19 2004.

    20 So it’s misleading to the jury in the sense

    21 that it portrays certain locations and places

    22 different than they were and certain facilities. If

    23 this were simply a video of somebody showing the zoo

    24 or showing the giraffes or showing the amusement

    25 park — and you can see it’s unduly suggestive in

    26 the fact that they have notes on the board that are

    27 obviously propaganda in the sense they’re notes

    28 with, “We love you, Daddy,” and in the mail room 11267

    Like

  37. Rodrigo permalink
    April 14, 2012 8:37 am

    lynande51

    Thanks for looking it up, and I’m very sorry you had to🙂

    I guess that 80’s band felt pretty stupid for calling themselves that too lol

    Like

  38. lynande51 permalink
    April 14, 2012 8:28 am

    @rodrigo Believe it or not I did research that phrase a couple of years ago. The fact is it was around for a very long time since the mid fifties.It had more than one meaning but most of them have to do with the genitalia and sweat more that semen. It originated on the west coast.With white males being the demographic that most used it. I know, but just ask anybody if I am going to leave any stones unturned in this. They will all tell you no. By the way I felt a little silly looking it up. Not to mention in VG’s book he says that Michael referred to semen as his bliss just for another contradiction in their presentation of the same story.But then VG would have read Dancing The Dream so he knows how it should really be applied. To Michael it was anything that gave him joy and made him feel loved.

    Like

  39. nannorris permalink
    April 14, 2012 2:13 am

    Larry Feldman is a very smart guy..Dr Gardner, a leading expert , does an interview with Jordan , and yet it is Katz who interprets it.
    there is a reason for that of course.
    same as there is a reason someone just signs something J . Chandler
    this stuff that has been put out on youtube is a last ditch effort to attempt to make MJ look bad.
    All facts point to the Chandler clan as a couple who on an individual basis would have done anything to get into MJ life and then as a couple teamed up when neither of them got to stick around to join forces against MJ and get some cash..
    Bet it annoyed both of them when you consider the pittance they both got to destroy their own family and turn their own child, who is known as a liar in all parts of the world
    I dont have to hear the people with a malicious agenda cry UNCLE to know that MJ true character is coming to the forefront in the general public..
    All I had to do is see Ron Zonen mini stroke when the sweet old lady interviewing him for the local show told him MJ was innocent,…
    That , from his reaction , is not the first time he has been confronted by someone with that opinion..
    And for a good a prosecutor he is …he couldnt point to any facts regarding the case to prove his point..
    what we haer is that Gavin was sick..yadayada yada,,
    His family used his diagnosis to inject themselves into celebrities lives and get money, even EXAGERAING the diagnosis to do so..
    That is in cross examination by Mesereau..This family knew he would survive after the first round of chemo, he just needed to complete them all..
    Course they didnt tell the people they were conning that.
    Instead we hear that Gavin never wanted a penny from Michael….
    …thats because they were waiting for the civil suit and indeed the lawyers fees were already worked out and Feldman was doing pro bono work to keep the defense from finding out where Janet was funneling her welfare checks after committing perjury to get assistance…
    That is in court transcripts in Mesereau cross of Feldman.
    and the lawyers he cross examined all said Gavin had til 18 to sue Michael in civil court..
    We also know that Zonen likes to tell people Gavin is smart..That isnt in dispute .Indeed he has been called smart and CUNNING..
    It is his honesty that people questioned..
    He was caught in lie after lie, as was the rest of his family, and finally said he became angry with MJ when he felt he abandoned his family..
    And when I get a chance I will leave my remarks in the comment section. of that tv show and ask them to invite Tom Mesereau to speak..
    Every one of these accusers have Larry Feldman in common .And they all consult civil atty before police , two of the three families continue their interaction with MJ.., even as they build molestation cases.
    The Francia matter……..we know MJ was on the other side of the world on tour when he supposedly tickled Jason..
    Of course Jason said it was not true over and over ..until this child was broken down by police and just wanted to get out.
    Time and time again….accusations and time lines change with this group of prosecutors ..
    Small wonder that MJ was encouraged to settle with the Chandlers, Sneddon was like a dog with a bone and essentially enabled them..
    People are loving MJ all over again and most ..even if they do not know all the facts ..just have a general feeling , that he was set up..
    I was looking at some pictures of the Gavin in Zonens kitchen at the time of their marriage..
    People were just standing around the island looking at him , not smiling..It looked like a very uncomfortable social situation..
    This would have been right around the time of the Murray trial where MJ was drugged by his own Doctor and was talking about building a hospital..
    There is just too much footage of MJ doing good deeds and expressing his compassion for children and those less fortunate .
    Whoever is doing the youtube channel knows that ,,that is why they wont let your comments go through..
    Just wanted to say that..I am very encouraged by the reactions I have been getting from people who are not even aware of all the garbage that was taking place behind the scenes..

    Like

  40. Rodrigo permalink
    April 14, 2012 1:49 am

    Suzy

    Thanks for looking. I was trying to find the origin of the word. I don’t how long exactly the term ‘duck butter’ has been around, but what I can tell, it was possibly created around the end of 2003. popbitch claimed Michael used it as euphemism, that article was published in January 2005.

    I’m betting somebody at that website saw Evan Chandler’s “Duck Butter Blues”, and matched it with that term. They knew Michael gave names to things, whats to stop them coming up with that? Especially since Evan used it.

    Duck Butter Blues btw, was actually a cheerful little band in the late 80’s, surely they wouldn’t call themselves after a euphemism for semen? I was just trying to cross the lines together, that’s why I asked about it.

    @ Truth Prevail
    It’s like one big happy family isn’t it? lol

    Like

  41. kaarin22 permalink
    April 13, 2012 10:45 pm

    Fake or created. This piece of interview will remain a mystery.The spirit of V.G. and NAMBLA howers over it.There has been many good posts of critique ,so I will not repeat what already has been said..Much is missing, not only the conclusion and possible recommendations.Where is the tape from which it supposedly is taken from?
    It would also not surprise me if Evan had read up on pedophilia so he could better “help” his son with the Dr, Gardener interview.If real,Jordan was so obviously lying and gave scripted answers.Dr. Gardener also included interviews with both parents after interviewing the child.Did he notice something amiss with Evan perhaps?Is that the reason for this part of the interview missing or did he not interview the parents?

    Like

  42. Truth Prevail permalink
    April 13, 2012 9:27 pm

    If someone has twitter please ask Latoya why the hell was she hugging VG and reminder her what he did to her brother.

    Like

  43. Truth Prevail permalink
    April 13, 2012 9:21 pm

    @Rodrigo

    I checked out that clip then i decided to do some digging up on the uploader and it turns out he/she supports Desiree, “MJfacts” and also supports that an insurance company did not settle for MJ and other false trash sites.

    Like

  44. Suzy permalink
    April 13, 2012 7:55 pm

    @ Rodrigo

    I made a quick search in the 2005 court transcirpts and at least there there isn’t any mention of this term in connection with Gavin (or in any other way). So I don’t know if Gavin ever claimed that at all. But even if he had claimed it, it wouldn’t mean a thing, since the Arvizos obviously studied the Chandler case.

    Like

  45. Rodrigo permalink
    April 13, 2012 4:43 pm

    Thanks, Suzy.

    It was in that documentry. They claimed Michael used it as a euphemism for semen, he told Jordie it. However, it didn’t show up until the Arvizo case and was used by Michael with them, not Jordie, like the documentary said. Which proves the lie right there.

    The info about it is all a mess on the web.

    Like

  46. Suzy permalink
    April 13, 2012 2:58 pm

    @ Rodrigo

    The term “duck butter” comes from the Chandlers (though I highly doubt it originates from Jordan himself).

    It’s mentioned in Evan Chandler’s 1996 lawsuit against Michael in which Evan demands a record deal from Michael (apart from $60 million):

    “As an additional direct and proximate result of Defendant Jackson’s and
    others’ material breach of the agreement as herein alleged, and because of the
    need to repair the reputation of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks the equitable remedy
    of an order to allow him to publish and cause to be distributed to the public for
    sale a certain musical composition entitled “EVANstory.” This album will
    include such songs as: “D.A. Reprised”: “You Have No Defense (For My
    Love)”; “Duck Butter Blues”; “Truth”; and other songs.”

    http://web.archive.org/web/20070916092707/http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/newsmakers/jackson.html

    But why does it matter where that term comes from? People can make up anything they want.

    Like

  47. Rodrigo permalink
    April 13, 2012 8:03 am

    Link’s not showing up. hmm. Well heres the title anyway.

    Michael Jackson and Jordy Chandler what really happened – Youtube

    Like

  48. Rodrigo permalink
    April 13, 2012 7:59 am

    Like

  49. Rodrigo permalink
    April 13, 2012 7:58 am

    I was just watching this absolute garbage about Michael and Jordan.

    I dont know if it’s been brought up before,
    but I’m interested to know where the origin of the term “duck butter” came from?
    This programme claims it was Jordan who said it, while other sites claimed it was Gavin. It sprung up from popbitch, so that should tell me just to shrug it off there and then. Did it actually crop up anywhere with Jordan or Gavin, any transcripts? I want to know how this trash can be discredited.

    Like

  50. January 24, 2012 8:20 pm

    “Reading this transcript a bit more, it is possible that it could be fake.”

    Tatum, when it comes to harassment campaigns against Michael Jackson anything is possible. Of course it could be fake, but even if it were real it wouldn’t be to the Chandlers’ advantage.

    My opinion is that the interview is real, but it shows Jordan Chandler in a terrible light. Not only doesn’t he sound like a “child victim” at all, but he sounds like a cold-blooded and calculating adult, guiding the conversation (“I’m coming to that”) and easily chatting about dividing the “relationship” into “stages”. Given that he claims it was “horrible” experience, his behavior is totally uncharacteristic of an abused teenager. It is characteristic of a liar, but not a victim.

    And here is the behavior we could expect of a really abused teenager as described by a professional:

    Captain Barbara Craig, MC, USN
    Medical Consultant for Child Abuse and Neglect
    Department of Pediatrics
    National Naval Medical Center
    Bethesda, Maryland 20889-5600

    THE ART OF THE INTERVIEW IN CHILD ABUSE CASES
    5. Puberty (9-13 year olds):

    Preadolescents are usually more at ease with an interviewer of the same sex. They not only feel uncomfortable about the sexual molestation, but are feeling awkward and self conscious about their bodies and discussions regarding sexual issues.

    Their hormones are blossoming and with that are seen moodiness, unprovoked tearful outbursts, and easy frustration. Because the need to “fit in” is so strong, being molested and therefore different from their peers may increase their reluctance to disclose.

    Preteens understand that the sexual behavior is wrong, but are even more likely than the younger children to feel that they are responsible for the abuse.

    Guilt and shame can be overwhelming, with frequent denial and recantation. They experience similar behavioral changes and physical symptoms as the latency age children.

    A more formal approach to the interview frequently minimizes the pre-adolescents discomfort with the discussion. Keep your questions brief and clinically oriented, yet let them know that their feelings and opinions are also important to the investigation. Reassure them that they are not at fault for what has happened.

    http://www.nccpeds.com/powerpoints/interview.html

    If you read Jordan’s interview you will see that it is the exact opposite of the above description – instead of being awkward and self-conscious he is easy and even a little domineering; instead of being reluctant to disclose he readily speaks about anything; we see no tears or frustration, but only confidence from beginning to end, and certainly no “overwhelming” or any guilt and shame on Jordan’s part.

    We haven’t got Dr. Richard Gardner’s conclusion on Jordan’s interview but I’m almost sure he said the allegation was false.

    Like

  51. Tatum Marie permalink
    January 24, 2012 6:03 pm

    Reading this transcript a bit more, it is possible that it could be fake.

    Like

  52. January 14, 2012 2:30 pm

    Many exellent posts on the Jordan -Gardenar interview.It has always been like a thorn in my side as it is difficult to know how it came out and how it was created or just a story Jordan had been thought.
    Dr. Gardener was a specialist in custody cases,false allegations and in parental alienation. The latter really does occur at times after divorce. It has been found that children of divorce do best when they can maintain a good reationship with both parents after divorce,this of course presuming that the parent(s) are sane.He was also an advocate for fathers rights as usually the custody was relat. rutinly given to the mother.-The interview was not conducted in the usual manner of a child-adolescent interview as the goals very more specific.

    Like

  53. Suzy permalink
    January 14, 2012 11:05 am

    @ Helena

    Funny how Feldman tries to”refute” the whole story with this: “ludicrous and factually incorrect. I checked with the zoning board, and there are no such restrictions.”

    If there is no such restriction it just means Evan lied to Michael because meanwhile he probably he figured he’d rather have him build them a whole new house than just an addition. This doesn’t prove in any way the story told by Pellicano is a lie. Just that Evan lied.

    It’s also telling that Feldman only “refutes” this claim (a claim that actually comes from the Chandlers), not the rest of the story, the more relevant parts – hoping that the “refutation” of this detail will make people think Pellicano is lying.

    Plus Ray Chandler I think did admit this house-addition story in his book. Only they claimed it was Michael who wanted that. I doubt that very much when Michael didn’t even want to take Evan’s calls any more after that meeting.

    @ Nan

    Yes, isn’t it strange that in Jordan’s interview everybody is at fault – Michael, June, even Jordan himself to an extent (who needed to be told by his father that what was “happening” was wrong because he didn’t realize it before…), the only person who is portrayed as a superman in it is Evan. Jordan goes out of his way to praise him. His not the erratic, aggressive, bipolar person who he really was (like we see in the Chandler-Schwartz convo or the lawsuit he brought against Michael in 1996 or by the fact he tried to kill Jordan in 2005), he is not the father who failed to pay child support for years despite of a dental practice near Hollywood. Oh no! He is a super daddy! There is not one bad word said about him. He’s a saviour.

    The whole thing couldn’t be any more transparent.

    Talking about Corey Feldman. Allegedly he recently promised that he will name two people who molested him as a child. We know he told at least one name to the police in 1993 but they didn’t care because it wasn’t MJ. It’s pretty interesting how no one seems to care when it’s not MJ…

    There was this German article posted on MJJC: http://www.20min.ch/people/international/story/-Die-Paedophilen-in-Hollywood-sind-ueberall–20123837

    It’s translated as such on MJJC:

    “Ex-child star Corey Feldman unpacks: Sexual abuse is the norm in Hollywood, he said. After the death of his friend, Corey Haim, he now wants to come out two perpetrators.

    Corey Feldman was in films like “The Goonies,” “Stand By Me” and “The lost boys” in the 80s to the child star and an icon. But instead of fame and glamor, he now reports of sexual abuse at the film’s sets. The “Dancing On Ice ‘star says he fell during his time as a young actor to the abuse of many Hollywood moguls high prey. He now wants to publish the names of two offenders in a book and take legal action against them, as dailymail.co.uk. been reported.

    Power protection against crime

    As the 40-year-old Canadian told the men had fallen on him like vultures, when he was 14 years old. “I lay there motionless while they did their work on me.” How many child stars, he fell to the drugs. He felt exploited by Hollywood. He and his friend Corey Haim play are then branded as scapegoats and their image with statements such as “drug addicts” and “Has-beens” have been destroyed.

    Because he is Hollywood’s complicity in Corey’s death and because he is the abuse fell due to drug addiction, he had decided to recount the ravisher: “I stood up and said that there is a larger problem that I have lost Corey and that I do not even want to see more kids that are lost to these perverts. “He speaks of a large group of pedophiles who in Hollywood would have very much power. With offers of money and they attract parents and children themselves.

    Already, another former child actor who wants to remain anonymous, has expressed to Feldman’s confessions on the subject. He claims to have been abused sexually by talent manager Martin Weiss. While Feldman was not abused by White, he also helps the police regarding this investigation. Feldman is aware of the danger to which he exposes himself and his family with the naming the perpetrators. But after the death of his pals he wants to protect his own son.

    Was, is and will always be a problem

    According to Feldman, the problem is pervasive and it is by far not the first who told of sexual abuse in the dream factory. Mary McDonough, in the series “The Waltons” occurred when Erin suffered Abused by sexual and reported: “There was a staff team of the film, I had to kiss every day when I was 11.” As criticomblog.wordpress.com been reported. Nick Carter shares the same fate. He is alleged to have been abused by his former manager Lou Pearlman Backstreet Boys. He himself is silent on how news.de reported.” – Source, in German,”

    Like

  54. nan permalink
    January 14, 2012 6:29 am

    I remember reading about Jordans interview with Dr Gardner in the back of the ian halpern book..
    For me , when i heard him giving this explanation about how he, himself , asked his dad to knock him out when he was getting his tooth out,it just sounded like he was covering his old mans ass..There was no need for him to VOLUNTEER an explanation for being put under….
    So, that it is the child who is taking responsibility for being put out , like it was all his idea, and his dad was just some innocent…
    I really wasnt sure that that was not a staged thing to make up for him telling people , mj never did anything…like how the Arviso had to come up with some explanation for initially praising MJ…and he was in on it…

    In the thing I read Jordan was talking about being masturbated orally …who says that ?…..?certainly not a 13 year old kid…I mean it should be pretty obvious this is not some kid talking off the cuff,..
    After you get over the initial read of it , and the shock…it really doesnt add up..
    .
    I thought when Jordan was talking about mj having a pattern, I thought his father had probably told him about this pattern of befriending kids and then finding a newer friend , the australian mother had told June that too. that kids get jealous….
    Corey Feldman said the same thing, that kids would get their feeling hurt, they would get jealous.
    It wasnt true really because he had long term friendships with families , but he was not free like the rest of us to move on with some people , because nobody would want to leave his world …just too exciting..
    These are concerns Evan had brought up to MJ before.
    And when Evan started pushing for screenplays and stuff, he did distance himself, then distancing himself from june and her kids when things starting hitting the fan with Evan,,,
    I thought that was where the negligence idea came from and that Jordan probably was devastated that he could not be in mj life after Evans threats, so they just added the sex part to get a whole lot of cash,,
    Gavin was also devastated when people said mj was not around and he ran into him and mj played it off..he said it broke his heart….
    And when it all hit the fan and his people wouldnt let the arvizos near mj anymore , they turned on him too..
    Nobody ever wanted to move on from mj..:((

    From what I understood Feldman just arranged the appointment with Gardner( who was supposed to be the leading expert in false accusations from what i understand) , because once used by that side , probably could not be used by the defense to interpret jordans statements to any other experts , so i think feldman did that to knock him out of the game….

    Feldman does not use gardner , just has his wifes friend katz to rubber stamp it..
    I would think it might be obvious to Sneddon that Feldman is just methodically building a molestation case..nobody is that stupid..
    Sneddon enabled all this stuff …

    I really dont know what mj could have done back then to clear his name ..Sneddon would never consider that he was not guilty..What a field day for Feldman..
    Mesereau even had said that Sneddon was still thinking of another case againt mj after the not guilty verdicts, but mj had left town….it is insane.

    I was also thinking about all the behind the scenes puppeteering that guiterezz was up to and his possible connections to NAMBLA..and pelicano cryptic statement from jail ..I wonder if it occurred to him that this could have been bigger then just the Chandler family and possible this group had intentions of using MJ image to endorse that stuff…If that was what he was referring to..I just cant think of another explanation for him to say that because he was completely behind mj for years…

    Like

  55. January 14, 2012 3:46 am

    @suzy and all
    I’m not mistaking them. It’s clear in this transcript that he has an agenda of what to specifically get out of Jordan. As for the sodium amytal, we are speaking in the context of memories. Implanting thoughts in someone’s head and telling them what to say word for word are two different things. Jordan’s description of molestation is too detailed. Does this mean that he didn’t receive the sodium amytal? Maybe, but I don’t believe that was responsible for all the lies he told.

    Like

  56. January 13, 2012 11:59 pm

    “I think this transcript is real Jordan clearly sounds like he’s lying and rehearsed. He is using the exact same terminology as Evan.”

    And not only Evan’s – but the terminology used by numerous interviewers (beginning with the parents, police, DCFS people and others like Pellicano, for example, who also talked to the boy).

    The more they ask you the more you tend to repeat their statements.

    It is just enough to ask a question like “When did your relationship start?” to produce an answer “Our relationship started…”, though in fact there was no “relationship” – it was friendship only.

    If the child is not allowed to talk freely but is induced to repeat some statements, after two or three interviews you are guaranteed to receive an extremely rehearsed package of replies, where the child no longer talks in his own language but repeats ready-made formulas he heard from various interviewers.

    Jordan’s interview may be real, but it is very strange.

    First, Jordan is absolutely unemotional which is totally unnatural for an “abused” victim. This coincides very well with that Pellicano said about talking to him (according to Maureen Orth). He was not attentive, wanted to play a video game, even laughed, and behaved very nonchalantly.

    Quote from Maureen Orth’s “Nightmare in Neverland”:

    According to Pellicano, Jamie told him a lot in 45 minutes. “He’s a very bright, articulate, intelligent, manipulative boy.” Pellicano, who has fathered nine children by two wives, says he asked Jamie many sexually specific questions.

    “And I’m looking dead into his eyes. And I’m watching in his eyes for any sign of fear or anticipation—anything. And I see none,” Pellicano says. “And I keep asking him, ‘Did Michael ever touch you?’ ‘No.’ ‘Did you ever see Michael nude?’ ‘No.’

    He laughed about it. He giggled a lot, like it was a funny thing. Michael would never be nude… . ‘Did you and Michael ever masturbate?’ ‘No.’ ‘Did Michael ever masturbate in front of you?’ ‘No.’ ‘Did you guys ever talk about masturbation?’ ‘No.’

    “‘So you never saw Michael’s body?’ ‘One time, he lifted up his shirt and he showed me those blotches.'”

    Then Pellicano asked Jackson to come downstairs. “And I sit Michael next to him and go through exactly the same thing,” he says. Pellicano claims they both maintained that nothing happened, and Jamie began to disparage his father.

    “He’s talking to me about his father never wanting to let him be a boy and never wanting to let him do the things he wants to do. ‘He wants me to stay in the house and write these screenplays.’

    …And he said to me several times during this conversation, ‘He just wants money.’ I said, ‘What are you talking about?'”

    Then, Pellicano claims, Jamie told him the story, confirmed by Michael, that when Michael was over at his father’s house his father told Michael he really didn’t have the room for him to stay there. “Why don’t you build me an addition?” Then he went and checked with the zoning board, and he couldn’t put the addition on, “so he asked Michael just to build him a whole new house.”

    Larry Feldman, Jamie’s attorney, calls this story “ludicrous and factually incorrect. I checked with the zoning board, and there are no such restrictions.” Pellicano says he also learned that the dentist wanted to close down his practice and get involved in screenplays with Michael.”

    Another thing which struck me is that Jordan sounded somewhat bossy or domineering towards Dr. Gardner (“I’ll come to that later” – as if telling him that he knows when to say what). He was probably wary as he knew that Dr. Gardner was an expert on false abuse and was testing him for lies.

    But this would be a totally unnatural attitude if a person is telling the truth, as assuming a defensive position happens only when someone is attacking you or openly doubts your statements (“Really? He did that to you?”). But Dr. Gardner showed nothing of the kind. And again being on the defensive is not the same as being bossy.

    Another strange thing is that Jordan repeats some long statements easily, as a parrot, but when it comes to remembering the time when the events took place he cannot remember the simplest thing – whether it was August or June. He recalls it only when he remembers about the book he was to read for school in summer.

    This can happen only if no one really asked him about it before, while all those “other things” were chewed up a hundred times. He just got carried away with his fantasies without bothering to place them in time and when a simple question returned him to reality he suddenly found it difficult.

    This by the way makes me think that the interview is real, because Jordan’s inability to put the events into any time frame points to his fantasizing and is not to his advantage. If they had made it up they couldn’t have invented this episode.

    Another possibility is that they took a real interview and tampered with it.

    P.S. Here is the view of social scientists’ on the same. It concerns young children, but is generally typical even for adults:

    “In the case of child witnesses, it is crucial to document the details by which their reports were obtained. For example, we must know whether and how often the interviewer asked the child leading questions.

    We also must know the verbatim statements and questions of the interviewer as well as the verbatim responses of the children. Because this verbatim information fades most rapidly from memory (within a matter of minutes), it is crucial that it be electronically recorded. Without this information, one cannot begin to evaluate the reliability of the children’s allegations.

    It is also the case, that the gist of previous interviews may be inaccurately summarized in later reports due to certain biases or misperceptions of the interviewer. If the investigator has a bias that the child was sexually abused, then this can color his interpretations of what the child said or did; and it is this interpretation that appears in the summary rather than a factual account of what transpired.

    Finally, although there are some examples of taped interviews (e.g., 3C) in which there seem to be few leading questions and in which the child gives coherent reports of abuse, this is not the first interview and it is impossible to evaluate the reliability of these statements without knowing about the details of the first interview.

    If in the first interview, this child had been subjected to the same techniques that occur in the taped interviews, then the reliability of this child’s statements would be highly suspect.

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcmartin/suggestibility.html

    And one more piece about the way children of 9-13 year old age group generally feel and behave when interviewed about sexual abuse. Do you see ANYTHING of this kind in Jordan’s interview?

    5. Puberty (9-13 year olds): Preadolescents are usually more at ease with an interviewer of the same sex. They not only feel uncomfortable about the sexual molestation, but are feeling awkward and self conscious about their bodies and discussions regarding sexual issues.

    Their hormones are blossoming and with that are seen moodiness, unprovoked tearful outbursts, and easy frustration. Because the need to “fit in” is so strong, being molested and therefore different from their peers may increase their reluctance to disclose.

    Now their friends may be a new source of emotional support and intimacy while the pre-adolescent may cause increased family tension and withdrawal. They may begin to challenge social acceptability by experimenting with shoplifting, substance abuse, or peer sexual contact.

    Preteens understand that the sexual behavior is wrong, but are even more likely than the younger children to feel that they are responsible for the abuse.

    Guilt and shame can be overwhelming, with frequent denial and recantation. They experience similar behavioral changes and physical symptoms as the latency age children.

    A more formal approach to the interview frequently minimizes the pre-adolescents discomfort with the discussion. Keep your questions brief and clinically oriented, yet let them know that their feelings and opinions are also important to the investigation. Reassure them that they are not at fault for what has happened.

    http://www.nccpeds.com/powerpoints/interview.html

    Like

  57. January 13, 2012 11:23 pm

    Gardner was indeed considered an expert at the time he put forward his PAS Syndrome – still not accepted by many texts and med/psych bodies as a viable theory. But it was only in later years that he was actively reviled by many in his field and ‘outed’ by the (mostly) largely female victims of his grossly distorted diagnoses.

    Like

  58. Suzy permalink
    January 13, 2012 11:21 pm

    @ Tatum

    Don’t you mistake Gardner for Stanley Katz?

    Like

  59. Tatum Marie permalink
    January 13, 2012 11:14 pm

    Some forget that Gardener was not an expert and was only used by Feldman as his partner in crime. It’s obvious that he interviewed Jordan with a preconceived agenda of what to get on tape.

    Like

  60. Suzy permalink
    January 13, 2012 11:06 pm

    @ Lynette

    Thanks. I thought it was leaked earlier. Of course, this makes it all to convenient for Ray Chandler (who was behind the leak, I’m sure) to claim anything he wanted about it. But he could have felt more safe to leak it after Gardner’s death because if it was real then, I believe, it was illegal for Ray Chandler to leak it. But without Gardner complaining about it – or without Gardner having a chance to comment the leak (and perhaps disclose his conclusion) – he could have felt more safe.

    The bottom line is: in any way the interview is a fail. If it’s fake then because of that – and it makes you wonder why did the Chandlers felt the need to fake or manipulate it. Probably because the real interview didn’t go as they hoped for. Or if it’s real then it’s the textbook case of PAS and false allegations…

    Like

  61. January 13, 2012 10:39 pm

    And the dead cannot contradict.

    Thank you Lynande51.

    Like

  62. lynande51 permalink
    January 13, 2012 10:32 pm

    Actually the interview was not leaked in February of 2003. That was Jordan’s Statement. The interview was posted for the first time on January 10th 2005 just a few weeks before jury selection. Just think about that date for a minute because they posted it one day before Jordan’s birthday, how thoughtful. The only place it was available until then was as a supplemental purchase with Ray Chandler’s book. I take it not enough people bought it. When he released the book Dr. Gardner was dead.The links are to Ray Chandler’s original book website and the “documents” that he says he has. They were basically the same thing as what is in VG’s book which is why I bought it. At one time he offered the same “drawing” that VG did with most of the writing in the header and sidelines left out.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20041014203717/http://atgbook.net/media.php
    http://web.archive.org/web/20050113024305/http://courttv.com/news/jackson/docs/psychiatric.html?page=30

    Like

  63. January 13, 2012 10:27 pm

    @Suzy

    You raise good points. As Gardner was then considered the leading expert if not the father of PAS, clearly this is why he was used by Feldman and Evan.

    Now either Gardner was a spectacularly bad interviewer, which is of course possible, or this transcript has been amended. Because on several counts the language and content is not only academically substandard from the interviewer’s POV, but the leaps from question to question are grossly inconsistent with what I have been told are standard psych techniques.

    That doesn’t even begin to cover the almost laughable approximation of a 13 year old boy’s language and, more importantly, the nuance in the text. The transcript was intended to inspire doubt in Jackson and this did it — very effectively.

    Like

  64. Suzy permalink
    January 13, 2012 10:13 pm

    @ Deborah

    When the interview was leaked Dr. Gardner did not yet take his life. It was leaked in February, 2003 and he died in May.

    I’m not an expert so I cannot tell how real it is but I lean to it being real. One of my reasons is the same as TatumMarie’s and another is that Ray Chandler actually played some audio of it in Bashir’s second documentary. They have the audio and they transcribed it. Of course it’s still possible that it wasn’t Dr. Gardner whom Jordan talked to but someone pretending to be Dr. Gardner or that although they have some audio but the transcript they put on the net is manipulated. All that is possible. But I lean to it being real.

    A couple of weeks ago I read an article about false sexual abuse allegations. It was on a blog in my country so I cannot provide it in English, but they quote an expert psychologist, who said the following:

    “It’s characteristic (when the allegations are false) that the child uses a so called borrowed vocabulary: expressions, phrases, sentences which the alienating parent does and which aren’t characteristic of the children’s vocabulary.”

    Jordan does exactly that in the interview! He calls these parents “alienating” because the false sexual allegations are often in connection with the so called Parental Alientation Syndrome ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_alienation_syndrome ) which was one of Gardner’s main areas of expertise, so much that he coined the expression. The typical case is when during a bad divorce one parent (typically the mother) uses the child to make false sexual abuse allegations against the other parent. So this is how PAS connects to false sex abuse allegations. The two very often go together. In the interview Jordan shows just about every symptom of PAS! Only in this case the alienating parent is the father and the allegations are directed at a friend (or ex-friend) of the mother.

    If the interview is real I find it pretty likely that Dr. Gardner thought it were false allegations because everything he said their is very typical for PAS! No wonder they never published the conclusion.

    @ Lynette

    “That interview also says something else that is important and believe me those are not the words of Dr. Richard Gardner when he says that sleeping with someone is sexual or at least he considers it to be sexual.”

    There he could be testing how impressionable Jordan is and how easy it is to lead him.

    Like

  65. lynande51 permalink
    January 13, 2012 9:20 pm

    I think that the problem that people have with the Sodium Amytal versus learned lines is that they can both happen. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. I could very well be that he had to reinforce what he told Jordan by telling Jordan what he said while he was under the Sodium Amytal. Jordan would have had no memory of what he said while he was under so he was at Evan’s mercy as far as that went. However once the Holly Ramona case was won by her father and that hit the news, it rendered Jordan’s testimony useless and that happened in May of 1993. Dr Mark Tobiner did confirm that he gave it to Jordan he just said that he used it for Dental purposes. He was on the witness list in 2005 but that was in the event that Evan or Jordan would have testified.To top this off there was no Dr. Gardner anymore to refute this tape when it was released.
    Imagine for a second that you’re a 13 year old kid. You already know that your dad has a bad temper. Suppose that you wake up after you have had this done and your dad tells you this is what you said and what I just gave you is a truth serum. What would you do? If you questioned him he would just say “look this is what you said to me and I gave you truth serum” so I know your lying when you say nothing happened.
    That sounds more like the Evan Chandler story to me. The thing is that before Jordan figured out the truth this thing had gotten way out of hand in the press. That interview also says something else that is important and believe me those are not the words of Dr. Richard Gardner when he says that sleeping with someone is sexual or at least he considers it to be sexual. No Doctor in any field would consider that to be the case but that is the remark and the reason that won the negligence case. If you read what negligence is all it has to be is that someone acting in a manner different than others leads to the psychological injuries that Jordan was reported to have had. So essentially Michael was guilty of negligence accordin gto them, because he was in the same bed as Jordan whether or not anything happened. That is how you know that even the words of the Psychiatrist are staged.
    Then take into account the other boys names that are in there. We know that Peter was Mac, Tommy was Brett and Billy was Wade and he even goes on to name Sam who we know is Jimmy Safechuck. All of those names did not come from Michael they came from Victor Gutierrez. Evan would never have had that knowledge and we know that Michael never sais that about those boys. The thing is there is another name there the name Ian who do you think that was? I bet it was Jonathan Spence.They never mention Frank Cascio and there is a reason for that too, he was there and they knew he could refute everything that Jordan said. They got out of school that summer and went straight to Neverland. He says in his book that when he was there and yes he knows Jordan, Jordan did not sleep in Michael’s bed.

    Like

  66. January 13, 2012 9:10 pm

    Excellent David. Thank you as ever. Personally, I am absolutely certain it’s false. I have shown it to child psychologists in the course of my research and they echo thetis7’s more than relevant feedback. The transcript is demonstrably false.

    The reason Ray Chandler felt safe (possibly co-creating) and definitely endorsing it was because Gardner had already taken his own life and there was no-one to contest it. So yes, on the face of it, it may contain ‘impressions’ of what sounds like a genuine psych interview, but unpick it and it falls apart. Easily.

    But of course, people are free to believe as they will.

    Like

  67. sanemjfan permalink
    January 13, 2012 8:48 pm

    In case you guys didn’t see it, last week I added the transcript of Bill O’Reilly and Gloria Allred’s Feb. 2003 interview to this post, where even O’Reilly expressed doubts about the authenticity of Jordan’s accusations!

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/how-to-recognize-and-refute-the-fallacies-used-by-michael-jackson-haters-part-3-of-5/

    Like

  68. January 13, 2012 8:28 pm

    The explanations being used to assume this transcript is completely false are the main reasons why I believe it’s real. It clearly shows that this kid was rehearsed and coached by adults. It also touches on the false sodium amytal theory.

    Like

  69. January 13, 2012 5:45 pm

    That is precisely the point.

    The transcript is overwhelmingly false and the only reason why it was believed — was because of the predisposition and desire to believe it.

    Like

  70. Tatum Marie permalink
    January 13, 2012 5:22 pm

    I think this transcript is real Jordan clearly sounds like he’s lying and rehearsed. He is using the exact same terminology as Evan.

    Like

  71. January 13, 2012 5:22 pm

    It did the job it was intended to.

    Like

  72. January 13, 2012 5:16 pm

    Fake or composed somehow from bits and pieces Jordan may have told Evan.The only thing against fake is that a faker with some finesse would have made a better fake.

    Like

  73. January 13, 2012 5:06 pm

    The so-called ‘transcript’ was created.

    Like

  74. January 13, 2012 4:54 pm

    I agree with you all.He spoke about Michael in the third person, not “we did..” ..very often “he liked..He had..” He contradicted himself in re to the telephone conversations, time and length of. He himself appeared composed and distanced himself from the events he descbribed. I don´t know about the piece on the net, have read it a few times. How on earth would that have leaked out? Not from Dr. Gardener,and it was not favorable to the Evan camp either.

    Like

  75. Suzy permalink
    January 13, 2012 4:15 pm

    I don’t know if the Gardner interview is genuine or not. But if it is, I think this is a good analysis of it:

    http://mjjjusticeproject.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/psych-interview-with-jordan-chandler/

    The highlights are:

    – His use of the exact same phrases and reasonings that his father used in the Schwartz-Chandler convo! From what I read this is exactly one of the clues that psychiatrists look for when they evaluate whether a child tells the truth about sexual molestation or he is trained! Whether the child uses phrases uncharacteristic of his age, whether what he says sounds too adult, too rehearsed etc. Jordan definitely failed this test in the interview. We are even in a lucky situation because we have the Schwartz-Chandler convo, from which we know about Evan’s use of words, phrases, reasonings, opinions, thought processes. Jordan mirrors that sometimes almost verbatim in the Gardner interview!

    – Jordan’s total emotional detachment from the alleged abuse. Dr. Gardner even has to press him on why does he think what allegedly happened is wrong. He can’t tell! He says things like “otherwise it wouldn’t be a crime”, or that it’s wrong because “according to his pattern” Michael would have left him. What “pattern” does he talk about? No one has ever accused Michael of this before. To talk about patterns of criminals is something that you expect from criminalists or pychologists, not kids. Unless the kid was trained. So according to Jordan the only thing wrong in this is that Michael would have left him? Victor Gutierrez would certainly be proud of how successfully he seeded his ideas about what child molestation is in this family…

    At another place when again asked what’s wrong with what allegedly happened, Jordan says this:

    “Because he’s a grown-up and he’s using his experience, of his age in manipulating and coercing younger people who don’t have as much experience as him, and don’t have the ability to say no to someone powerful like that. He’s using his power, his experience, his age – his overwhelmingness – to get what he wants.”

    This is exactly what Evan said in the taped phone convo! Another time Jordan repeats it again.
    He is totally rehearsed!

    And of course the best part is that he doesn’t even know what kind of fear Dr. Gardner refers to when he asks this: “Sometimes people, after experiences of this kind, develop different kinds of fears. You have no fears?”

    Jordan’s answer says it all: “Maybe of cross-examination but that’s all. I mean I have nothing to hide, it’s just the thought of it.”

    He’s only afraid of cross-examination…

    Like

  76. January 13, 2012 4:15 pm

    Exactly. And you, thetis7, know this better than anyone.

    Like

  77. January 13, 2012 2:15 pm

    The interview seems totally fake. Not only it doesn’t sound like a 13-year old but the way it’s written is not professional at all

    Like

  78. January 13, 2012 2:09 pm

    The transcript is fraudulent. Whether merely parts of it were tampered with, or in fact the whole transcript was invented — these are clearly not the spoken words of a 13 year old. This should be obvious to all those on sites like MJ facts etc etc that promote it as bona fide.

    The reason they believe it is genuine is because their bias and/or idiocy has overriden their recognition of what is glaringly incongruous. I include Ray Chandler in that analysis with the addition of greed as his motivation for endorsing this transcript.

    Its falsehood is self-evident.

    Like

  79. January 13, 2012 10:28 am

    @lynande51
    It doesnt sound like a normal 13 year old boy terminology. In some small parts of this transcript the “psychiatrist” is filling in blanks and helping Jordon get his story together.

    Like

  80. lynande51 permalink
    January 13, 2012 8:53 am

    Has everyone here read that Psychiatric Interview with Richard Gardner that I linked? When you do I want to ask you something. Do you think that a 13 year old boy talked like that? I think that everyone forgets when they read something that the written word is different than conversation. Conversation is more casual and that is what that interview was. No when you go through there and see sentence structure and phrases like ” and once again he started crying” are those the words of a 13 year old boy? I think someone would have to be blind to think that a 13 year old would talk like that even if he was a National Spelling Bee Champion.
    Then there is the fact that a Dr. would never have released that tape to that family. It would have stayed in his possesion because it is part of the medical record. Not even the authorities would have gotten it. They say that they sent him there themselves for a report on whether or not he was telling the truth.He would have sent a report of his findings not the tape and remember they tried to pedal this thing off as Jordans interview on the Second Bashir Documentary so there is a tape. Well, I say that interview is the biggest farce there ever was. If he went Gardener he would have thrown him out of the room in a matter of minutes with that vocabulary. I don’t care how smart a kid is, in conversation they do not talk like that.One thing that I have to make clear too, is that a transcript medical or legal must be true to the spoken word. You don’t get to upgrade it to make someone sound better.
    Here is another example that I would like you to read;

    “I don’t know. I think when he convinced me to take a bath with him or something. See, my mom and Kelly were gone, they were having fun and we were stuck in with colds. And my mom, I remember, she offered to stay in and help us and take care of us, and Michael insisted that our colds shouldn’t detract from them having fun. So we were alone and we took a bath together. That was the first time we ever saw each other naked.

    Is that a 13 year old relating a story in conversation or is that someone reading from something that was written?When was the last time you heard a kid say detract or insisted? The thing is this thing that was presented as his interview was audio only. How does anyone actually know if this is what he said and that he said it to Dr.Richard Gardner?

    Like

  81. lynande51 permalink
    January 13, 2012 5:47 am

    Okay this is a really good link to the Psychiatric interview with Jordan. This is the way it appeared on Court TV in January 2005 just days before Jury selection.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20050113024305/http://courttv.com/news/jackson/docs/psychiatric.html?page=30

    Then I have nanaged to save several pages that were put out in conjunction with Chandler’s book if anyone would like to see them for comparison to others that you have found.

    Like

  82. shelly permalink
    January 13, 2012 4:46 am

    Do you an example of the contradictory statements?

    Like

  83. January 13, 2012 2:22 am

    There has been some questions re Jordies interview with Dr.Richard Gardener in NYC. Supposedly the referral was made by Larry Feldman. No reason for referral has been stated. There have been some indications that Jordan was in therapy with Dr. Abrham Mathis, a child psychiatrist.
    The interview as presented on the net is truncated, the info that a formal interview requires are missing, i.e. identification..,reason for referral,background information given by…etc. Also at the end of interview there is no summary, conclusion or psychodynamic formulation, possibly a diagnosis (Not necessary if if there is a synopsis as mentioned above). In court referred cases you also give recommendations which the judge will follow or modify. He was supposed to also interview both parents, separately/and together. There is no mention of that. Who took Jordan to NYC? Did they all go together? What hotel did they stay at and how many rooms?
    There has been some critique of the interview itself on the blog, I can`t locate it but recall that I was in agreement. Some statements Jordan makes echo the ones his good uncle Ray made in his book.This good uncle has stated that he”was there from the beginning”. Some statements were of such intimate nature that they were left out on the net.
    Dr. Gardener uses a very special technique to discover discrepancies, and he is successful in doing so. This points to Jordan having a rehearsed agenda that he can´t keep together when questions do not come in the order that would fit his story. Also jordan needs time ¨to think about his answers; often he states “I´ll think..I´ll get to that later..you can ask my mother. And gives contradictory statements when interviewer changes the time of asking. A thruth does not change or need much thinking before an answer.
    The interview was then assessed by no other than Dr. Stanley Katz. They discarded it for obvious reasons.

    Like

  84. jojo permalink
    August 25, 2011 5:08 pm

    stupid mjj haters
    mainly americans
    michael is more respected worldwide
    than in his racist home country
    this is why america is no longer a first world order country but a second one

    Like

  85. shelly permalink
    August 7, 2011 1:28 pm

    Does anyone can read the receipt for property in the Gutierrez book?

    Like

  86. August 5, 2011 12:09 am

    An incredulous man.

    Yet he was believed.

    Like

  87. lola permalink
    July 15, 2011 2:45 am

    lol this guy was on chilean television saying mj had an affair with ricky martin

    Like

  88. July 13, 2011 6:34 pm

    This picture should not be confused with suicide note. A suicide note usually expresses reason for such an act and some kind of farewell to persons significant. These people mostly actually do commit suicide.
    Now much more common than suicide is suicidal ideation.Of course a person actually committing suicide experiences this, often for a prolonged time before the act. Suicidal ideation perse is much more common and even very young children can experience that, and if some one listens will express it. Still suicide of children is relatively rare. Many ordinary people have had transient suicidal ideation while not seriously contemplating suicide.
    I can of course not be sure of the authenticity of Jordan’s drawing.
    It depicts emotional turmoil and suicidal ideation,under conditions like this drawing style can regress.

    Like

  89. lynande51 permalink
    July 12, 2011 7:14 pm

    I have doubts that the picture published int the book was even drawn by Jordan. Jordan was13 years old at the time of the so called ” suicide Drawing”. Just the picture tells us that who ever drew it was either much younger or an adult trying to make it appear as if it was draw by a child, a child much younger than the one that was supposed to have drawn it.
    If you look at the drawing it appears that the person that drew it did not have the control over the pencil that a 13 almost 14 year old would have ( it’s called fine motor control).
    That is why I don’t believe that it was drawn by Jordan. I think it was drawn by Evan and published just for dramatic effect. His arrogance and greed blinded him to all the minute details that could point to his extortion. He didn’t pay attention to the important details that he knew nothing about like child developement or anything at all about the Man that was Michael Jackson. That drawing is meant to depict a much younger and/or more vulnerable child to garner sympathy in the eyes of the public. The Arvizo story and endless repetition of Gavins cancer did the same thing.

    Like

  90. July 12, 2011 1:52 pm

    “I am astounded that the suicide picture never was mentioned in the contacts Jordan had with the psychologists.”

    Yes, it will still have to be seriously analyzed. From all earlier accounts we know that Jordan was exceptionally calm and confident – it was his father who was a nervous wreck. Remember how Geraldine Hughs described the father and son when they were in Rothman’s office – father extremely agitated and nervous and son calming him down?

    Or Pellicano who said Jordan wanted to play video games while he was trying to talk to him about the alleged molestation? Jordan was absolutely disinterested, said his father wanted money and he himself wanted only to resume playing video games.

    Or his conversation with Dr. Gardner, the psychiatrist, where he was calmly dividing everything into “phases” and sounded cool, indifferent and even bossy? “Let me see”, “no, that was in phase 2”, “I’m just trying to be accurate”, etc. It was in that conversation that he said he didn’t have any fears (which usual victims suffer from their whole life) – no, the only thing he said he was afraid of was a cross-examination.

    He probably drew that picture later when all of them drove him to an extreme by all their crazy stories and when he realized he would have to voice their lies in public – be it a criminal or a civil trial. It is one thing when everything is done behind your back – and it is another thing when you have to bear personal responsibility and present someone else’s lies as your own. Jordan didn’t want the trial – either civil or criminal – as he didn’t want to testify at all. He didn’t even want to make a deposition which he never made (because it involves questions from the other side too).

    That suicide note could be a way to say to his father, Larry Feldman, the police, the D.A. and everybody else – this is what will happen if you drive me too hard and take the case to a trial (even a civil one). No wonder the Chandlers were afraid of any trial like the plague – and that agreement came as a total blessing to them. They even cut the initial $30mln. demand to $15,3 mln. in order to make Michael’s side more agreeable.

    I am sure that if Michael’s second team of lawyers hadn’t agreed to negotiate there wouldn’t have been any civil trial at all. It was a bluff.

    Like

  91. Alison permalink
    July 12, 2011 12:20 pm

    Yes, i don’t know, i am not an expert, but would a picture suicide note depict other people around at the time of the act, esp someone shouting ‘no’? i suspect not, surely if someone really drew such a thing it would show a lonely act, and be much more full of emotions of depression and anger against self, not showing some sort of comic book story.
    IF this was drawn by Jordan and IF it was drawn at that time about what was going on, its surely more about his general frustration, guilt and inability to stop the situation.

    However it might just be about something else entirely – as you say Kaarin it needs to be explained by the one who drew it – perhaps its the storyline for another screenplay he was writing.

    and i agree with you question about why was it not shown to the psychiatrist – if a father finds what he believes to be his son’s suicide note i am sure most fathers would keep it to themselves until its time to publish it in a book rather than hotfoot boy and picture round to the doctor!

    Like

  92. July 12, 2011 2:32 am

    I am astounded that the suicide picture never was mentioned in the contacts Jordan had with the psychologists.Maybe the father kept it and it was never shown to them.This has puzzled me all along.A spontaneus drawing by a child or young adolescent is invaluable in determining the state of mind.The child should be encouraged to make up a neutral story to the picture, ie names not relating to self or any known participant. Now the father snatched the picture and wrote what HE thought it meant. Note that the person standing behind shouts “NO”.
    The fathers writing in a way destroyed the original meaning of the picture .There was also 2 spectators on the top floor window and the other below.I absolutely believe it did not express the discomfort Jordan supposedly felt over any molestation.Children will draw dramatic pictures and they need to be interpreted properly.My guess is the father just kept it.

    Like

  93. July 11, 2011 9:17 pm

    “I am just struggling with my life and day to day stuff at the moment so feel bad i cannot do more just now.”

    Alison, you don’t have to explain anything either – all of us are doing our small bit for Michael, but the overall effort looks to me – shall I say impressive? And very much unexpected? So many people from various places selflessly working together… I can’t believe that it is happening.

    Like

  94. Alison permalink
    July 11, 2011 8:50 pm

    Helena – “Alison, I am sorry that my posts are so long”
    No, no no, PLEASE don’t apologise, that wasn’t what i was thinking AT ALL. Your posts are wonderful with amazing information. i just am not good at retaining everything in one go and so i just deal with a bit at a time and read a bit more, thats all i was saying. DON’T CHANGE anything or think anything. I appreciate everything you do and write and I admire that you can manage to do so much, I am just struggling with my life and day to day stuff at the moment so feel bad i cannot do more just now.

    Like

  95. July 11, 2011 8:07 pm

    “There is so much in here its taken me quite a long time to read and I’ve not absorbed it all yet”

    Alison, I am sorry that my posts are so long. I am trying to make them as short as possible but the need to quote some texts still makes them impossibly long. Quoting the articles almost in full here is also a precaution – this way they will stay here even if they disappear in the original source. And in case of Victor Gutierrez it is of course his own text which matters. It is absolutely not enough to say what we think about him – readers must feel themselves what kind of a personality is standing behind this sick narration.

    “As regards Jordan’s picture – who says thats a suicide note? did he confirm that? I don’t see Jordan as a suicidal type, seems far more likely this was a reflection of his guilty conscience you mention”.

    Oh, this is an excellent observation. I don’t see Jordan as a suicidal type either and was deceived by Gutierrez like everyone else. Of course it is just proof of his pangs of conscience, but not real intentions. It was a way to show to his father to what extreme he had driven him to and the only idea he probably wanted to convey to him this way was “Leave me alone!”

    Like

  96. Alison permalink
    July 11, 2011 3:30 pm

    Wow! This is a brilliant post and comments. There is so much in here its taken me quite a long time to read and I’ve not absorbed it all yet. Same with the Daphne Barak post, got a lot to catch up on.

    just a few initial comments / question:

    Not sure who Robin Roberts is or what that is but will look on YouTube. But those children are LIVING proof that cannot be ignored by the media and public that Michael was nothing like the “freak” they portrayed for years. If he had been they would be nothing like they are – well balanced, good mannered and confident – they would be a mess and certainly not confident. Seeing them like this has been a major shock to the media and has forced some to re-evaluate their beliefs, even though others feel forced to stand by previous views. I am looking forward to the day thats coming when they will be a force to be reckoned with i am sure. Many people better watch out!

    Anyway, as regards Jordan’s picture – who says thats a suicide note? did he confirm that? what i see is 3 figures, one falling off the roof, one standing at the edge and one calling out – why is this not a picture of someone pushing someone – eg Michael Jackson – off the roof and someone – eg Jordie – calling out not to do it.? or it could be Jordan being pushed off the roof. I don’t see Jordan as a suicidal type, seems far more likely this was a reflection of his guilty conscience you mention.

    Just another thing, someone said, either Lynande 51 or Suzy I think, about the divisions in the fan community. its horrible isn’t it. This is off topic but i am bothered about this. i was on ebay earlier – i just decided to move this and paste it onto ‘Time to Celebrate’ so as not to clutter this thread, please look at it there.

    Like

  97. July 7, 2011 3:30 am

    Great post.

    Like

  98. anniedomino permalink
    June 30, 2011 3:27 pm

    I did not know that Geraldine Hughes had a new book coming out! I look forward to it. I also look forward to Joe Vogel’s and I would love to read Dr. Willa Stillwater’s book as well. I am keen to read Frank Cascio’s – he was close to Michael and quite loyal. I am even looking forward to Jermaine’s – he has been behaving quite well lately and maybe there will be some nuggets of truth in between the no-doubt self serving drivel.
    I was actually going to buy LaToya’s book. I bought the first one back when it was released and it was surprisingly good and illuminating if not truthful.My feeling was that she was his sister, in between the lies there MUST be some interesting info. Since its release I have learnt that she never spoke to Michael between 1992 and 2002. They had some contact between 2002 and 2005, and just a few chance/ family meetings between 2005 and 2009. I thought that they were close when he went back to the US because of that pic of them shopping together – where the babies are wearing the Spiderman masks. Apparently they just bumped into each other shopping in Beverley Hills. She has no first hand info. The only value in reading this book is that it allows one a window on LaToya’s OWN psyche and attitudes as well as the behind the scenes scheming of the family. Still don’t know if I want to support her money making schemes. It just encourages them.

    Like

  99. lcpledwards permalink
    June 30, 2011 8:37 am

    @ Gigi
    No, I haven’t read Latoya’s book, but I’ve heard enough about it to know that I no longer have any interest in reading it! Muzikfactorytwo really hit the nail on the head with her review.

    Besides, I can’t afford to waste any time on Latoya’s book when I have other, more important MJ books to finish, such as Geraldine Hughes’ “MichaelGate” (once it’s released; I’ve already pre-ordered it).

    Like

  100. June 30, 2011 12:19 am

    “I think it’s a shame the prosecution didn’t introduce VG’s book as “evidence” – I’d have loved to see what Mesereau had done with it and with VG!”

    Suzy, you surely remember – the post about the “dirty laundry” in Neverland covers the motion of the Defense to exclude some 14 items which were irrelevant to the case – for example, the “baby dangling” episode, Michael’s plastic surgery, lyrics of his songs or the Jacksons’ family bankruptcy. It was this very list which included Ray Chandler’s and Victor Gutierrez’s books. But what is phenomenal about those two items is that the Prosecution never insisted on those two ‘invaluable’ sources of information – they just let it go with no fight on their part!

    The Defense’s list included all kind of tabloid trash they wanted to have excluded. Their arguments:

    1. The so-called “baby dangling” incident has absolutely no relevance to any of the charged crimes.
    2. Whether or not Mr. Jackson had such surgery is completely irrelevant to any of the charges crimes in this case. Indeed, this evidence has absolutely no probative value.
    3. The lyrics have no bearing whatsoever on this case.
    4. Within the last ten years, some of Mr. Jackson’s family members have filed for bankruptcy. Said bankruptcy, however, has not relevance to any of the alleged crimes in this case.
    5. Al Malnik is an attorney with whom Mr. Jackson had brief contact. Mr. Malnik is not on the Prosecution’s or the Defense’s witness list. The media have spread rumors that Mr. Malnik has ties to “mobsters”… It is anticipated that the Prosecution may mention these rumors for the purpose of inflaming the jurors.
    6. The Prosecution’s discovery mentions “rumors” that Mr. Wiesner “ran brothels out of Germany”. The media, too, have picked up on and circulated such “rumors”. These rumors (whether true or not) have absolutely no tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact of consequence to the determination of the outcome of this case. Rather, they constitute nothing more than a highly inflammatory and extraneous factor, which Prosecution may attempt to use to influence the jurors to “prejudge” Mr. Jackson.
    7. Attorney Mark Geragos was Mr. Jackson’s attorney in the instant criminal case. Mr. Geragos is on the Prosecution”s and Defense’s witness list. The Prosecution has alleged in previously filed pleadings before this Court that Mr. Geragos may be a co-conspirator in this case. ….In an effort to inflame the jurors, the Prosecution may attempt to mention the highly publicized Scott Peterson case, which Mr. Geragos handled.
    8. Mr. Geragos’s website, too, has absolutely no relevance to this case. (did the prosecutors seriously think that a lawyer would lay out his conspiracy plans in a website?)
    9. Raymond Chandler is the uncle of Jordie Chandler, one of the alleged “prior acts victims” from 1993. Mr. Raymond Chandler, who is on the Prosecution’s witness list recently, i.e. just months ago, published a book entitled “All that Glitters”.
    The timing of the publication of this book substantiates what the book is worth. Mr. Chandler’s book is, at best, a tabloid tool designed to fuel controversy and generate financial gains for Mr. Chandler
    (so if the Prosecution wanted him testify, even they never succeeded to make him do it! Another proof that Ray Chandler preferred to tell his lies only in a fiction book and not in court)
    10. In approximately April 1998, a jury awarded Mr.Jackson $2,7 million in a slander suit against Victor Gutierrez. Mr. Gutierrez is believed to have fled to Chile after the verdict was reached against him. He is the author of a book called “Michael Jackson was my lover”. Mr. Gutierrez is not a witness for the Prosecution or the Defense in this case. However, the Prosecution may attempt to mention his book at trial, purely for the purpose of poisoning the jurors’ views. The book is wholly irrelevant
    (so while Ray Chandler was regarded by the Prosecution as a possible witness, even they were too embarrassed to summon Victor Gutierrez in that capacity! Victor Gutiererz was never a witness though he bragged he would!)
    ….

    Tom Sneddon never fought for those two books and replied with the following:
    “Plaintiff’s .. .respectfully-tendered Response (Exh.A) eliminates all but Items 11, 13 and 14 as evidentiary matter the People presently intend to present as part of their case in chief.”

    So this is how high Tom Sneddon valued those two sources? So high that he preferred to keep items like “Attorney General’s Investigation of Mr. Jackson’s injury” (injury received by MJ while at the police dept, item 11) or a pair of underpants left over by some guest at the ranch (item 13) instead?

    Those two books as “invaluable” sources were shrugged off by the prosecution in the same way they shrugged off the lyrics of some Michael’s songs!

    Full post about it here: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/dirty-laundry-and-cocaine-in-michaels-home-it-was-a-set-up/

    Like

  101. Suzy permalink
    June 29, 2011 11:38 pm

    Helena, I think it’s a shame the prosecution didn’t introduce VG’s book as “evidence” – I’d have loved to see what Mesereau had done with it and with VG! But of course, the prosecution knew very well why they didn’t introduce it, even though most of their stories came right out of that book and from people who had a connection with VG! Yet they didn’t want to introduce the book. Hm….

    I remember an article in that the journalist wrote (I don’t remember who it was) something along the lines: the real story of this trial would be all the connections between the prosecution witnesses and that it would be a far more interesting story than anything that we saw in court. Indeed. This journalist was definitely onto something.

    Like

  102. June 29, 2011 11:03 pm

    “These are not slips of the tongue. These are clues those are left there totally intentionally for those to understand who understand it”

    Suzy, I agree. Gutierrez is too cunning to make a slip of the tongue like that. I think he tremendously enjoyed the fact that he could talk about and even advocate ped-lia so openly and no one was paying attention to the true intent of his book – and its intent was not only to smear MJ but erode the barrier of resistance to the very idea of ped-lia (without people really noticing it).

    Remember the highly emotional Gutierrez’s monologue put into the mouth of Jordan Chandler? Something like “why don’t people understand that this is true love and that there is nothing bad about it?” It is actually a NAMBLA manifesto, only conveyed to the readers via an alleged “abused” minor! In fact Gutierrez goes as far as saying that the boy “initiated sex” himself! Gutierrez: “Jordie told the doctor [ ] that on many occasions, he initiated the sex himself.”

    “You mentioned Peretti’s film. After we heard about Peretti’s background and earlier works (“documentaries” like “The perfect penis” or “World’s biggest penis”), I think he probably knew who VG really was”.

    I’ll tell you more – I think ALL of them know who Gutierrez is. Otherwise I cannot explain the aura of secrecy about this man. Considering that Gutierrez was at the very root of Michael’s harassment campaign and was Diane Dimond’s “best source” (she said so when speaking about that non-existent molestation video tape “My best source saw it”) – so considering Gutierrez’s crucial role in bringing Michael down I cannot explain why no one talks about Gutierrez.

    He should be their hero – but instead everyone keeps silent about him. Why so? Are they a little ashamed of their source and don’t want us to really look?

    Like

  103. Suzy permalink
    June 29, 2011 10:09 pm

    @ Helena

    “I really don’t know how to interpret these small Gutierrez’s slips of the tongue – as an unwitting disclosure of his inner thoughts or as an intentional preparation of the reader for the future acceptance of ped-les?”

    I think the latter. These are not slips of the tongue. These are clues those are left there totally intentionally for those to understand who understand it. And I think many of those who give platform to these p-les to talk actually understand it. (Not Diane Dimond, she’s too dumb.) That’s the scary thing.

    You mentioned Peretti’s film. After we heard about Peretti’s background and earlier works (“documentaries” like “The perfect penis” or “World’s biggest penis”), I think he probably knew who VG really was.

    Like

  104. June 29, 2011 9:44 pm

    “In that German article VG speaks very emphatically about the p. “case” and he expresses his hope that one day it would be socially accepted. Noone, who is not a p. himself, talks like that in my opinion.”

    Yes, Suzy, of course! Besides that NAMBLA attendance there are also numerous facts all of which point in the same direction. Even a small thing like this quote from VG’s book:

    “For many people around the world, he is either a pedophile or pervert” (Victor Gutierrez about the victim of his slander).

    Doesn’t anything strike you here? Gutierrez says “either this or that” meaning that pedophiles are no perverts, while all the rest of us regard this type of an inclinaton as the embodiment of perversion!

    I really don’t know how to interpret these small Gutierrez’s slips of the tongue – as an unwitting disclosure of his inner thoughts or as an intentional preparation of the reader for the future acceptance of ped-les? However in both cases it does show Gutierrez’s own preferences, doesn’t it?

    Just imagine that a man like Victor Gutierrez was a consultant to Bashir (when he was making sequels to his first documentary – which were so horrendous that ABC was shy to promote them), worked for NBC as a producer of news about Michael and was the “best source of information” for Diane Dimond, as she admitted it herself!

    Like

  105. June 29, 2011 9:23 pm

    “At the last pages of the book, VG gives quotes from NAMBLA. Certainly, VMJ will talk about this part in her coming posts”.

    MOA, you are right – this is what I meant. The very last pages of VG’s book should be a terribly uncomfortable read for Gutierrez’s friends like Diane Dimond, for example. Over there he sounds like a protagonist of NAMBLA as he cites cases from the past and makes historic references to ancient Greece where man\boy love was accepted – in short the tone of the narration is that of “understanding” that this type of love is “possible”. What it reminded me of was …. Tom O’Carroll’s book (excerpts from it) which I read online when it was about to be released two years ago together with the quotes from those “professors” who recommended the convicted pedophile’s revelations as “family reading”.

    If we had read VG’s book first we could have probably overlooked this strange similarity with Tom O’Carroll’s opus, but we are getting familiar with it only now – and the similarity in the views of the authors is absolutely amazing! The same words, the same arguments, the same historic references – and the same thinly veiled hope that “one day it will be accepted”. In fact, Gutierrez said it out loud in Peretti’s film – “Who knows, maybe in a hundred years this love will be accepted”?

    Like

  106. Suzy permalink
    June 29, 2011 9:08 pm

    @ Helena

    “However I must admit that if Gutierrez is really so inventive theoretically speaking he could have invented the whole book from beginning to end – even without his own experience involved in it. If this is the case then the only hard fact we have against him is his own admission that he attended a NAMBLA conference.”

    Not only that. In that German article VG speaks very emphatically about the p. “case” and he expresses his hope that one day it would be socially accepted. Noone, who is not a p. himself, talks like that in my opinion.

    Like

  107. June 29, 2011 8:50 pm

    So he was taking part in NAMBLA meetings back in the mid 80s and his first piece of “fiction” back then also featured discussion of the sexuality of young boys?”

    Rockforeveron, no, at the moment we haven’t got information about it (with only one exception about which I will write in future posts about VG).

    MOA’s article is about Victor Gutierrez’s biography and his childhood and a well-known Chilean writer nicknamed “Alone” who was a neighbor to Gutierrez when he was a boy. The strange fantasies the article speaks of are the fantasies of that writer – and MOA evidently draws our attention to the influence the writer could have exerted on Gutierrez. The article also says that even in his childhood Gutierrez was such a big talent of invention that instead of writing a short summary of the writer’s book he added new characters to it and made it longer than it originally was. The writer was shocked – he could hardly recognize his book.

    This is what Victor Gutierrez is still doing – he takes a tiny rumor and wraps it into a big pile of lies and inventions of his own. Actually we already know that he is a very BIG LIAR, but the TYPE of his lies is also interesting and has a value of its own. It definitely has something to do with sexual feelings towards young boys.

    However I must admit that if Gutierrez is really so inventive, theoretically he could have invented the whole book from beginning to end – even without his own experience involved in it. If this is the case then the only hard fact we have against him is his own admission that he attended a NAMBLA conference.

    NAMBLA conferences were never open to the general public. Infiltrating those conferences is an extremely difficult task so if he was present there it most probably means he was part of it. At the time VG spoke (to several media outlets) about his attendance of the conference there was some hope on the part of ped-les for social acceptance. They were part of the gay movement then, however since the two separated they have become much more secretive and don’t have public assemblies any more.

    Like

  108. MOA permalink
    June 29, 2011 8:49 pm

    @VMJ, thanks for reposting the comments. Yes, I think “Alone” influenced VG. It’s difficult to find more details about the two of them though.

    @ Suzy, you’re welcome! There are so much more to say about this individual. We are only at the begining of it. I hope that someone who knows about this ban tells us the whole of it.

    @ rockforeveron, yes exactly. At the last pages of the book, VG gives quotes from NAMBLA. Certainly, VMJ will talk about this part in her coming posts.

    Sometimes VG plays like an “advisor”. He surely advised the Chandlers and the DA. He wished to “advise” Michael too. In his book, he explains the “mistakes” Jackson’s camp made and gives suggestions. But, as we know, Michael sued him and consequently all of them. Too bad that VG fled back home. Actually, when we look back now, he was the best man for the job not only for his innumerable “talents” but also for his capacity to run away.

    Like

  109. June 29, 2011 6:48 pm

    Victor Guitirrez is the well for inspiration for many, however ridiculous the statements he made.I believe that Ray, Evan and V.G.were in contact with each other at some point in time though they later parted.Everybody knows their followers,Martin Bashir one of the worst as he believes or claims some status.And when Michael is under stress
    unimaginable, it seems to the people who in effect caused it;He looks frail,out of it.Then the murmur;It is drugs.-Now murray´s defence will pull the same string asking for all tapes of rehearsals for TII.Is he so dumb that he does not know the side effects of propofol,anterograde and retrograde amnesia.This means difficulty to learn and remember new stuff and forgetting what you learned before.
    BTW.Joe was peddling 3 kinds of something-jackson perfumes at the Cannes Film Festival.

    Like

  110. Suzy permalink
    June 29, 2011 10:52 am

    @ MOA

    Thanks for the research and info on VG’s background. That’s very interesting.

    “When he [Alone] read it [the summary] he was almost horrified. He told me: this is longer than my story! And you have added new characters in the book!”

    Isn’t that what VG is still doing?

    Like

  111. June 29, 2011 3:02 am

    So he was taking part in NAMBLA meetings back in the mid 80s and his first piece of “fiction” back then also featured discussion of the sexuality of young boys?

    Like

  112. June 29, 2011 3:00 am

    MOA, this is also extremely interesting as it gives an insight into Gutierrez’s unique “literary methods”. I am repeating your message again:

    About his way of working, Gutierrez said (at the TV program “Reportajes” March 1996):

    “Although some people here criticize me for how I work, I am proud. I think we should get the information at any possible way. The only limit that I have is not taking the life of the person; if I need to pretend or pay for the information, I do it. That is not understandable here in Chile.”
    (http://diario.elmercurio.com/detalle/index.asp?id={97781fbc-0b34-4aaf-aa9d-fba6d6edfd0d})

    Again, a year later, in 1997 in an interview with “Sociedad” he said:

    “I like working alone. My adrenaline goes up when the person I investigate, opens a magazine and sees his photograph naked with another person, in possession of an important document while using cocaine …”

    (http://diario.elmercurio.com/detalle/index.asp?id={97781fbc-0b34-4aaf-aa9d-fba6d6edfd0d})

    in 1995, Gutierrez fabricated a story about “a videotape”. We know that Jackson sued Paramount Pictures and Diane Dimond, the radio station KABC-AM and his employees and Victor Gutierrez. Also we know that judge Reginald Dunn convicted only Gutierrez who in 1998, was ordered to pay 2,7 million to Jackson (see here http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1288872.html)

    But in October 1996, a week after hearing the judge’s verdict (October 15) , Gutierrez fled to Mexico and then to Chile. He never stopped slandering Jackson.

    At the time Jackson sued this people, he send a statement to the media which was published with some ridicule. Jet magazine on January 30, 1995:

    “Music super-star Michael Jackson, who had warned the media bashers that “Enough is enough” and “Leave Me Alone,” followed up his threat with a $100 million lawsuit against TV’s “Hard Copy” and Los Angeles radio station KABC-AM. … Prior to instructing his lawyers to take court action by filing the slander suit, Jackson had issued a statement to the media, warning them to quit “tripping” on him and “beat it.”

    Directing his anger at newspapers, TV shows and anyone else spreading “vicious lies and rumors” about a videotaped sexual encounter […], Jackson stated:

    “I will no longer stand by and watch reckless members of the media try to destroy my reputation. I intend to protect myself and my family …

    “I have instructed my attorneys to immediately file lawsuits against those persons who continue to spread vicious lies and rumors about me in their attempts to make money, benefit their careers, sell papers or to get viewers to watch their programs”

    (http://books.google.se/books?id=Oj0DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=court+documents+Victor+Gutierrez+lawsuit&source=bl&ots=luE5kZQ4dK&sig=QHSRsQCQKnRWpszWHXv9xZ4UlFk&hl=sv&ei=Y8v_TdepCtHOsgb0l7SsDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false)

    Gutierrez book

    Here is an article published in the GAL magazine, The Advocates (November 26, 1996), about Gutierrez and his book (Michael Jackson’s name is omitted):

    “A book allegedly detailing what really went on between … and the boy whose family accused … of child molestation is flying off the shelves in gay bookstores.

    “It’s selling like crazy,” said Denise McCamles, a clerk at A Different Light in West Hollywood, Calif. And the bookstore’s outlet in San Francisco is close to selling out of its second shipment.

    Not yet available in mainstream bookstores, … [MJWML] is supposedly based on the diary accounts of the boy, whose parents refused to cooperate in a criminal investigation after accepting an estimated $20 million from … .

    The book claims to portray … ‘s sex life, painting him not as a heartless predator but as a highly manipulative lover who seduced the boy into consensual sex. Its credibility, however, is unclear, in part because of the settlement with the boy’s family, which purportedly contains an agreement stating that neither … nor the family can publicly discuss the case.

    Author Victor Gutierrez, a journalist who said he’s been investigating … ‘s attraction to boys for years, refused to name his source but claimed to have an exclusive link to the boy.

    He bolstered his case with copies of the confidential documents replicated in the book, including a letter to the victim written on the letterhead of the Los Angels district attorney. “I wrote the letter, but I have no idea how he got hold of it,” said Lauren Weis, head deputy of the sex crimes decision. Weis remains skeptical about the book’s overall accuracy.

    What makes Weis truly indignant, however, is that the author chose to reveal the boy’s identity: “It’s outrageous that Gutierrez invaded his privacy the way he did.” For his part, Gutierrez appeared to have no qualms about broadcasting the boy’s name. He said he only wanted to make sure the true story is known.

    From his perspective the boy’s parents are the villains, having used the criminal investigation to pressure … into a settlement. Now, he said, with the alleged boy’s name out, everyone, including …, will be held accountable. “… paid $20 million so nobody would know the truth,” Gutierrez said, “Now everyone will know.”

    Gutierrez denied he was motivated only by money: Since the book is self-published, he pointed out, there were no big publisher advances involved.

    In the end, whether or not the book’s story is true, it’s unlikely to have any impact on the stalled criminal investigation, according to Weis. “We still have a child refusing to cooperate with the prosecution, “she said, “and without a victim’s testimony you cannot prosecute.”

    (http://books.google.se/books?id=QmQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=Victor+Gutierrez+and+the+gay+organisations&source=bl&ots=LvLUx_tCjZ&sig=PP34ip9pNhHXe_5zY1vXI2JF9M4&hl=sv&ei=F2PVTbOODMaVswb21b3-Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false)

    We learn from this article that the book was already published in 1996 and not in 1997 as we read in many fan sites (even here in this blog.)
    Then it was in both languages Spanish and English; and for the third, it was not banned in 96. It is not clear who banned it and how. If anyone has an accurate information about this ban, please give it here.

    Like

  113. June 29, 2011 2:51 am

    MOA, thank you very much for this background information on Victor Gutierrez! This strange guy “Alone” must have exerted his strange influence on VG. And Gutierrez showed exceptional skills at inventing stories even at a very young age! I am repeating your message here in full, with the exception of Spanish texts:

    About Victor Gutierrez, from some Spanish sources

    Fifth son of a marine non-commissioned officer, Victor Gutierrez was born in 1964 in Quilpué in Chile. His father, Emilio Gutierrez worked some years as marine attaché in Lima, Peru. His mother’s name is Aida Prieto. In 1973, when Victor was 9 years old, he and his family moved back to Chile.

    With the money Emilio Gutierrez had earned in Peru the family who lived modestly in Quilpué, bought a house in a nice neighborhood in Santiago called Beauchef. The young and wild Victor spent his life playing games in the streets of Beauchef but one day he met the writer Hernan Diaz Arrieta known as Alone who lived not far from Gutierrez’s home.

    Apparently, the elderly Arrieta who rarely went out and disliked meeting people, was disturbed by the boys noise while they played football; he went to them and told them that boys should not play in a residential neighborhood; he added that they should study and read books. Then he asked Victor if he had ever read a book. VG answered only the books that the school forced them to read. Suddenly, Alone went home and came back with one of his books and asked the boy to read it and to write a summary about it. VG did what he was told to.

    In 1996, Gutierrez talked about this meeting in a Chilean TV program called “Reportajes”:
    “When he [Alone] read it [the summary] he was almost horrified. He told me: this is longer than my story! And you have added new characters in the book! Probably, you’re going to be a writer or a journalist.”

    Surely, VG would like to associate his name with a writer like Alone. But it might have been more than that. Therefore it could be informative to learn about Alone too. Here it is some information:

    Arrieta was born in Santiago in 1891 and died in the same city in 1984. He was tall, good looking and penniless aristocrat who lived most of his life alone! He worked 25 years at the Ministry of Justice in the Civil Registry office.

    In the surface, he was a simple employee who had an ordinary life but in privacy he studied literature and became an autodidact literary critic and writer. He published his writings in several newspapers and magazines mostly in “El Mercurio”. Knowing French, he was under the influence of the French literature and French writers and critics like Rousseau, Proust and Saint-Beuve. Alone was honored in 1959 with the National Prize in Literature. He was a fervent catholic who defended the military coup that overthrow Salvador Allende and his government in 1973.

    Arrieta published several books about literature, reading, writing and grammar; but he had also written a novel and private diaries in which he had expressed his deepest thoughts.

    La Sombra Inquieta published in 1915 , Diario Íntimo 16.VII.16”published in 1918 in a literery magazine. Apparently, none of these writings have been translated to English.

    At 18 years old, Alone had a long and platonic relationship with a writer, Mariana Cox-Stüven known as Shade. She was married and almost 20 years older than Alone. Eventually, they became good friends. After a while Shade moved to Europe. They wrote to each other until she passed in 1914. A year after, Arrieta published his only novel La Sombra Inquieta in honor to Shade.
    Alone was never married. It has been said that he had causal lovers. He did not like children.

    After analyzing Alone’s fictional work, some critics and journalists think that there were two Alone. One, the powerful critic with a clean style who could destroy a writer if he judged him not worthy; and the second one who juggled with gay / bisexual / “young boy” thoughts. It seems that being an fervent catholic, he did not dare to accept his own feelings.

    In his analysis on Arrieta’s diaries, Gonzalo Vial wonder what Alone meant by writing about himself in underwear. What was his purpose by doing this? Why this need to narrate about these private moments and publish them ?

    Here are some quotes from Arrieta’s private writings (I hope the translation is OK even with my low knowledge in this language):

    I find a shameful pleasure in popular and scum media. It must be something in me, deep inside me.

    It is half moon and a star big as a diamond. Many evil and obscene thoughts … .

    I was then in the (cemetery) and read San Francisco de Asis while sitting in a stone bench, in front of a boy who painted green bars on a grave.

    Vial adds these parts too:

    “I drank two bottles of Bilz, heavenly, and the pine grove. I took off my pants and lay down to read on the fresh and green grass. ” This was in 1917. What an odd story? Did Alone used in those years long underwear? Or were they shorts, sports? Or were they slips and bathing suits? Probably long ones. Then he informs us that his legs were too skinny. He was reading intensively his books until 4 in the afternoon when he got dressed and walked when among the flowers he saw ‘a soldier in young grey colour who ran along the water, he was young, an adolescent. ” Fortunately the soldier did not see him in his underwear reading the Life of Jesus’ by Renan. At the time, what a scandal would that have been. Alone, shy as a wild flower, committing these extravagances, perpetrating these acts of liberation.”

    And:

    “When frequenting the pools: “The silly military boy, 16 years old, colorful, very black lashes, big eyes, nose round, white teeth and … perfect, tan, pink, blue eyes, nose …, lips … golden skin, alive, bold, agile. Enough, enough Hernan, stop! I felt old, fat, large, heavy and ugly.”

    “At the park, alone! Magnificent silent light, warm and velvety. Crossed the ellipse, a lake of milk and transparent fog, trying to join with nature, to reach God, but pulled down by bad thoughts.”

    In a recent study on Alone’s work , Gilda Luongo said since Alone had an isolated life, it seems that reading and writing were like sexual acts for him. She has an Freudian approaches to Alone’s work. Here is a quote from Arrieta:

    “Some time ago I was looking for a book to read, a long, long book that last and whose pages open a new world, without indication how it ends […]” “There are books that are disturbing, inviting and books that are serene, peaceful and clear; Words can be adapted to the body that we have and the joy”.

    Even if that day in the street, Arrieta gave one of his grammar books to Gutierrez, sooner or later, the curious boy would read Alone’s other books. Probably, this reading helped VG to understand more about himself.

    VG chose very soon the life that he wanted to live. He knew that he could not realize his plans in Chile because LGBT people had no legal rights in this country. He did not wish to end up like Alone. Arrieta’s polite, clean and conservatives manners were nothing for him. So he had to find another home where he could be wild, famous and rich at any price.

    At the age of 16, VG went to the Institute of Communication Arts in Santiago. But his provocative and nasty attitudes towards his classmates forced the school’s responsible to expel him. After his expulsion, he find a temporarily job at “Teleonce al despertar” where he learnt to work with cameras.

    Then in 1984, he went to Los Angeles to work as photographer for the newspaper “La Tercera” during the Olympics games. After the games, he went back to Santiago to collect his salary and to pack for moving to LA. He had found his home: California, here I come!

    It has been said that before his move to California, VG had done some “politics and human rights writings” (for example here http://www.taz.de/?id=archivseite&dig=2005/04/05/a0170).

    Probably these writings were about LGBT rights in Chile. Soon he gave up because he realized that the name and the fame he was after could not be reached in his home country. In the same article published in taz.de, he described himself a kind of “refugee” in US!

    Once again in LA, he went to a short and intensive course at a school and become “journalist”.

    He found a job at a Hispanic tabloid in LA. In 1987, he did an interview with a future teller that predicted on October 12, at 13.30 another earthquake would happen in Los Angeles. On October first, a powerful earthquake had already shaken the city. The “news” appeared on the front page. On October 12, many Latin Americans left the city to save their lives but no earthquake happened. People who believed him, were angry but the tabloid hired Gutierrez because 150 000 copies of the paper were sold.

    Sources:
    1- http://diario.elmercurio.com/detalle/index.asp?id={97781fbc-0b34-4aaf-aa9d-fba6d6edfd0d}
    2- http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hern%C3%A1n_D%C3%ADaz_Arrieta
    3- http://www.profesorenlinea.cl/biografias/DiazArrieta.htm
    4- http://diario.elmercurio.com/detalle/index.asp?id={341ce7fc-cfea-433a-b520-7b21251d3a5c}
    5- http://www.memoriachilena.cl/temas/index.asp?id_ut=hernandiazarrieta(alone)(1891-1984)
    6- http://www.discursospracticas.ucv.cl/html/articulo_luongo.html

    Like

  114. June 29, 2011 12:53 am

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1050082/As-turns-50-Michael-Jackson-really-look-like.html

    Guys, I am finally home and have read the above article by Taraborelli. What he is writing about Michael being frail, a shell of himself, etc. is true, but what is surprising and even astonishing, is that none of these journalists see their own fault in driving Michael to that state. It was primarily the media’s doing and now they sound as if they had nothing to do with Michael’s harassment. Taraborelli may not be the worst of them – at least there are some notes of compassion in his words – but all of them behaved in a totally inhuman way. First they butchered the man and then impassionately looked at the sufferings of their victim.

    All these people have blood on their hands and if they don’t understand it so much the worse for them. It shows that they are unfamiliar with a concept of a human conscience as such. A day will surely come when they will have to answer for it. Repentance is what they need and as soon as possible too.

    Like

  115. MOA permalink
    June 29, 2011 12:52 am

    About his way of working, Gutierrez said (at the TV program “Reportajes” March 1996):

    “Although some people here criticize me for how I work, I am proud. I think we should get the information at any possible way. The only limit that I have is not taking the life of the person; if I need to pretend or pay for the information, I do it. That is not understandable here in Chile.”
    (http://diario.elmercurio.com/detalle/index.asp?id={97781fbc-0b34-4aaf-aa9d-fba6d6edfd0d})

    Again, a year later, in 1997 in an interview with “Sociedad” he said:

    “I like working alone. My adrenaline goes up when the person I investigate, open a magazine and see his photograph naked with another person, in possession of an important document while using cocaine …”
    (http://diario.elmercurio.com/detalle/index.asp?id={97781fbc-0b34-4aaf-aa9d-fba6d6edfd0d})

    in 1995, Gutierrez fabricated a story about “a videotape”. We know that Jackson sued Paramount Pictures and Diane Dimond, the radio station KABC-AM and his employees and Victor Gutierrez. Also we know that judge Reginald Dunn convicted only Gutierrez who in 1998, was ordered to pay 2,7 million to Jackson (see here http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1288872.html)

    But in October 1996, a week after hearing the judge’s verdict (October 15) , Gutierrez fled to Mexico and then to Chile. He never stopped slandering Jackson.

    At the time Jackson sued this people, he send a statement to the media which was published with some ridicule. Jet magazine on January 30, 1995:

    “Music super-star Michael Jackson, who had warned the media bashers that “Enough is enough” and “Leave Me Alone,” followed up his threat with a $100 million lawsuit against TV’s “Hard Copy” and Los Angeles radio station KABC-AM. … Prior to instructing his lawyers to take court action by filing the slander suit, Jackson had issued a statement to the media, warning them to quit “tripping” on him and “beat it.”

    Directing his anger at newspapers, TV shows and anyone else spreading “vicious lies and rumors” about a videotaped sexual encounter […], Jackson stated:

    “I will no longer stand by and watch reckless members of the media try to destroy my reputation. I intend to protect myself and my family …

    “I have instructed my attorneys to immediately file lawsuits against those persons who continue to spread vicious lies and rumors about me in their attempts to make money, benefit their careers, sell papers or to get viewers to watch their programs”

    (http://books.google.se/books?id=Oj0DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=court+documents+Victor+Gutierrez+lawsuit&source=bl&ots=luE5kZQ4dK&sig=QHSRsQCQKnRWpszWHXv9xZ4UlFk&hl=sv&ei=Y8v_TdepCtHOsgb0l7SsDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false)

    Gutierrez book

    Here is an article published in the GAL magazine, The Advocates (November 26, 1996), about Gutierrez and his book (Michael Jackson’s name is omitted):

    “A book allegedly detailing what really went on between … and the boy whose family accused … of child molestation is flying off the shelves in gay bookstores.

    “It’s selling like crazy,” said Denise McCamles, a clerk at A Different Light in West Hollywood, Calif. And the bookstore’s outlet in San Francisco is close to selling out of its second shipment.

    Not yet available in mainstream bookstores, … [MJWML] is supposedly based on the diary accounts of the boy, whose parents refused to cooperate in a criminal investigation after accepting an estimated $20 million from … .

    The book claims to portray … ‘s sex life, painting him not as a heartless predator but as a highly manipulative lover who seduced the boy into consensual sex. Its credibility, however, is unclear, in part because of the settlement with the boy’s family, which purportedly contains an agreement stating that neither … nor the family can publicly discuss the case.

    Author Victor Gutierrez, a journalist who said he’s been investigating … ‘s attraction to boys for years, refused to name his source but claimed to have an exclusive link to the boy.

    He bolstered his case with copies of the confidential documents replicated in the book, including a letter to the victim written on the letterhead of the Los Angels district attorney. “I wrote the letter, but I have no idea how he got hold of it,” said Lauren Weis, head deputy of the sex crimes decision. Weis remains skeptical about the book’s overall accuracy.

    What makes Weis truly indignant, however, is that the author chose to reveal the boy’s identity: “It’s outrageous that Gutierrez invaded his privacy the way he did.” For his part, Gutierrez appeared to have no qualms about broadcasting the boy’s name. He said he only wanted to make sure the true story is known.

    From his perspective the boy’s parents are the villains, having used the criminal investigation to pressure … into a settlement. Now, he said, with the alleged boy’s name out, everyone, including …, will be held accountable. “… paid $20 million so nobody would know the truth,” Gutierrez said, “Now everyone will know.”

    Gutierrez denied he was motivated only by money: Since the book is self-published, he pointed out, there were no big publisher advances involved.

    In the end, whether or not the book’s story is true, it’s unlikely to have any impact on the stalled criminal investigation, according to Weis. “We still have a child refusing to cooperate with the prosecution, “she said, “and without a victim’s testimony you cannot prosecute.”

    (http://books.google.se/books?id=QmQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=Victor+Gutierrez+and+the+gay+organisations&source=bl&ots=LvLUx_tCjZ&sig=PP34ip9pNhHXe_5zY1vXI2JF9M4&hl=sv&ei=F2PVTbOODMaVswb21b3-Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false)

    We learn from this article that the book was already published in 1996 and not in 1997 as we read in many fan sites (even here in this blog.)
    Then it was in both languages Spanish and English; and for the third, it was not banned in 96. It is not clear who banned it and how. If anyone has an accurate information about this ban, please give it here.

    Like

  116. MOA permalink
    June 29, 2011 12:28 am

    About Victor Gutierrez, from some Spanish sources

    Fifth son of a marine non-commissioned officer, Victor Gutierrez was born in 1964 in Quilpué in Chile. His father, Emilio Gutierrez worked some years as marine attaché in Lima, Peru. His mother’s name is Aida Prieto. In 1973, when Victor was 9 years old, he and his family moved back to Chile.

    With the money Emilio Gutierrez had earned in Peru the family who lived modestly in Quilpué, bought a house in a nice neighborhood in Santiago called Beauchef. The young and wild Victor spent his life playing games in the streets of Beauchef but one day he met the writer Hernan Diaz Arrieta known as Alone who lived not far from Gutierrez’s home.

    Apparently, the elderly Arrieta who rarely went out and disliked meeting people, was disturbed by the boys noise while they played football; he went to them and told them that boys should not play in a residential neighborhood; he added that they should study and read books. Then he asked Victor if he had ever read a book. VG answered only the books that the school forced them to read. Suddenly, Alone went home and came back with one of his books and asked the boy to read it and to write a summary about it. VG did what he was told to.

    In 1996, Gutierrez talked about this meeting in a Chilean TV program called “Reportajes”:
    “When he [Alone] read it [the summary] he was almost horrified. He told me: this is longer than my story! And you have added new characters in the book! Probably, you’re going to be a writer or a journalist.”

    Surely, VG would like to associate his name with a writer like Alone. But it might have been more than that. Therefore it could be informative to learn about Alone too. Here it is some information:

    Arrieta was born in Santiago in 1891 and died in the same city in 1984. He was tall, good looking and penniless aristocrat who lived most of his life alone! He worked 25 years at the Ministry of Justice in the Civil Registry office.

    In the surface, he was a simple employee who had an ordinary life but in privacy he studied literature and became an autodidact literary critic and writer. He published his writings in several newspapers and magazines mostly in “El Mercurio”. Knowing French, he was under the influence of the French literature and French writers and critics like Rousseau, Proust and Saint-Beuve. Alone was honored in 1959 with the National Prize in Literature. He was a fervent catholic who defended the military coup that overthrow Salvador Allende and his government in 1973.

    Arrieta published several books about literature, reading, writing and grammare; but he had also written a novel and private diaries in which he had expressed his deepest thoughts.

    La Sombra Inquieta published in 1915 , Diario Íntimo 16.VII.16”published in 1918 in a litterer magazine. Apparently, none of these writings have been translated to English.

    At 18 years old, Alone had a long and platonic relationship with a writer, Mariana Cox-Stüven known as Shade. She was married and almost 20 years older than Alone. Eventually, they became good friends. After a while Shade moved to Europe. They wrote to each other until she passed in 1914. A year after, Arrieta published his only novel La Sombra Inquieta in honor to Shade.
    Alone was never married. It has been said that he had causal lovers. He did not like children.

    After analyzing Alone’s fictional work, some critics and journalists think that there were two Alone. One, the powerful critic with a clean style who could destroy a writer if he judged him not worthy; and the second one who juggled with gay / bisexual / “young boy” thoughts. It seems that being an fervent catholic, he did not dare to accept his own feelings.

    In his analysis on Arrieta’s diaries, Gonzalo Vial wonder what Alone meant by writing about himself in underwear. What was his purpose by doing this? Why this need to narrate about these private moments and publish them ?

    Here are some quotes from Arrieta’s private writings (I hope the translation is OK even with my low knowledge in this language):

    “Encuentro un placer vergonzoso en el medio popular y canallesco. Debe ser algo bajo en mí, en el fondo de mí”….
    I find a shameful pleasure in popular and scum media. It must be something in me, deep inside me.

    “Hay media luna y una estrella como un gran diamante. Muchos pensamientos malos, obscenos”…
    It is half moon and a star big as a diamond. Many evil and obscene thoughts … .

    “Estuve después en el (Cementerio General) y leí San Francisco de Asís en un banco de piedra, frente a un muchacho que pintaba de verde las rejas de una sepultura”.
    I was then in the (cemetery) and read San Francisco de Asis while sitting in a stone bench, in front of a boy who painted green bars on a grave.

    Vial adds these parts too:
    “Arriba tomé dos botellas de Bilz, celestiales, y en el bosquecillo de pino me saqué los pantalones y me tendí a leer sobre la yerba verde y fresca”. Esto sucedía en 1917. Curiosidad histórica ¿usaba Alone, en esos años, calzoncillos largos? ¿O eran los cortos, deportivos? ¿O los actuales slips, como trajes de baño? Seguramente largos. Me informaron que tenía las piernas muy flacas. Estuvo leyendo libros píos en este atuendo hasta las 4 de la tarde en que se vistió y comenzó a bajar entre los espinos en flor donde vio “un soldado de gris primavera que corría a la orilla del agua, joven, adolescente”. Por suerte el soldado no lo vio en calzoncillos leyendo la “Vida de Jesús”, de Renán. Para la época, qué escándalo habría sido. Alone, tímido como una flor silvestre, cometía estas extravagancias, perpetraba estos gestos liberadores. ”

    “I drank two bottles of Bilz, heavenly, and the pine grove. I took off my pants and lay down to read on the fresh and green grass. ” This was in 1917. What an odd story? Did Alone used in those years long underwear? Or were they shorts, sports? Or were they slips and bathing suits? Probably long ones. Then he informs us that his legs were too skinny. He was reading intensively his books until 4 in the afternoon when he got dressed and walked when among the flowers he saw ‘a soldier in young grey colour who ran along the water, he was young, an adolescent. ” Fortunately the soldier did not see him in his underwear reading the Life of Jesus’ by Renan. At the time, what a scandal would that have been. Alone, shy as a wild flower, committing these extravagances, perpetrating these acts of liberation.”

    And:

    “Frecuentaba las piscinas. “El militar tonto, el muchacho de 16 años, colorado, de pestañas negrísimas, ojos grandes, nariz redonda, dientes muy blancos y el de 10, perfecto, tostado, rosado, ojos azules, nariz respingada, labios vueltos, piel dorada, vivo, audaz, ágil”. ¡Basta, basta, Hernán, no sigas! “Me sentí viejo, gordo, ancho, pesado, feo”.”

    “When frequenting the pools: “The silly military boy, 16 years old, colorful, very black lashes, big eyes, nose round, white teeth and … perfect, tan, pink, blue eyes, nose …, lips … golden skin, alive, bold, agile. Enough, enough Hernan, stop! I felt old, fat, large, heavy and ugly.”

    “¡Al parque, solo! Magnífica luz silenciosa, tibia, aterciopelada. Atravesé la elipse, un lago de leche y niebla transparente, procurando unirme con la naturaleza, llegar hasta Dios, Pero tirado hacia abajo por malos pensamientos”.

    “At the park, alone! Magnificent silent light, warm and velvety. Crossed the ellipse, a lake of milk and transparent fog, trying to join with nature, to reach God, but pulled down by bad thoughts.”

    In a recent study on Alone’s work , Gilda Luongo said since Alone had an isolated life, it seems that reading and writing were like sexual acts for him. She has an Freudian approaches to Alone’s work. Here is a quote from Arrieta:

    “Hace tiempo buscaba un libro para leer, un libro largo, largo de esos que duran, por cuyas páginas entra uno como por una avenida, sin verle el término […] Existen libros perturbadores, incitantes, como los hay serenos, de palabra lenta y clara, adaptables al cuerpo, que nos abrigan y sonríen”.

    “Some time ago I was looking for a book to read, a long, long book that last and whose pages open a new world, without indication how it ends […]” “There are books that are disturbing, inviting and books that are serene, peaceful and clear; Words can be adapted to the body that we have and the joy”.

    Even if that day in the street, Arrieta gave one of his grammar books to Gutierrez, sooner or later, the curious boy would read Alone’s other books. Probably, this reading helped VG to understand more about himself.

    VG chose very soon the life that he wanted to live. He knew that he could not realize his plans in Chile because LGBT people had no legal rights in this country. He did not wish to end up like Alone. Arrieta’s polite, clean and conservatives manners were nothing for him. So he had to find another home where he could be wild, famous and rich at any price.

    At the age of 16, VG went to the Institute of Communication Arts in Santiago. But his provocative and nasty attitudes towards his classmates forced the school’s responsible to expel him. After his expulsion, he find a temporarily job at “Teleonce al despertar” where he learnt to work with cameras.

    Then in 1984, he went to Los Angeles to work as photographer for the newspaper “La Tercera” during the Olympics games. After the games, he went back to Santiago to collect his salary and to pack for moving to LA. He had found his home: California, here I come!

    It has been said that before his move to California, VG had done some “politics and human rights writings” (for example here http://www.taz.de/?id=archivseite&dig=2005/04/05/a0170).

    Probably these writings were about LGBT rights in Chile. Soon he gave up because he realized that the name and the fame he was after could not be reached in his home country. In the same article published in taz.de, he described himself a kind of “refugee” in US!

    Once again in LA, he went to a short and intensive course at a school and become “journalist”.

    He found a job at a Hispanic tabloid in LA. In 1987, he did an interview with a future teller that predicted on October 12, at 13.30 another earthquake would happen in Los Angeles. On October first, a powerful earthquake had already shaken the city. The “news” appeared on the front page. On October 12, many Latin Americans left the city to save their lives but no earthquake happened. People who believed him, were angry but the tabloid hired Gutierrez because 150 000 copies of the paper were sold.

    Sources:
    1- http://diario.elmercurio.com/detalle/index.asp?id={97781fbc-0b34-4aaf-aa9d-fba6d6edfd0d}
    2- http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hern%C3%A1n_D%C3%ADaz_Arrieta
    3- http://www.profesorenlinea.cl/biografias/DiazArrieta.htm
    4- http://diario.elmercurio.com/detalle/index.asp?id={341ce7fc-cfea-433a-b520-7b21251d3a5c}
    5- http://www.memoriachilena.cl/temas/index.asp?id_ut=hernandiazarrieta(alone)(1891-1984)
    6- http://www.discursospracticas.ucv.cl/html/articulo_luongo.html

    Like

  117. TatumMarie permalink
    June 29, 2011 12:00 am

    @nan
    True, but we also know that Michael was a flirt and June Chandler was pretty. He could have unknowingly been leading her on in more ways than one.

    Like

  118. June 28, 2011 9:26 pm

    LOL that’s funny considering JRT tries to slam Star and other tabloids on his facebook. He claims to be a confidante of Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Beyonce and others too. All funny considering how the bibliography for his book consists of tabloid sources. I’ve spoken to three people he quoted in his book – all three had never spoken to JRT directly and one of them was very upset at how he had twisted something he had said around and added someone else’s words to it too. I told JRT about that, he told me, “he couldn’t remember” any of that. I remember in his book he points out that MJ kept saying he couldn’t remember things in court cases and how this was proof he was on drugs. I guess JRT is on the same batch.

    I think his fans bother me more than he does. It’s what causes division amongst the community – fans putting their loyalities into people other than MJ. My only loyalty is to MJ and the truth.

    Like

  119. lynande51 permalink
    June 28, 2011 8:00 pm

    All of the lies about Michael originated in the twisted mind of Victor Gutierrez there is absolutely no doubt about it. JRT was a writer for The Star magazine (a tabloid). The only promotion he ever got was during the trial when he was asked to be an “expert” commentator on NBC. As for him writing 3 best selling books about MJ wouldn’t there have to be 3 different books instead of a recycled version of the original with a couple of chapters added?

    Like

  120. nan permalink
    June 28, 2011 4:38 pm

    I asked randy t if he had tickets to mj concert in England and he said no,he was going to wait and see how it went..I thought that was kind of odd coming from someone who is supposed to be his biographer ,that they wouldnt have wanted a front row seat to his comeback concert. He also said he isnt going to be covering Murray trial because it would be too depressing..Odd again, if you are his biographer, especially since 2005 was pretty depressing too.I also asked him a longtime ago,who was paying for Murrays defense and he said it was probably pro bono.When I pointed out that they would not be paying his security, public relations,legal filings, get his house out of foreclosure etc,he agreed and said he would get back to me..never did…you would think he would be curious …
    .
    Anyway , originally when I started reading the June Chandler testimony ,I thought Sneddon had read Randy book as he mentions a boy sitting on mj lap when he the Chandlers got in the car too,which was debunked at trial, same as the jewelry was a simple gold bracelet , not some jewel encrusted one …..Now of course i see it was vg book , not randys that Sneddon was gobbling up….I wonder if he spoke to the same person as vg and vg just exaggerated it more then the original lie told by the same person to Randy..I am going to ask him who told him that but i doubt he will tell me..i will ask anyway thought.if anything to let him know he was wrong..

    Like

  121. Susanne permalink*
    June 28, 2011 11:01 am

    RT – another self-proclaimed “expert” on Michael who turns out to know nothing about him and to trash him for money.

    Like

  122. lcpledwards permalink
    June 28, 2011 9:13 am

    Let’s take a break from trashing Latoya for a moment, and focus on J. Randy Taraborreli! Look at this trash he wrote about MJ in 2008! Typical tabloid garbage that appeal to the lowest common denominator! He used a composite sketch of what MJ “would have” looked like in 2008 if not for plastic surgery and “skin bleaching”!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1050082/As-turns-50-Michael-Jackson-really-look-like.html

    Like

  123. shelly permalink
    June 27, 2011 3:42 pm

    It’s an article from Stuart Goldman called Spy vs spies

    Like

  124. June 27, 2011 11:18 am

    David have you read Latoya’s book too? I have no interest in buying her book at all. Just reading the book summaries had me going ‘what?’ I don’t know if it was the way the summaries were written or what, but the whole thing didn’t make sense at all. That Chapter 24 summary is so inconsistent. If someone posts a free copy I might look it over, but I definitely won’t be buying it.

    Like

  125. lcpledwards permalink
    June 27, 2011 8:16 am

    It’s rare that I agree with MuzikfactoryTwo, but she really took the words out of my mouth with her review of Latoya’s “memoir”! http://muzikfactorytwo.blogspot.com/2011/06/dont-buy-latoya-jacksons-book-starting_21.html

    Also, I added Hannah Kozak’s blog to the blogroll! She wrote an amazing piece on MJ, and she has an upcoming post about her trip to Forest Lawn! http://hannahkozak.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/2014/

    Like

  126. anniedomino permalink
    June 26, 2011 4:49 pm

    Just read that transcript of the JJ interview on LSA as well. The vileness of this man is just beyond my comprehension. He refers to the loss of his son as “we just lost the biggest star in the world”. If you can actually make sense of JJ’s incoherent ramblings he seems to be saying that they are “fighting for justice” BECAUSE the estate is “not resolved”. Surprise, surprise! That seems to be Joe’s big issue. Not the murder of his son, not the well-being of his grandkids who he knows nothing about, not the integrity of his son’s legacy. He just wants his stupid, uneducated hands on Michael’s money. It breaks my heart. It really does. I often tell my family that in all the ups and downs of my life the one constant I had was that I knew that my family loved me unconditionally. I could count on them any time of the night and day in any situation. Michael did not have that. Not even from Katherine. Only from his kids. And God knows I worry that they will become like the rest of the Jackson’s.
    Michael Jackson overcame so much in his life. Joe’s abuse, Katherine’s indifference to it, losing the support of his siblings through envy. It amazes me that Michael came out of that family as sane as he was. He alone seems well-balanced, intelligent, well-read, career focused, a good and stable parent, picky about his career and respectful of his gift and stature. The rest of them – including Janet – will do anything for money. Most people seem to agree that Jermaine could have been an R&B star like Luther or Teddy, but he did not apply himself. IMO LaToya was beautiful and elegant enough to be a model. But they preferred to make money off Michael. It was easier.
    I agree that Michael could have been talking about conspiracies regarding his catalogue. But I think the timing of this is important. I would say it was before the trial and was directed at Sony/ Tommy Mottola. Which is based on some kind of logic and fact. If Michael defaulted on whatever loans he might have had against ATV, Sony had first dibs to buy it. I have read unconfirmed reports that Tommy was fired a couple months or years later because of his feud with MJ and that MJ re-signed with Sony in ’07. I also heard that Michael made up with Tommy. I have no confirmation of this. But I do not think that Michael ever accused Branca or Dileo of trying to kill him which is what the J-family are alleging. I have no opinion regarding AEG. I will wait for the trial. The point I was trying to make about the people who claim Michael told them about a conspiracy is that most are not credible people and they might have motives for repeating hearsay as first hand info. Let us not forget how the “drug-addict” label was created. I saw with my own eyes on CNN how Brian Oxman put that drug business out there and how the media immediately went after that angle. Next thing you know everyone who ever shook MJ’s hand is saying he was an addict. That is how speculation suddenly becomes “fact”.
    On a more positive note. It warmed my heart to see how the fanmily decorated Michael’s tomb in red roses and lollipops! I envy the souls who made it to the gates of Neverland to pay their respects. We are indeed his true family. We love you more Michael!

    Like

  127. Suzy permalink
    June 26, 2011 3:05 pm

    Here is the current interview on video: http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/showbiz/2011/06/26/nr.joe.jackson.intv.cnn?iref=allsearch

    Like

  128. Suzy permalink
    June 26, 2011 2:36 pm

    This is the interview Dom Lemon is referring to. It was made three days after Michael’s death:

    Like

  129. Suzy permalink
    June 26, 2011 2:09 pm

    Talking about Michael’s family. This is what he had to put up with! I’m speechless!

    Joe Jackson on CNN yesterday:

    Part 1:

    Today, we’re joined by Michael Jackson’s father, Joe Jackson.

    Thank you for joining us, sir. How are you doing today? Still grieving two years later, I’m sure? JOE JACKSON, FATHER OF MICHAEL JACKSON: I’m fine, thank you. Glad you asked that question, you know. I’m still grieving over Michael because — I don’t know. It’s going to take me a long time to get over what happened to him.

    LEMON: Why is that? Is it part of the mystery surrounding his death? Because I know you said you believe that, I guess, that was some people conspired to kill him, is that correct?

    JACKSON: Michael told his mother and he told his manager, Dieter Wiesner, who is writing a book now, the truth about Michael Jackson. He them they were going to kill him for his publishings. He told his mother that Dieter Wiesner that, but he never did tell me. I didn’t know that until after he was dead.

    LEMON: Do you know who those people are, who wanted to kill him for his publishings?

    JACKSON: We got a great idea who they are, and a lot of other people know who they are as well.

    LEMON: You won’t say, though?

    JACKSON: Don, I didn’t say that. I’m not saying — calling names right now, but you’ll know in the book that’s coming out.

    LEMON: OK. Are you writing a book?

    JACKSON: No. Dieter Wiesner wrote the book, who was Michael’s manager. He’s the one that fired John Ricker (ph).

    LEMON: I thought you were talking about a book that has already been out. You’re talking about a book to come.

    JACKSON: No, no. The one that the whole world should know about, that book.

    LEMON: OK.

    JACKSON: The truth. The truth.

    LEMON: There’s been a legal battle between your family and the executors of his estate. Has that been resolved?

    JACKSON: No way. Not yet. Not yet. That’s why we are striving for justice, because there’s more to it than what they’re claiming out there. There’s somebody else involved. Remember, the doctor was getting paid by somebody else and not by Michael.

    LEMON: Yes. So are you anywhere close to agreement with the executors, legal agreement?

    JACKSON: That’s a hard question you threw at me there, Don, because we’re looking for justice. You know, it’s very important, and justice has to be served because of the very important — Michael was known all over the world, behind all borders, and that’s why he was trying to build amusement parks all around the world. That’s what I’m trying to do, carry out his legacy.

    LEMON: OK.

    JACKSON: And one thing that —

    LEMON: Let’s talk quickly about this. Michael’s doctor, Conrad Murray, goes on trial in September, manslaughter charges. What do you think deserves to happen to him?

    JACKSON: What I hope happens is that justice is done, you know, the right way, the truth, the true justice. That’s what I hope, yes.

    LEMON: OK. Well listen, I have to ask you this real quickly, and I want to ask you about a venture that you’re in. Two years ago, you and I spoke just a couple days, BET Awards after Michael died and you viewed the interview as contentious on my part, and I thought it was contentious on your part, because I asked you a very simple question. I said it’s been a tough time for you and your family. We don’t have to play it, because we don’t have time. You said yes, and? And you just sort of gave me a flippant response, but you thought I was being contentious to you. Why is that?

    JACKSON: I don’t know why, because I probably was still upset over what happened to Michael, because Michael was a wrongful death to Michael’s situation, in his situation.

    LEMON: OK. I’ll take that as an answer. Thank you for talking about that.

    Now, tell us what you’re doing. You have a new venture in Vietnam. What’s going on? It has something to do with Michael Jackson?

    JACKSON: This venture is with Madame Kow (ph) in here and she’s the one that did everything possible to make things happen, make things come true for Michael’s legacy. His legacy to make theme parks all around the world, but she’s the only one to come forward to make it happen. Now what she’s doing, she’s building five five-star hotels and one seven-star hotel and a theme park. She is doing this on 2,000 acres.

    LEMON: And I want to say this, this is going to be reminiscent of Neverland.

    And I have to tell you, Mr. Jackson, stand by. I’ll tape a little more and we’ll air it later. We have to get off the air now.

    I’ll see you back here at 7:00 p.m. Eastern. We’ll keep talking to Joe Jackson and I’ll see you then.

    Part 2

    LEMON: So Mr. Jackson, I want you to take a look at you and I on the red carpet two years ago and then we’ll talk about it.

    The last couple days, I know it’s been really tough for you guys.

    JOE JACKSON, MICHAEL JACKSON’S FATHER: Yes, it has. It has been really tough. Remember, we just lost the biggest star in the world. But I want to make this statement. This is a real good statement here. Marshall and I (INAUDIBLE) we owned a record company called…

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ranch Records, OK? (INAUDIBLE) Blu-Ray technology. And that’s its next step.

    LEMON: What do you think when you see that, Mr. Jackson?

    JACKSON: I don’t think nothing about it because Blu-Ray — I mean, that company don’t exist now. It went out — as soon as it happened, it went out of business. So it’s no big deal to me.

    LEMON: But this was only three days after Michael’s death. That’s what I’m asking. What do you think of…

    JACKSON: I don’t care if it’s a minute after Michael’s death! And listen, I am — the Blu-Ray (INAUDIBLE) existing as a record company with the same guy that I was talking with, you know? That don’t even happen. What I’m here now is promoting Happy Land (ph) and promoting the things that I’m doing now.

    LEMON: And what about the children? How are they?

    JACKSON: The childrens are fine. They are fine. They’re going to acting school. And Prince is taking up — I think he’s taking up martial arts and all that stuff. And Blanket, he’s just happy. He’s a happy little kid. He’s sturdy. He wants to be a producer or something. But you know, they’re fine.

    LEMON: People have talked about the — your alleged treatment of Michael Jackson. Some of the family members, even him, said that you were abusive, in a sense, that you pushed them too far.

    JACKSON: Don, Don, Don, Don, Don! I know what you’re trying to, do! I ain’t going there. But everybody back in those days abused — they didn’t abuse the kids, they whipped the kid when they did wrong. And now you can’t do that these days because if you whip a kid now, they call 911 on you. But if you don’t train them to be right towards people and how to conduct themselves when they get (ph) young, if you don’t do that, you can have some kids in prison.

    (END VIDEOTAPE) LEMON: All right, tonight on CNN, I speak exclusively with friends and family about Michael’s last days. Watch “Michael Jackson: The Final Day” That’s coming up next at 8:00 PM Eastern, in just 5 seconds. And then make sure you tune into Piers Morgan’s entire interview with LaToya Jackson just ahead right here on CNN.

    I’m Don Lemon. We’ll see you back here at 10:00 PM Eastern. Thanks for watching.

    Like

  130. June 25, 2011 10:29 pm

    I do believe Michael spoke of conspiracies and was concerned about that. He had every reason to, as Debbie testified in the trial she said people in his life would place him in situations so that they could later swoop in to “fix” them. That’s a conspiracy. Uri Geller getting money from Bashir in order to get MJ, that’s a conspiracy. The way everyone in 1993 suddenly turned up again in 2003. The timing of Jordie Chandler’s statement being released. The way all the leeches manage to somehow miraculously manage to find each other – Bob Jones, Stacy Brown, the two juror’s, Maureen Orth, Diane Dimond, Vaccaro, Mann, Melissa Johnson, Shmuley, Brian Oxman, Susan Etok, Mark Lester, Matt Fiddes, Uri Geller – all these people linking back and forth with each other.

    I just think Michael focused on his catalogue and I do believe he was worried about Branca back then which was why he let him go and had him investigated and they found nothing, of course it was Randy Jackson’s people who were trying to get him to sell the catalogue back then and Randy Jackson letting his own snakes come in to sue and profit from Michael.

    Those are the conspiracies that I believe are real, and I believe Michael was aware that these people were all around him and he couldn’t trust anyone.

    I agree – his fans are his family. We are the ones who have brought about the most changes sinces 2009. We are the ones who uncover his name in school and get documentaries tossed out and get journalists to edit their pieces and to research and circulate the truth. That’s us. His family has stepped back away from all of it.

    The only thing that has surprised me lately is Jermaine – on his twitter he has corresponded with Charles Thomson, he responds to people who say Michael was a drug addict, he thanks people who give good interviews about MJ. It’s actually really impressed me. But not enough to believe that his book will be any better than Toya’s…

    Like

  131. Suzy permalink
    June 25, 2011 7:12 pm

    @ anniedomino

    “They do not care about any noble ideal such as the preservation of their dead brother’s legacy as the greatest pop musician to ever walk the planet, they do not care about his reputation as a man, they do not care about the future emotional well-being of his kids. They just care about making money.”

    That’s the sad truth. A couple of years ago I have heard a fan saying that the fans are Michael’s real family. At the time I thought it was a bit arrogant and vain from fans to think they were Michael’s real family and I also hoped it’s not true because it’s pretty sad if he had noone in his life who would care about him more than his fans. Now I know what this fan meant. It didn’t come from vanity or arrogance, it’s just the sad truth: fans know and care about Michael and his legacy more than his own family does. Hell, they can’t even defend him properly against the accusations on TV because they hardly know anything about them. When they open their mouth they only embarrass themselves with the misinformation they spout. If they are shown enough money they will even be friendly with people like VG or Stacy Brown. It’s really horrible, if you think about it. If Michael would be my brother or son, my obsession would be to clear his name once and for all and to let everybody know of his innocence. But his own family doesn’t really seem to care. Instead they spend their time and energy on plots about how they could get close to Michael’s money and take it away from his children.

    “One more thing. I do not believe that Michael spoke of a conspiracy to LMP or Joe. LMP’s interview with Oprah was filled with self-serving lies and half-truths. Her entire agenda was that she and Michael divorced because of his “drug abuse” and that he was somehow still in love with her in ’05. Classic narrative of a rejected woman.

    […]

    This is clearly an area she did not want to explore with Oprah so she too added to the “drug addict” myth and for good measure she thought she would curry favour with the family and fans by adding her “conspiracy” comments.”

    Wow! This is so true! I was also wondering about her claim that Michael told her in 2005 that people were trying to kill him and take his catalog. This claim suspiciously sounded like something the Jacksons would say and since LMP hang out with them I was wondering if they asked her to say it….

    People think LMP is such an honest girl because she has a big mouth and at first glance looks like a “straight shooter”, but that’s just the first glance. In reality she has never been totally honest about this marriage. Around 2003, when she was angry with Michael, she claimed she was the one to walk away and after the divorce she never looked back. She never mentioned those four more years they kept seeing each other. She only admitted it to Oprah last year. But she’s still not totally honest. I don’t know if she is honest even to herself. Let’s not forget an often overlooked factor: LMP has her own big, big baggage with Scientology! That’s a crazy cult and I bet they wanted to pull Michael in and they used LMP for it. I’m not saying they organized this marriage or anything, because that’s not true. Scientology leaders were surprised by the relationship as much as the rest of the world when they found out. I have read this in an article about Scientology. So it was not arranged by Scientology like some of the media claimed. But once they found out that LMP was involved with Michael they started to work on trying to pull him in and in my opinion they manipulated LMP to do it. Funny how LMP always called Michael a manipulator, when in reality she’s being manipulated by her cult. It’s just speculation but knowing how cults operate I personally think that Scientology was behind the fact that LMP didn’t want to have Michael’s children. They maybe told LMP to try to blackmail Michael into the cult with this, because they knew this is what he wanted the most.
    But Michael didn’t let them manipulate him and the whole blackmail attempt cost their marriage. Maybe LMP should blame Scientology for it, but she – being still a member of the cult – of course wouldn’t do that. I know there’s a lot of speculation in it, but I somehow feel Scientology had something to do with it. I read somewhere that if you are a Scientologist your spouse also needs to be made one as soon as possible, otherwise the cult will label him/her a bad influence in your life.

    Like

  132. Julie permalink
    June 25, 2011 6:11 pm

    Anniedomino – I understand your points and most certainly didn’t mean to sound like I was condoning their behavior; however I’m just merely giving my opinion as to why they behave the way they do. LaToya did reiterate that Michael was innocent of the charges which is more than we got out of LMP. I do agree that LMP’s interview was less than honest because she continues to place the blame of the demise of the marriage on MJ. I definitely don’t trust Bob Jones on anything he said. I think today we should separate the ugliness of everything and just celebrate Michael and know that all of the Oprahs and others who were so horrible to Michael will never hold a candle to him EVER!

    Like

  133. Truth Prevail permalink
    June 25, 2011 6:07 pm

    @Julie

    Michael had apparently mentioned to several people that he felt he was going to be killed over his catalogue as several have mentioned it (i.e., Lisa Marie, Katherine, Teddy Riley, LaToya).

    You Can Add Dick Gregory To That List in 2004 He Said Michael’s Death Is Gonna Be Staged And Made Out To Look Like Suicide! For His Catalougue. If Know One Knows Who He Is He Knew Dr Martin Luther King he also now states michael was murdered.

    Like

  134. anniedomino permalink
    June 25, 2011 2:10 pm

    One more thing. I do not believe that Michael spoke of a conspiracy to LMP or Joe. LMP’s interview with Oprah was filled with self-serving lies and half-truths. Her entire agenda was that she and Michael divorced because of his “drug abuse” and that he was somehow still in love with her in ’05. Classic narrative of a rejected woman. The doctor who attended him in ’95 stated that there were no drugs in his system. She claims a phone call in ’05 where she told him “if this thing goes to trial”. In ’05 the court date had already been set! Michael said on tape that they divorced because she did not want to give him children and had misled him about this. This is clearly an area she did not want to explore with Oprah so she too added to the “drug addict” myth and for good measure she thought she would curry favour with the family and fans by adding her “conspiracy” comments. The reason I point this out is because this is the very nature of what we are fighting! Myth-making at its finest. People with no integrity getting their talk-time on TV and saying what will make them look good or make money. And so legends and myths are born. And does anyone believe a word Joe says? Rebbie Jackson IMO is just as bad as LaToya. I have just read excerpts from Bob Jones’ book on Amazon. Granted I have not had the dubious pleasure of reading the entire opus. But there are lots of pointers in that book as to how Rebbie felt about her brother. Jones/ Brown speak of the family believing that Michael was a powerful manipulator who sabotaged their “careers”. Who would tell him such things? Rebbie Jackson of course. His close friend.

    Like

  135. anniedomino permalink
    June 25, 2011 1:59 pm

    Julie- I appreciate your point if view as it is really what all of us should be feeling. We should be compassionate and understanding…That was Michael’s way. But I just cannot access those emotions right now. It is June 25th! When I woke up this morning my mom had just brought in our national weekly broadsheet. On the front page – Oprah getting an honorary doctorate from the University of the Free State and LaToya’s garbage. On June 25th!!!
    Joe Jackson was the worst of the lot – but that does not absolve the rest from any kind of blame. They do not care about any noble ideal such as the preservation of their dead brother’s legacy as the greatest pop musician to ever walk the planet, they do not care about his reputation as a man, they do not care about the future emotional well-being of his kids. They just care about making money. Just as we are angry that Michael was falsly accused of being a p*do, we must also care about the fact that John Branca is being slandered as a murderer. Just as there was no evidence against Michael there is no evidence against Branca. What is the difference between LaToya Jackson and Evan Chandler. They both lie for a big pay-off. This woman has NO principles or morals. Most people who suffered abuse – without the warm cushion of a LA celebrity lifestyle – still manage to conduct themselves with decency and integrity. Michael himself said that it makes him angry when people say that “the abused abuse”. His suffering was much deeper than hers – but he never harmed other people the way she is harming him. Sorry. Still no compassion. I do not waste too much energy on Alejandra. She is just a distraction.

    To all of you around the world who are remembering Michael today. We are a community filled with love. I too am thinking of him and all of you. RIP Michael.

    Like

  136. Julie permalink
    June 24, 2011 2:59 pm

    I may not be popular for saying this, but I truly feel sorry for the entire Jackson clan. Before we judge LaToya, look at their lives. Joe took those 5 boys in order to get them out of the poor conditions they lived in and I have to wonder if sometimes Katherine doesn’t wish that success had never happened to them because look what it did. Jackie was an athlete and wanted to go to college and wasn’t allowed to. Janet had dreams of studying business law in college and was told that she had to be an entertainer. She loved acting and Joe told her no she had to sing so she did. LaToya told Piers Morgan that she actually enrolled in college and went for a while and Joe pulled her out and told her she was going to be an entertainer. Joe controlled everything they did and giving credit where credit is due – he did keep them from getting into trouble since apparently Gary, Indiana is a dangerous place to live and raise a family

    I did watch LaToya on the various shows that she did to promote her book and she did not do very well, especially with Matt Lauer (but I don’t really care for him anyway with some of his comments regarding Michael); however, on Piers Morgan she did a much better job. I have to say that he was a much better interviewer and he did give Michael credit where credit was most certainly due and stated that he was a fan of Michael’s. I think that’s the difference in these interviews — you can tell who is and who isn’t a fan of Michael’s. Now, Michael had apparently mentioned to several people that he felt he was going to be killed over his catalogue as several have mentioned it (i.e., Lisa Marie, Katherine, Teddy Riley, LaToya). LaToya seems to be the only one running with that agenda. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if it were true that there was a conspiracy to control Michael. I think Thome Thome is very shady and I think he was very controlling, which seems to be a pattern in Michael’s life. First the dad and then various other characters throughout the rest of his life.

    So why it is so farfetched when we see each one of them doing certain things that will make them money – they were groomed to do that. They are not cute, young kids anymore and Joe is now in his old age and is doing what he has to in order to make money, whether it be in good taste or not.

    I really kind of feel sorry for LaToya. She clearly stated that it was Joe that sent Jack Gordon to Japan with her. Joe seems to get mixed up with some scary people (which I think in those Glenda tapes was something that bothered Michael even though later on Michael got caught up with some shady people himself sadly as I stated previously). I’m sure Joe was on top of the world as long as he had control over the boys and then the girls and could make money off of them and when that gravy train stopped – he looked for alternative ways to make money. So yes she said what she said about Michael in 1993 and she was right when she said that she defended him initially because it’s on you tube and then the next thing you know she’s saying something different and I don’t know about you, but it would be extremely difficult to forgive her for that, but Michael obviously did. That says way more about Michael than it does for anyone else in the family. I hate that everyone bashes the family because that was Michael’s family. The only thing they knew was music and without Michael – not a one of them can stand on their own. He was the talent. I know Jermaine enjoyed some moderate success in the 80’s, but it was fly by night kind of stuff and so what do they do in the 50’s and now 60’s to try to make a living and everyone sits in judgment of them.

    I too judged that Alejandra until I listened to her give her explanation as to why she took up with Jermaine after Randy. In her words, Randy didn’t really want to be in a relationship solely with her, but they had the kids and she was living at the Jackson house and Randy took off. She and Randy never married and at about that same time Margaret Maldonado left Jermaine and so he felt jilted, Alejandra felt jilted and they were living at the house at the same time. Alejandra went on to say that she and Jermaine developed from a friendship to a romance and in her mind she felt Jermaine was a family man and that’s what she wanted. Obviously it was a mistake, but when she explained that it made sense and I did feel sorry for her. She’s another one who’s entire adult life has consisted of having babies and raising them and living off of the Jacksons and she can’t get child support out of Randy because their kids are grown, but she still has children with Jermaine and had to fight him to get child support. The only home her children have ever known has been the Jackson home. So everyone sits in judgment of her and expects her to move them to some apartment and try to find a job when she hasn’t worked in the last 30 years. It most certainly can be done, but it would be very difficult for her to get job that paid anything. Does it make it right that she continue to live off the Jacksons? No, but that dynamic got set up a long time ago and it should not have happened the way it did, but it’s done now.

    One thing LaToya said and I was glad she said it was that the only drugs in Michael’s system when he died where the ones administered to him that night. That’s what needs to be reiterated again and again.

    Rebbie did that same thing when she was on the view (which was so tasteless that Barbara Walters kept grilling her about whether the family was upset because they weren’t named in Michael’s will) and then one of the other ladies (I can’t stand a majority of them) asked about the drug interventions and Rebbie admitted that yes there had been an intervention or two, but that it needed to be stated that Michael did not die from that.

    I guess what I’m saying is that it would be nice if people wouldn’t judge his family. Judging members of his family is the same as the people that judge Michael. The Jacksons didn’t grow up like most people and yet we expect them to behave like most people. I see Brad and Angelina with their 6 children and they aren’t growing up normal either. There are no roots for those kids where they can go to school and make friends and being constantly followed by paparazzi to me would not be worth it for all the money and fame they have.

    Like

  137. ares permalink
    June 24, 2011 11:38 am

    @lcpledwards

    The comments from that site make me really sad. The fact that some say that we will never know and tha Latoya must have known something when she made those statements because she was his sister makes me very angry and sad at the same.That stupid woman with the comment that she made back then condemned her brother in the public eye for ever. I have no sympathy for her whatsoever.

    Like

  138. lcpledwards permalink
    June 24, 2011 2:15 am

    It’s good to see that MJ websites aren’t the only ones who are disappointed with Latoya! Here is an aptly titled article called “Get A Life La Toya! Stop Making A Living Off Michael’s Death”. Couldn’t have said it better myself!

    http://www.thegrio.com/entertainment/get-a-life-la-toya-stop-making-a-living-off-michaels-death.php

    Like

  139. June 23, 2011 9:55 pm

    “They should be saying the following things every time they open their mouths: MJ was acquitted in 2005 because there was no evidence against him, Gavin and the rest of the Arviso’s are not credible, Jordy recanted to friends, MJ was relatively healthy when he died and there is no evidence of long-term drug abuse, he had vitiligo, both his wives were (and still are IMO) in love with him, his kids are his biologically, his post-Thriller music was arguably his best. These facts should be hammered home by the family every time they get a chance. If they stay on-message eventually its gets through to even the dullest mind.”

    Anniedomino, I subscribe under EACH of your words – what a short and precise way of saying it!

    “These two – bother and sister – lived in the same city, or close enough, and did not see each other?? That implies an estrangement.”

    I’ve read it on several occasions that La Toya is the only Michael’s sibling who has never been invited to Michael’s home in Neverland. This definitely implies an estrangement! And she dares talk about Michael as if she knew him!

    “Michael loved and trusted his mom but he forgot that she had 8 other kids”.

    And this is so much true too (unfortunately). Michael is gone and she – as a mother – is taking care of those who are alive. Mothers are just made that way. And she is also very old which explains a lot of things – who knows what we will be like when we are over 80?

    “A story was printed in the largest circulation weekly magazine here in South Africa last week. It was all about how “normal” the kids’ lives are now.”

    This condescending surprise and open talk about the children being normal is disgusting and is in its turn absolutely abnormal. Michael’s children are much more normal than than those who talk about them that way! It is astonishing that when it comes to Michael Jackson people seem to lose all perspective and sense of proportion – they allow themselves things which would be unthinkable to say about everyone else. Many children of the rich live their lives in relative seclusion – away from the public eye, but no one ever dares say a word about it, not to mention calling it “abnormal”. People need to shake off the spell they’ve been under all this time and SOBER UP at last.

    Like

  140. anniedomino permalink
    June 23, 2011 5:44 pm

    I am afraid I am still mad at LaToya and the whole damn family – I think only Jackie has behaved with any kind of dignity since June ’09. The reason I get so angry is because the Jackson family should be leading the effort to get the truth about MJ out there. They command a huge audience. They should be saying the following things every time they open their mouths: MJ was acquitted in 2005 because there was no evidence against him, Gavin and the rest of the Arviso’s are not credible, Jordy recanted to friends, MJ was relatively healthy when he died and there is no evidence of long-term drug abuse, he had vitiligo, both his wives were (and still are IMO) in love with him, his kids are his biologically, his post-Thriller music was arguably his best. These facts should be hammered home by the family every time they get a chance. If they stay on-message eventually its gets through to even the dullest mind. Instead they are all off on a mission to make as much money as they can off their dead brother. They brand him a drug abuser, anorexic, mentally incapable, weak, controlled, easily manipulated and they get very close to calling him an overly restrictive father. In her book LaToya seems to liken Michael’s relationship with his staff to hers with Jack Gordon. Implying that he was abused and controlled. They basically assist the haters in creating a false image of Michael. LaToya in her book mentions the fact that she did not see her brother for 10 years – between 1992 and 2002. But she claims to be a caring sister who was intimate with the details of his life. These two – bother and sister – lived in the same city, or close enough, and did not see each other?? That implies an estrangement. Janet also frequently talks about not talking to MJ for periods of up to 3 years. These people might have been Michael’s blood but they did not know him well in the last years of his life. And they should stop causing trouble. They cause arguments between fans as well because many fans support them as Michael’s blood. KJ lost me when she took his precious kids on TV! That was when I lost my respect for her. Michael loved and trusted his mom but he forgot that she had 8 other kids. And they are who she is looking out for – not him and his.A story was printed in the largest circulation weekly magazine here in South Africa last week. It was all about how “normal” the kids’ lives are now. It is amazing to me how the Jacksons can have this garbage spread all over the world, but they cannot spread the truth about Michael. I loved the kids reactions when Robin Roberts spoke of how “normal” they are. Each one – even the baby – reacted with a total “WTH?” expression.

    Like

  141. hana permalink
    June 23, 2011 1:29 pm

    I read somewhere that parents who make up false sexual abuse allegations are usual ones with personality disorders and/or who are going through custody battles. Janet arvizo is a sczhiprenic who has falsely accused jc penny of sexual abuse as well as her ex husband David arvizo. Evan chandler had bipolar disorder and was going through a custody battle with his wife June chandler.

    Like

  142. June 22, 2011 10:45 pm

    Michael did give his bed to people, as this guy says. He gave it to Corey Feldman, he gave it to Mark Ronson and Sean Lennon, I think Wade testified that Mac, Keiran and someone else all fell asleep in Michael’s room once and they were strawn all over the place – Mac on a couch, Michael on a cot, that kind of thing, even Gavin Arvizo testified on the witness stand that Michael slept on the floor with Frank Cascio the one night they spent together in the same room. If Michael were such a chronic pathological ped-le why on Earth would he do that? Surely he’d make it so that the bed was the only option for any of them?

    Macaulay having Michael’s bed is kind of touching to me, because Mac speaks about how his father specifically denied both he and Keiran from sleeping in beds as a way of controlling them when they were kids.

    Like

  143. June 22, 2011 9:00 pm

    “She seems to think that Branca and Dileo are the bad guys.”

    Anniedomino, thank you for the summary. La Toya is hopeless. This painted doll is either stupid like a piece of wood or is having her revenge against Branca for not allowing her to come near Michael’s assets. In both cases she is unbearable. But what could we expect from a woman who hugs Victor Gutierrez?

    Like

  144. Carm permalink
    June 22, 2011 7:03 pm

    @Shelly
    “Amy’s father claimed MJ didn’t slept in the bed with the kids but he did and that’s the problem for lots of people. He is giving the idea that he is trying to whitewash everything.”

    So what if some people believe Amy’s father is trying to “whitewash” everything. That’s their problem. There is nothing to whitewash. Who cares if a kid fell asleep in his bed when the Agajanians weren’t there to witness it. McCaulay Culkin said that he would just fall asleep wherever after playing so hard. Sometimes it was on Michael’s bed–like, who cares!! The bottom line is that he and other kids were never invited there (in his bed). People see evil where none exists and question Michael’s lifestyle because of all the nonsense they’ve been fed for the past 20 yrs. It’s so deeply ingrained they find it hard to believe regular people who actually knew Michael and actually spent time with him at his ranch. They think these people are “biased”. Good gief!

    Like

  145. June 22, 2011 6:59 pm

    lynande51,on June 22,The 2 last sentences on your post are most poignant. I scrolled down to a clip of Randy Phillips,just a few days after Michaels death,he talks in a totally unemotional way ,the insurance, yes, it will pay for accident.
    And another clip fron 6/25 2009 ,Jerome announcing the death of Michael and next to him stands Thome-Thome.Of all people..

    Like

  146. June 22, 2011 6:26 pm

    It is difficult weather to feel sorry for Jordan or not.He was a pawn between 3 or 4(INCL. Ray C.) adults all with their own and different agendas. First June, followed by mental case Evan, then Victor Guiterrez whose ideas had permeated
    minds in one way or another.Evan was a bipolar on a manic upswing.Finally it was the combination of vengeful Evan and his skilful manouvering of lawyers and psychiatrists, including infamous Dr Katz that led to catastrophic events and happenings in Michaels life, following him to beyond the grave.

    Like

  147. lynande51 permalink
    June 22, 2011 4:43 pm

    Have we seen anyone in that family behave with dignity since Michael’s death other than his children? No. So why would this one be any different? Like I said Michael Jackson is just a free of charge spokeperson to some people out there. I think the estate should put a stop to it. No more using Michael Jackson’s name to promote your own product with out their approval. No matter who you are. Make LaToya pay for the use of his name to promote her book.They did it to Howard Mann now do it to her. How much of her book would there be if she took everything out about Michael? A chapter or two probably. You are right though, Michael kept himself and his kids away from that family for a reason.That reason was Joe and the perpetual hand out that his family members had.
    The other thing about the conspiracy and of course LaToya doesn’t seem to get it: Branca and McClain already had legal control over that catalogue, they did not need to conspire with Dr. Murray to get it. Dr. Murray acted under his own steam that night with the encouragement of AEG. What people don’t seem to get about Murray is that we only have his word for it that Michael even asked for the propofol, Michael isn’t around to say anything different.How do we know that it wasn’t presented to Michael in April by this guy? Well Dr. Cherilyn Lee said he asked her about it, did he ask her to do it or just for the sake of information? How do we know Murrray wasn’t the first to recommend it? We don’t. We only have his word about anything that happened in that house and prior to that regarding the use of the propfol. He is more than a fall guy, he was a hired assassin. His actions immediately following Michael’s death point to his knowledge of the crime.

    Like

  148. June 22, 2011 4:08 pm

    Sad to say I expected better from LaToya. I’ve read the summaries of the chapters online and you’re right, it’s just weighed down in conspiracy and agenda, with a whole lot of it waged against Branca.

    It’s sad to read how much of it comes across as though the family has little idea of what was going on with his life in the last 20 years. I believe Michael kept them at a distance for a reason and they showed repreatedly why he felt compelled to do so. Unfortunately for Michael he would keep them at a distance by using Frank, Bill, Grace, Evvy, bodyguards as “buffers” and barriers so that the family wouldn’t get angry at him for why he didn’t want to see them so that he wouldn’t have to deal with their anger, instead they could delude themselves that it was everyone else who was keeping him out of their lives.

    I can’t deal with the Joe Jackson The Saviour stuff, it’s just unbelievable to me. If any of the family members really believed that about Joe then they would hire him and Leonard Rowe as managers right now.

    It just makes me sad about the whole situation.

    Like

  149. anniedomino permalink
    June 22, 2011 2:54 pm

    I have just read a summary of LaToya’s book. I was expecting the worst from this compulsive liar but I must say my blood is boiling. I am beyond furious. First – about ’93. There is no excuse. None. I would not label my worst enemy a pedophile. Never mind my own brother. She portrays Michael as some weakling who is afraid of Jack Gordon and has no concept of money! WHY would MICHAEL JACKSON be afraid of some small time hoodlum?? She is pushing Joe Jackson’s agenda big-time. I hold the Jackson family and their various hangers on – Rowe, Oxman, Stacy Brown – responsible for a great deal of Michael’s stress. He did not want to work with his father or brothers. They cannot accept it and in his life time harassed him relentlessly to work with them and ruined whatever family feeling they had. She acts as if Grandpa was some kind of saviour. Wrong. Michael avoided him like the plague. With good reason. She gives no evidence for this so-called conspiracy. She seems to think that Branca and Dileo are the bad guys. I think they both loved Michael and looked out for him. She forgets to mention that she and her sister ransacked Michael’s home on the night of his death and instead blames the “murderers”.. She makes Michael seem like some kind of paranoid delusional. This woman needs to shut up and stop portraying her brother as some kind of mental incompetent. She has an agenda – she and her family want Michael’s estate in their hands. They clearly think that painting Branca and Dileo as the bad guys and Joe Jackson as the good guy helps their cause. What it does to Michael’s reputation is not a consideration. The Jackson family need to shut up! They will never have the pleasure of liquidating Michael’s assets and spending his hard earned cash on their lavish lifestyles. And BTW – this catalogue that seems to be the big issue still belongs to Michael’s kids! So what was that murderous conspiracy all about!
    I could continue this rant forever…But I will spare you all.

    Like

  150. June 22, 2011 12:52 pm

    “Thanks, Helena, for revealing everything about VG. This guy is really very, very sick and needs treatment.”

    Susanne, Victor Gutierrez is indeed sick and perverse though clever and cunning. This is an absolutely disastrous combination of an acute mind and horrible and perverse personality (a nitwit pervert is not that harmful – usually they lock them up in mental institutions, and no one listens to them). But in addition to that Gutierrez also has exceptional communication skills and is able to reach almost anyone he wants to.

    I’ve seen his twitter account and over there he posted a picture of him together with Larry King. It was a shock – but only until a moment I realized that Larry King was in the process of signing his book for everyone who wanted to approach him on one of his last days with CNN. So our Gutierrez came up to him with a book, obtained his signature on it and surprise-surprise, here comes a photographer who takes a picture of that historical moment. Now Gutierrez will brag that he “knows Larry King” or that Larry King is “his friend”.

    In a comment on that photo he said that he invited Larry King to Chile and promised to introduce him to some prominent politicians there (don’t remember who, probably even the president of the country) and Larry King said that it would be an honor to do so. After that Gutierrez will brag even more about him being “the negotiator” and “making arrangements” with Larry King to meet the Chilean political elite.

    It doesn’t matter that none of this will probably ever happen – what does matter is that the right impression has been created! This is probably how Gutierrez won his way to various TV channels in the US, established himself as a “credible” journalist here and as the “best expert” on MJ! Yes, this is the way they often introduce him to the TV viewers!

    If only they knew what BS he is writing……

    Like

  151. June 22, 2011 11:54 am

    La Toya is not exactly what we call emotionally stable

    Like

  152. June 22, 2011 11:13 am

    “I’ll transcribe a part, but we should definitely make this a group effort and ask others if they want to volunteer and transcribe a part.”

    David, I love you. You are a person we can always rely on – which is a very rare thing these days. Thank you. l’ll also do my best by transcribing part of it and have written to lacienega blogger making the same suggestion (hope for an answer from her).

    By the way if any of our readers is willing to help us we will be very grateful to them! Just tell us which part (or fraction of it) you will do for us not to do double work.

    If we don’t make it by June 25 it is still okay (June 25 should be a quiet day of mourning anyway) but one of the days after that should be definitely devoted to Mr. Agajanian’s tapes!

    Like

  153. June 22, 2011 10:40 am

    “I didn’t meant to be so hard on Latoya, and I’m sympathetic to her abuse, but sometimes I just get so frustrated with her.”

    David, I fully understand both you and Lynette – this is one of the situations when both of you are right. It seems that La Toya was indeed forced to say all those things about MJ by her abusive husband, but this doesn’t explain why she had to be so vehement in her accusations (unless she valued her husband much more than her faraway brother).

    A human being is an extremely complex and contradictory animal and human psychology is probably the most complicated subject on earth. Psychologists have been studying it for centuries and still cannot say they’ve made tremendous progress (this is what my mother as professor of psychology says). One moment you think like that, another moment you think another way, and what you do will be different from the first two – and even you as the primary source of information cannot explain why it happened that way.

    It seems to me that the main motive in La Toya’s behavior was envy for her brother and his fame – so she takes every opportunity for sparkling in the media limelight using various factors as a pretext. When her husband abused her and demanded she should say all those things, all she could think of was that she shouldn’t produce the impression of a miserable liar and look gorgeous on the screen. Now that Michael is dead it is a big joy for her that she can be in the limelight again – this time saying true things about her brother. But the common feature for both variants of behavior is HER and her being in the limelight.

    Almost all humans are selfish and it is terribly difficult to rid yourself of this trait. And La Toya does not produce the impression of a selfless woman.

    Like

  154. June 22, 2011 10:01 am

    “Amy’s father claimed MJ didn’t slept in the bed with the kids but he did and that’s the problem for lots of people. He is giving the idea that he is trying to whitewash everything.”

    Shelly, Amy’s father is describing what he saw. Same as Macaulay’s father described what he saw there too. And it is not up to us to argue with these people – all they are saying is that they never saw Michael really “sleeping” with anyone in Neverland though their children evidently hang about a lot in Michael’s bedroom/living room – and all this time they saw completely different things!

    If someone wants to think that in the absence of Amy’s or Macaulay’s fathers things were different in Neverland, we can’t argue with these people – they think they know better than anyone else. But I am afraid that it has more to do with their mentality than with the mentality of Amy’s or Macaulay’s fathers.

    Like

  155. shelly permalink
    June 22, 2011 9:10 am

    @ares

    Amy’s father claimed MJ didn’t slept in the bed with the kids but he did and that’s the problem for lots of people. He is giving the idea that he is trying to whitewash everything.

    Like

  156. June 22, 2011 8:55 am

    “All the haters are going to tell you, MJ did he say he slept in the same bed with those kids. Those kids testified during the trial and said he did sleep with them.”

    Shelly, I know what haters are going to tell me, but the purpose of this blog and other Michael’s vindicators is not to remonstrate with haters but be an alternative source of information about Michael. Up till now the general public has not been given the slightest chance to look at Michael differently – all they had was the usual chewed up gum spewed by Michael’s detractors.

    What we are doing here is providing information from the other side. Mr.Adjanian is saying it himself that NO ONE was interested in what he had to say about Michael though he freely offered this information. SO LET US GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO SAY what he has to say about Michael.

    And let the general public decide after that.

    From what I hear about those slumber parties it seems that they came in innumerable forms and ways – the whole gang watching TV and falling asleep wherever they were (parents included), some of the children crawling into MJ’s bed either when he was awake or when he had already fallen asleep, or when the bed became too crowded he would go upstairs to his own bedroom or sleep on the floor or on a sofa nearby – whatever!

    And it wasn’t “sleeping” in the meaning of the word which haters attach to it. Actually, it wasn’t sleeping at all – it was a way to stay awake as Michael had a problem with sleep in general and all this children-parents-friends slumber-partying was one of the ways to cope with this problem.

    The only drawback I see with this way of life is that there is no discipline or regimen in it – that is why when children grew older they preferred their own premises for sleep and a quieter life (Macaulay said something like that in his testimony) while Michael remained what he was – a Big Child with a sleep problem and a person who never had a moment of quiet in his life.

    Like

  157. June 22, 2011 7:03 am

    David it’s good she was asked about it but Matt should know that she has repeatedly talked about it after her divorce. She has also talked about her forced marriage in the late 80’s

    Like

  158. lcpledwards permalink
    June 22, 2011 5:01 am

    @ Lynette
    I didn’t meant to be so hard on Latoya, and I’m sympathetic to her abuse, but sometimes I just get so frustrated with her. She claims she “didn’t know” what she would be reading on that paper, yet she poured a lot of emotions into that press conference, and repeated those same lies the next day on the Today Show with Katie Couric. And the icing in the cake is when she HUGGED Victor Gutierrez, which is indefensible, considering all of the info available about him on the internet. There’s just no excuse for that!

    But I’ll give her credit: I watched her on Piers Morgan tonight, and for once in my life I was impressed with her. She humanized Joe Jackson by describing his childhood, and his inability to give love because he had never receive love. And I’m glad she told Piers that the only drug in MJ’s system was Propofol, and she also mentioned how MJ didn’t go to the hospital when he was in Britain, as he was originally planned; instead AEG took him to see their own doctor, who cleared him to perform the concerts.

    I just wish that she would put up a more vehement defense of MJ to the media people who have slandered him, the same way Mr. Agajanian did in that radio interview from July 1, 2009. Remember when Latoya went on Joy Behar, and said how much she “enjoys” her show, and watches it every day! That’s the stuff that bothers me about her.

    Like

  159. lynande51 permalink
    June 22, 2011 4:00 am

    David I do have to say that at least this time she was clear and not so easily tricked by the leading question from Lauer. He asked her if she had a change of heart since the press conference in 1993 in Tel Aviv and her answer should stop it once and for all. She said ” never had a change of heart,I always knew he never did that”. I’m going to stick up for her here because there are things about spousal abuse that, unless you have lived through it, a person could not possibly understand. Let me explain a little bit here, when Jack Gordon forced her to make that speech he was also doing something to her. The reason an abuser abuses is to have control through the fear that it generates and they always abuse in more than one way ( physical, emotional, psychological, and sexual). One of the things that an abuser does to control the spouse is to isolate them from those that can help them. He told her that he would have Michael killed and she believed him. The reason for that is because she knew or believed that he was actually capable of doing that because of what he had done to her already. Another thing they like to do and do often is make other people question the validity of what your saying the “oh she’s just acting crazy again, you can’t believe anything she says”. That way if you ever say anything about them ,try to report them, there will already be doubt in the other persons mind.
    Let me give you a personal perspective on what an abuser will say. Once after a particularly brutal beating my ex husband told me that if I told my father he would kill him. I believed him because I knew that if I had told my father he would have tried to kill my exhusband and he in turn could have killed my father. He also told me that my brothers had given him permission to beat me if I got out of line, making sure I was isolated from those that could help me. Sounds amazingly similar, they must all be given the same handbook.
    LaToya remembers it from a different perspective. She remembers it from the perspective of the abused spouse and sees it as an act of abuse directed at her to hurt her and use her. Even though people see that as something that she did to Michael, she sees it as an act of abuse directed towards her. She can’t help that because she was the one that it happened to as well.

    Like

  160. lcpledwards permalink
    June 22, 2011 1:54 am

    @ Olga
    This was one of the best interviews that Matt Lauer has ever conducted! I’m glad he asked her the tough questions, because personally I’m sick and tired of hearing her open her mouth! If she’s not willing to name specific people, or give specific details about the conspiracy to kill MJ, then she needs to just shut up! And I’m also glad that Lauer grilled her about the 1993 press conference, and I was hoping she’d just take responsibility for it, but instead she blamed Jack Gordan, as usual. I was most disappointed with her refusal to fully retract her molestation claims that she leveled at her father. Lauer asked her specifically if she would retract them, and she gave some BS answer. Good grief! If this is any indication of what her book is like, then I definitely won’t be reading it! I’ll instead purchase Geraldine Hughes’ new book “Michael-Gate”.

    Like

  161. lcpledwards permalink
    June 22, 2011 1:42 am

    @ Helena
    I’ll transcribe a part, but we should definitely make this a group effort and ask others if they want to volunteer and transcribe a part. I can do a part and have it done this weekend (I work long hours this week, otherwise I’d do it tonight!).

    Like

  162. ares permalink
    June 22, 2011 12:19 am

    @shelly
    What do you mean?

    Like

  163. shelly permalink
    June 21, 2011 11:00 pm

    All the haters are going to tell you, MJ did he say he slept in the same bed with those kids. Those kids testified during the trial and said he did sleep with them.

    Like

  164. June 21, 2011 10:26 pm

    Tamia, I am listening to the videos now and find them absolutely extraordinary! I don’t even know how to thank you for finding this information and making it available to us all!

    I’ll be happy if Lacienega blogger transcribes it but we should do even more about it and as soon as possible too. We need to spread it like fire and post it on every corner. In fact coming out with this information on the anniversary of Michael’s death for ALL BLOGGERS will probably be the best way to honor his memory.

    I really mean it – ALL BLOGGERS should post it – so that the internet is filled all over and is spilling the information overboard. There simply cannot be too much for it.

    Since my skills in understanding spoken English are far from good let us divide it between ourselves and each will come up with what he managed to put down. And then EVERYONE will post the summary of it. It is incredible that this treasure has been there for two years, and no one noticed!

    I don’t give a damn for haters and them reading about my suggestion – we are no criminals to hide our plans – SO LET THEM KNOW! If other bloggers don’t do that, let it be – at least this and Lasienega’s blog will publish it (though it will be better if others join in).

    I do hope that parts 2 and 3 are as good as part 1 and 4 (which I’ve listened to) – but if not, even these two are awe-inspiring. I’ll be happy to put aside sleazy Gutierrez for a time being and do this wonderful thing.

    As my very small contribution here is a small piece from part 1 which shattered me by the emotions this man put into his words. It is clear that he is speaking from the very bottom of his heart and is practically screaming in his desire to reach for the hearts of the others:

    “His bedroom was a playland. The secret room that was locked up – that’s where he walked to sleep. When he said, “I’d be happy to give my bed to kids”, what he meant by those words – when he grew up he didn’t have a bed. All the Jacksons’ kids slept in one room. To be able to sleep in a bed was a big deal!

    And the people just didn’t understand that what he was saying was that when you give someone where you sleep, where you live and you go to another room to sleep, you’re giving them the bed you’re sharing, the most you have! It’s like sitting at the table and saying – okay, you can have this steak to eat and I’ll eat the beans over there. They just didn’t understand his honesty and saying that got him in trouble

    From part 1:

    Like

  165. June 21, 2011 9:10 pm

    La Toya on TODAY: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43477688/ns/today-entertainment/

    Thanks, Thetis. If La Toya hadn’t compromised herself so badly before, her today’s words could be very helpful. She is right about Dr. Murray being the fall guy for something much larger. It is clear even from the amount of money the penniless Dr. Murray is spending on his defense now.

    Here is part of the transcript of her interview (please follow the link to see the full of it):

    “you wrote, michael who confided in me years earlier that he feared assassination by those who wanted to steal his valuable publishing catalog and estate. you quote michael as saying, i’m even afraid to walk around in my own yard because i’m afraid they’re going to kill me. i could never perform again because i know they’re going to kill me. do you know who he’s referring to?

    yes, he told me exactly who he was referring to. he was terrified. he was terrified of the fact that he had this catalog and he knew they wanted it. that catalog.

    catalog of music.

    his publishing which he owned over — i think it was 750,000 songs just alone. so he owned everybody’s publishing —

    who did he think wanted to kill him to gain control of that catalog?

    women, everybody that surrounded that, that was involved in that. and he would speak about it. and he was very afraid. he said it was just a matter of time. he knew it was going to happen. when he first told me i was, michael , come on that can’t be true. i didn’t truly understand it in the beginning. but the more he explained it, the more i understood. not only did he tell me. he told my mother as well.

    one of the things that struck me. he said he was afraid to even perform yet we know at the time of his death he was rehearsing for a major tour over seas.

    that’s right.

    what was the problem? he apparently had lost that fear.

    no, what it was, he was in a catch-22 where he knew that he had to perform and he had the perform ten dates because he was given so much. okay. i’ll do this and only this. only the ten dates and that’s it.

    so all the attention being paid to dr. conrad murray for the death of michael , you say he is the fall guy for a much larger plot. you write, quote, i decided to investigate michael ‘s death and go public with what i found with the hope of getting justice for michael by identifying those who really killed him. and yet in the book, la toya , i couldn’t find anywhere where you actually named someone or give proof of anyone actually killing michael .

    but when you read the book and you read between the lines and you understand, you will know what exactly michael led you to that, to what was going to happen.

    lead me to it.

    when you read the book you understand it completely. once you read it, you will understand it. and i have to say that i was not there when he was actually murdered. however —

    but you do believe that it was not dr. conrad murray responsible for his death that someone actually murdered your brother?

    i believe that dr. murray was definitely the fall guy . i think that they need to invest gate this a bit more. go deeper into it.

    this idea of yours, and this belief of yours, has put you at odds with other family members.

    not at odds.

    you write in the book how the family always came together, for example, at the trial of michael .

    of course.

    — earlier in 2003 . but they’re in the on page you in this.

    in the beginning they were, oh, no, he’s passed, let him lie to rest. you can’t not let that be because his children thanks need to know what happened, they want to know what happened to their father. they were there. they understand.

    have you gone to the police now with information that you have uncovered in your own investigation? are they now looking in a different area?

    in the beginning i was with the detectives right there with them and i wanted the surveillance camera , i want to no everything and everyone who came in and out of that house. all of a sudden that’s eradicate eradicat eradicated. they erase it but just the first three or four minutes there.

    on the subject of the trial of the situation the brother found himself in on two separate occasions with accusations of molestation. you held a news conference, i think it was in tel aviv in 1993 , and you said pretty important things. quote, i can no longer be a silent collaborator of these crimes against small innocent children.

    absolutely.

    you now say that you were forced to say that by your former husband jack gordon . how could he force you to say something so damning about your brother?

    matt, when you’re in a relationship when you’re being abused and very controlling, he controlled everything i did, everything that went on in my life. he was working with a group of people that were working with my brother at the time, which, in fact, i didn’t know. i wasn’t privy to that. i wasn’t privy to watch television. i knew nothing that was going on. when i went on television and said my brother was wonderful, he would never do anything like that. he hated that. the next day, you get on. went to tel aviv . he said i was going on vacation. i thought there was an award show. we drove up, all those cameras and people there. i didn’t know.

    you had a complete change of heart in terms of your brother’s situation with molestation.

    never had a change of heart . i always knew he never did that. and that’s one thing that michael and i discussed and talk about because i had to speak to him about that. he said, la toya , you don’t have to mention that. i know you. i know your heart i know he was making you do this. michael knew more than i thought. he would call me and tell me to get away from him. gordon is going to murder you. what i would want to say he would tell me if i didn’t do what we he wanted me to do or say he was going to kill michael .

    Like

  166. Susanne permalink*
    June 21, 2011 8:52 pm

    Thanks, Helena, for revealing everything about VG. This guy is really very, very sick and needs treatment.

    @Tamia: Wow, these videos are amazing. It’s very important material and we need to spread it. These guys are wonderful. It’s interesting that he also talked about Michael’s big family in Gary and Michael not having his own bed and that it was normal to share beds.
    Listening to this man again almost broke my heart.

    Like

  167. June 21, 2011 6:43 pm

    La Toya on TODAY

    Lauer and La Toya also touched on other statements she’s made in the past, including the 1993 press conference where she said she believed the sexual abuse allegations that had been brought against Michael.

    Now, she says she was forced to do that by her husband, Jack Gordon.

    “I always knew [Michael] never [molested children],” said La Toya.”

    http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43477688/ns/today-entertainment/

    Like

  168. shelly permalink
    June 21, 2011 6:28 pm

    Yes, the point is he wasn’t with Jordan, so he doesn’t know what happened.

    Like

  169. Tamia permalink
    June 21, 2011 6:06 pm

    Vindicate MJ:
    I will try to post this on as many blogs as possible! The blogger from La cienega said that they will transcribe the videos.

    By the way, Jordan reunited with June and Lily after he fell out with Evan in 2005/6.

    Shelly:
    I would guess that Michael told him but i’m not sure.

    Like

  170. shelly permalink
    June 21, 2011 5:48 pm

    I wonder how he knows what he said about Jordan in the 4th video.

    Like

  171. June 21, 2011 4:51 pm

    “I also think June was the key player in all this (and no wonder Jordan holds grudge against her). I mean Evan was a crazy man. I think his family knew. So it was up to June which way to go. Had she remained on Michael’s side Evan easily could have been stopped. Jordan would not have been forced to lie and so on. The key moment was when June switched sides and started to support Evan. That left Jordan no way to escape. And now to act as if she was some distant observer of all this is way too convenient. No wonder Jordan doesn’t talk to her.”

    Suzy, I agree with you 100%. Evan Chandler was a mental case or at least a borderline one. People like that can turn anyone’s life into a nightmare but they are ill, so what else can you expect of them? Evan’s whole life record shows that he was not only nasty, but highly unbalanced and nearly crazy (as he almost killed his son and committed suicide himself).
    And June Chandler is an absolutely sane person who calculates each of her steps. I also tend to regard her as the key player in the whole game, or at least a player with as much power in her hands as Evan Chandler. And though being able to make a difference she joined Evan and let down both her son and the man she probably loved. I don’t even rule it out that it was after her change of heart that the Chandlers changed from Gloria Allred to Feldman. It is very much her style.

    Like

  172. June 21, 2011 4:34 pm

    “Pay particular attention to what he has to say on Part 4 @ 0:57 re Jordan Chandler – saying Jordan did not want to testisfy against Michael in 1993”

    Tamia, judging by part 4 – the only one which I’ve managed to watch – the videos are fantastic. We must make it known to everyone. This is information is coming almost directly from Jordan! We’ve been waiting for it for so long! In a few hours I will be able to come back to the blog and will try to transcribe it (if somebody else doesn’t).
    Thank you so much!!!!

    Like

  173. June 21, 2011 4:28 pm

    “i had seen a note someplace to jordan, from MJ saying tell his mother he loved her etc..they could very well have been interested in each other”

    Nan, that letter is the Veritas Project (not the letter itself, but its text). Here it is:

    “[Boy’s name], you’re not only my cousin but also my best friend. I can’t stop loving your mother and sister. I have found true love in all of you. If more people were like us the world would change instantly. I have such golden dreams for you. I want you to be a giant in the industry. You are my new inspiration. I love you. Doo doo head. Applehead. Disneyland soon. Love, doo doo. Call soon, bye, doo doo head. Tell Mom I love her.”

    Of course they were interested in each other! As regards her I have no doubt about it, as regards him – who knows? June could be absolutely charming if she wanted to – her two ex-husbands discussed it in their telephone conversation. And she surely managed to create a family atmosphere when she invited Michael to her home which was something Michael longed for so much.

    It is no chance that she invited him to her home and not he invited her to his home (though this way it was much easier) – she wanted to show him what family life was really like, children going to school, dinners together “when father comes home from work” and so on. Most probably it was supposed to be a model of future happy family life.

    Like

  174. nan permalink
    June 21, 2011 3:33 pm

    shelly
    thank you for the info about the time of the bank statement..I am just now starting to grasp the VG stuff…..:)
    as far as june gatlin, and the note , she is on fb and does have a message button if anyone wanted to ask her directly..i had seen a note someplace , maybe flocast? to jordan, from MJ saying tell his mother he loved her etc..they could very well have been interested in each other……i will have to see when he started talking to lmp because i thought it was around that same time frame too

    to everybody on this board who writes these articles, thank you so much..because you really get so much factual info on this site…there are just so many layers of years of misinformation to sift through…….i really didnt know one tenth of this stuff before Michael died..

    Like

  175. Suzy permalink
    June 21, 2011 3:25 pm

    @ Tamia

    That’s a great video! Thanks!

    Like

  176. June 21, 2011 2:36 pm

    “i am on rev. junes facebook page, as i remembered after someone mentioned that note, being to her and she does have that note as being addressed to her , it even has the same design in the corner, same wording”.

    Nan, if this is indeed so, then I was misinformed and will remove that letter from the post.

    I had some doubts about posting it as I kept it so long that couldn’t remember the source where it came from and was surprised that nobody else was talking about it – which is another proof that we shouldn’t do anything when in doubt. Since the main thing is the truth, the letter will have to go.

    Thanks to you and Susan for the correction.

    Like

  177. shelly permalink
    June 21, 2011 2:34 pm

    @nan,

    I think they talked to VG way after the settlement. The bank account document is from 1995.

    Like

  178. Tamia permalink
    June 21, 2011 2:30 pm

    Suzy:
    Re Jordan Chandler

    http://www.formspring.me/sosodeaf
    >>
    This girl knew Michael and was present during the trial so had some inside info on it. She was saying that Jordan did not want to testify for the prosecution – and she was saying this before the FBI files confirmed it. At the time of the trial, the defence found out that Jordan was telling people at college that he thought Michael was innocent of the allegations.

    I posted this on La cienega – which is a really good site and worth a read –
    Here is a 4 part video of a man defending Michael. He was Amy Agajanian’s (girl on Oprah)father and he spent many days at Neverland:

    Part 1:

    Part 2:

    Part 3:

    Part 4:

    Pay particular attention to what he has to say on Part 4 @ 0:57 re Jordan Chandler – saying Jordan did not want to testisfy against Michael in 1993.

    Like

  179. nan permalink
    June 21, 2011 1:57 pm

    i am on rev. junes facebook page, as i remembered after someone mentioned that note, being to her and she does have that note as being addressed to her , it even has the same design in the corner, same wording., .

    as far as June Chandler goes,I believe, she is the one that brought Jordan to see Dr Gardner in NY, so she was on board, she was no innocent bystander ….
    shelly,
    I didnt know VG had Jordans bank acct number.I must have missed that..I believe VG did talk to the Chandlers.I almost get the impression that he was the original ghost writer for them, that they gave him some info, but somehow they ended up putting Ray Chandler up to it with them, leaving VG out….That is why I figure by the time the settlement was reached, the Chandlers must have already scr@wed VG over, doing their own version of the book, because Ray was shopping one around right after the settlement……….,perhaps cutting VG out of the profit..and thats why I figure VG had some info and he says such brutal stuff regarding a fake diary…..I got the impression one of them turned on the other.. otherwise why tell VG anything..what a joke anyone of that group calling someone else a sleezeball.LOL

    Like

  180. June 21, 2011 12:26 pm

    “I just have a question regarding the June Chandler note. I thought that this was a note that Michael had given to Rev June Gatlin. She was the woman who released audio from a taped phone conversation she had with Michael regarding Tohme Tohme about how Michael did not trust Tohme. I can’t remember where or when I heard about the note, and I may be wrong, but I thought that June Gatlin claimed the note was for her. Rev June Gatlin claimed that she was Michael’s spiritual advisor. Perhaps someone else can clarify if they know.”

    Susan, this is important – thank you. I downloaded that letter a century ago as a letter to June Chandler and kept it for a future occasion to talk about her, so finding out whether it is a mistake or not will take some time now, but if it turns out that it was indeed addressed to another “June” it will surely be removed. However it won’t change my opinion that there were some romantic relations between MJ and June Chandler – based on a word said here and there all taken together.

    Like

  181. Suzy permalink
    June 21, 2011 12:22 pm

    Thanks, Helena.

    It’s also interesting to compare these accounts with the Schwartz-Chandler conversation.

    In my opinion VG wrote his book in collaboration with Evan. There are clear signs of that. Stories which are also touched upon in the Schwartz-Chandler convo, although in a somewhat different form. It’s also interesting that in VG’s book it’s June who is accused of willing to “pimp out” Jordan, when in reality – in my opinion – it was Evan who would have been willing to do anything to stay close to Michael, including pimping out his son (ie. his offer to Michael to move in with them and so on). Of course, he totally miscalculated and misinterpreted Michael’s intentions.

    I also think June was the key player in all this (and no wonder Jordan holds grudge against her). I mean Evan was a crazy man. I think his family knew. So it was up to June which way to go. Had she remained on Michael’s side Evan easily could have been stopped. Jordan would not have been forced to lie and so on. The key moment was when June switched sides and started to support Evan. That left Jordan no way to escape. And now to act as if she was some distant observer of all this is way too convenient. No wonder Jordan doesn’t talk to her.

    I’d be interested to know if there’s some basis to the claims that Jordan was looking for articles about Michael in magazines and listening to his music all the time. Of course, not for the reason VG suggests. But I wonder if this info comes from Evan too and if there’s some truth to it. It would corroborate with claims that at college Jordan would throw parties with Michael’s music and he remained a fan. (On the other hand didn’t he join Evan’s 1996 lawsuit against Michael?)

    Like

  182. June 21, 2011 12:12 pm

    VG is much more mentally incompetent than people can realize

    Like

  183. June 21, 2011 12:00 pm

    Kit Culking called the Lemarques “predators pair” in his book

    Like

  184. Susan permalink
    June 21, 2011 11:32 am

    Hi everyone:

    Vindicate, fantastic post! Actually, all of the investigators here are brilliant. I appreciate all of your thorough fact based and well thought out work.

    I just have a question regarding the June Chandler note. I thought that this was a note that Michael had given to Rev June Gatlin. She was the woman who released audio from a taped phone conversation she had with Michael regarding Tohme Tohme about how Michael did not trust Tohme. I can’t remember where or when I heard about the note, and I may be wrong, but I thought that June Gatlin claimed the note was for her. Rev June Gatlin claimed that she was Michael’s spiritual advisor. Perhaps someone else can clarify if they know. Thank you.

    Like

  185. shelly permalink
    June 21, 2011 8:21 am

    @nan,

    VG talked to the Chandler, or at least to Ray. I think it’s obvious because of all the legals documents in the book. How could he have Jordan’s bank account if he didn’t talk to them.

    Like

  186. nan permalink
    June 21, 2011 5:45 am

    Really great article…These people are unbelievable..The.only thing regarding the note MJ wrote to June that makes me think in his mind it was still platonic, is that he signed it Michael Jackson, not just Michael..He writes very sentimental things to people he cares about, I definitely think June was on the hunt for him the first day she met him at Rent a Wreck.And I think that is why she was hanging out in his bedroom and kept inviting him for dinner etc…Her , not MJ,manipulating the situation……A very calculating woman indeed.
    One thing I am trying to figure out is how Ray Chandler ended up shopping a book right after settlement, on Evans behalf…And yet VG is pretending to know what Jordan was feeling after the settlement..I am wondering if maybe Evan decided to cut VG out and go with his brother.,….I am not sure that Evan didnt lie to his own brother about Jordan and MJ, to get him to go along with it, since he was probably upset that the bulk of money was going to Jordan., and wanted to make his own cash off it…..otherwise ,why would Ray go along with this stuff..He didnt get settlement money..And he certainly shut up after the trial….
    I wonder if VG made a lot of money off this book that he can live off it ,or how he is supporting himself now…unless someone else is bankrolling him, because who would hire this guy,??…..Thanks for writing this ..very interesting stuff..

    Like

  187. TatumMarie permalink
    June 21, 2011 1:30 am

    Wooo. The letter he wrote to June is …… I would be on my back in a heartbeat if he wrote that to me. I long suspected there was something going on between June and Michael.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: