Victor Gutierrez and his fantasy book about Michael Jackson. Part 3. JUNE CHANDLER & other BAD CHARACTERS
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.
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).
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!
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)”.
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?
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
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.
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!
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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:
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…..