Skip to content

VICTOR GUTIERREZ behind the scenes of Michael Jackson’s case

October 25, 2012

As you can well imagine I spent several days exchanging Spanish-English computer translations with Marcelo. It is too early to predict anything but hopefully something good will come of it one day. The process turned into a sort of an inventory of facts known to us about Victor Gutierrez and brought me to some unexpected conclusions which I would like to share here.

The first question is why this creature is so important to us at all. The short answer is because he wrote a dirty, slanderous and pornographic book called “Michael Jackson Was My Lover – the Secret Diary of Jordie Chandler” after which there was simply no stopping him.

Even Michael’s death did not put an end to Gutierrez’s hateful activity against Michael Jackson. He took Michael’s death as a personal gift for himself because now he did not have to pay the fine of $2,7 mln imposed on Gutierrez by the court. The fine was for telling lies about a certain ‘explicit’ video tape which Gutierrez could not produce even in the face of having to pay those millions.

However the humiliation of the defeat in court never let Gutierrez go and in order to insult Michael Jackson further Gutierrez turned Michael’s death into a lucrative business for himself – on the eve of Michael’s birthday, while his body was still awaiting burial, Gutierrez launched a nasty MJ impersonation show on Chilean TV featuring a clown calling himself Maikel Perez Jackson.

There is not a single Michael Jackson’s trait that wouldn’t be ridiculed by that nasty program and all of it you see in the high-pitched voice, the nose that falls off and turns into a black hole or a big brown bulb, the hair catching fire, the hands being of opposite colors when the glove is off,  a torn white sock when the shoe is lost during a dance routine, a child hanging out of the window with his head down and held by one foot only, even a book for the dear “amante” (friend) Gutierrez presented to him by Michael’s impersonator and much more of it in the same style – all of it was done at the time when the whole world was silenced into some confusion and unexpected sadness over Michael Jackson’s death, at a time when his body was still undergoing an autopsy and was not even buried.

It was exactly at that moment that Victor Gutierrez was laughing out loud and bragging that now that Jackson was dead he did not owe him anything. Another of his laughs was about the  children “having a normal life at last” and though he seemed to be talking about MJ’s orphans only I do not rule out that the statement was also meant to be a sigh of relief that all children of the world would now live a happy life forever after in the absence of that horrible Michael Jackson.

As I’ve said the show where Gutierrez is either a panelist,  a consultant, a co-host or simply the inspiration of it was launched on August 28, 2009 when Michael’s body was not yet laid to rest and when the mere idea of people laughing at his death looked blasphemous even to the majority of his haters.

But Gutierrez is not just an ordinary hater of Michael Jackson. He is the complete dregs of humankind, a small but unscrupulous sleazebag of a human being who is so ugly, petty and pathological that on some rare occasions I even feel sorry for him.

The essence of his whole being is reflected by the answers to the “World of Wonder” 5 questions provided below and given either by Gutierrez himself or by the authors of the “WoW” blog who decided to demonstrate this way their tender attitude towards Gutierrez and give readers the idea of a kind of species Gutierrez is:

1. Describe yourself as if you were writing a personals ad.
Small, fat, ugly Latino, lots of lawsuits, not good in bed, reporter, needs a good female attorney or publisher.

2. If you had two tickets to paradise, where would you go and who would you take?
I will go to Neverland, not the ranch, take Jacko and leave him there. Or Thailand. Whatever makes him more satisfied.

3. Who plays you in the movie?
It has to be Danny de Vito. Bratt Pitt is little bit lighter than I am.

4. Who do you go to for advice?
If I get a lawsuit, an attorney. The Dalai Lama doesn´t respond to my emails. And I don´t understand what the pope tells me.

5. What makes you cry?
Dust in my eyes.

http://worldofwonder.net/archives/2005/03/08/victor_gutierrez/

The above is a short but clear sketch of someone who is totally unfamiliar with the concept of remorse and needs no one else’s advice except that of his attorney. This is also a sketch of someone who is completely obsessed with Michael Jackson and probably even in a sexual way as that paradise thing suggests it.

Incidentally the portrait described above fits very well with a picture of a very specific and very abnormal type of a person called SOCIOPATH who is characterized by the following traits all of which are present in abundance in Gutierrez’s persona:

  • Glibness and Superficial Charm
  • Manipulative and Conning
  • Grandiose Sense of Self
  • Pathological Lying
    – Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
  • Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
    – Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
  • Shallow Emotions
  • Incapacity for Love
  • Callousness/Lack of Empathy
    – Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others’ feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
  • Irresponsibility/Unreliability
    – Not concerned about wrecking others’ lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
  • Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
    – Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
  • Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
    – Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

Other Related Qualities:

  1. Secretive
  2. Paranoid
  3. Conventional appearance
  4. Incapable of real human attachment to another
  5. Unable to feel remorse or guilt
  6. Extreme narcissism and grandiose
  7. etc.

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

All of the above looks like a great summary of Gutierrez and a good scientific explanation of his pathology.

THE FILM

The question about Danny de Vito playing Gutierrez’s part refers to a serious attempt to create a movie based on Gutierrez’s fictional novel about Jackson which was made by the producers of the World of Wonder media production company (the same the above questionnaire belongs to).

Randy Barbato and Fenton Bailey went down into history as producers and directors of a documentary entitled “Inside Deep Throat” as well as several other films. Wiki says that the Inside Deep Throat documentary was rated NC-17 by the Motion Picture Association of America for explicit sexual content – so we can imagine what Gutierrez’s “MJWML” could have looked like had it been reproduced on the screen by these two directors.

The film was planned for the year following the 2005 trial. Half a year after the trial ended, in November 2005 the Chilean El Mercurio reported that the screenplay for the film had been completed:

  • “The screenplay for “Michael Jackson was my lover,” the movie by Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato, based on the book of the Chilean journalist, Víctor Gutiérrez, is already finished. “There will be no explicit scenes of sex in the film, it will be all very subtle, but controversial”, says the writer …”

Is this nasty show playing with the idea that Gavin Arvizo was bald from chemo treatment when he met Michael Jackson?

The British GQ magazine of September 2006 explained:

  • “central to the film, and the most controversial element in it, is the presentation of Jordie as a willing, even eager, participant in a relationship with a man he had worshipped since the age of four.” Despite the explosive nature of the events it describes, the script is actually a model of amorous propriety. “We wanted to capture the intoxicating feeling of the first love which was what it was for Jordie, says Bailey. … “Some obstacles still lie ahead”.  “America can deal with the sanitized version of the story, but our story is based on the tabloid version”. “The Europeans don’t have that kind of squeamishness” and producers “seek finance for their movie mainly in Europe”.

Bad as the book is, we can imagine how much worse a film could have been if the project had been realized. The producers are absolutely no angels and see a line between a sanitized/clean story and the tabloid/dirty version of it, but were very much willing to cross this line in favor of the dirty variant taking advantage of the European “lack of squeamishness”.

We are actually lucky that child pornography is still banned in most parts of the world or otherwise the deep throats of the film industry would have already turned this book into a blockbuster describing in a truly Gutierrez-like style the ‘beauty’ of a boy’s love for an adult which in Gutierrez’s opinion is what Jordan Chandler felt for MJ.

In contrast to Gutierrez’s version of his tender love for MJ in an interview with Dr. Richard Gardner Jordan Chandler showed no emotion at all– whether pro or anti-Jackson – and was cold, superior and businesslike, and this makes you think that he was either not that happy in his alleged ‘relationship’ with MJ or there was never any ‘relationship‘ at all,  judging by the impassionate way Jordan related his story. Whatever it was it definitely failed to confirm Gutierrez’s romantic story and showed that both Gutierrez and Jordan were lying – only each in his own way.

It is difficult to say whether Gutierrez’s friends at WoW sincerely praise his book or it is simply their way of mocking at it, but that ‘big old sloppy kiss’ they ask Gutierrez to give Jordie seems to me something bigger than a mere joke and looks like a big hello they send to Gutierrez in connection with his own affection for young boys:

If you’ve never read Mr Gutierrez’s Michael Jackson Was My Lover: The Secret Diary of Jordie Chander, you should start saving your pennies now. Sure, the used copies start at around $500, but it’s one of the most thorough and eye-opening investigations into the 1993 Michael molestation trial EVER WRITTEN. Published only in Chile, and kept out of circulation here in the States (due to legal threats and a MASSIVE CONSPIRACY, of course, of course) the book exposes the seamy underbelly of the Michael Jackson mythos in lurid style. It’s all there: the drugs, the sex with underage boys, the coverups, the plastic surgeries… and, mind you, this was all written 15 years ago! WAY before Diane Diamond and Nancy Grace got in on the act! I don’t know whether it’s all true, or none of it’s true. But it’s a helluva read and Victor is a helluvan investigator. So happy birthday to you, Victor Gutierrez!

(And PS: give Jordie a big old sloppy kiss from me if you see him!) http://worldofwonder.net/2009/08/11/Happy_Birthday_Victor_Gutierrez/

After so grand an introduction of Gutierrez’s filth let us recall how come Victor Gutierrez started to write it at all.

THE BOOK

Gutierrez says that his ‘investigation’ was based on Jordan Chandler’s diary and it is already at this stage that you can make your conclusion about the novel without turning a single page of it.

The boy simply never kept a diary and this tells you all you need to know about this masterpiece of Gutierrez’ invention. The absence of a diary was confirmed by Jordan’s uncle who was so annoyed by Gutierrez fantasies that he gave the author an unflattering but true name of a ‘sleazebag’.

Gutierrez never bothered to explain where the diary was, how it came into his possession and why it never ended up with the police. From the way he keeps complete silence about its whereabouts we could even think that he intentionally withholds this key evidence from the authorities and could even be Michael’s accomplice if it were not for the abominable lies he told about Michael there.

The only really good thing about the book is that it contains some documents from Evan Chandler’s home. These papers are indeed a very helpful tool for our little reconstruction of the 1993 events as they are the irrefutable evidence that Victor Gutierrez worked in full cooperation with Evan Chandler and it is only the point in time when Gutierrez and Evan Chandler met which is not yet known to us (but is top important to find out).

The key question is the moment in time when Gutierrez approached Evan Chandler and though we haven’t got the necessary proof that he contacted him well before the allegations, the fateful meeting of the two did take place and is the root of the whole problem of the 1993 case.

It was only after Gutierrez’s insinuations against Michael that Evan Chandler totally psychotic mind began harboring dirty suspicions and all those experiments with taping Jordan’s bedroom and staging slumber parties with Michael Jackson in Evan’s home ensued.

Yes, I am absolutely sure that Evan Chandler invited Michael Jackson to his home and made him sleep in Jordan’s bedroom as a sort of a provocation on his part – his maid Norma Salinas said she suggested a different room for the guest but the masters of the house insisted on a special bunk bed added to Jordan’s. This made Norma Salinas think that the father and stepmother were “prostituting” Jordan, though Evan’s master plan was different – the idea was evidently to stage a scene of molestation and possibly even record it for proving the fact of the crime and making the extortion easier.

Something evidently didn’t go according to plan though Michael Jackson was even drugged by Evan Chandler and was in a half-conscious state when they put him into that bed besides Jordan  … but that is a different story and will hopefully be dealt with at some other time.

Most of the documents in Gutierrez’s book are totally useless and serve the sole purpose of building the atmosphere of suspense and horror among the readership. There is simply no other way to interpret the unnecessary photos of the rack with June Chandler’s shoes, the boys’ two-storey bed or Jordan’s test for venereal diseases which was negative and shouldn’t have been made at all as there were never any allegations of any physical abuse of the child.

However some of the documents are interesting as they give us an insight into what was going on within the Chandlers’ family while they were officially solidrock sure of their accusations of Michael Jackson.  In one instance for example, we find out that Jordan was so depressed with what he had to say against Michael (or was so terrorized by someone in the family?) that he made a suicide drawing threatening to jump off the roof.

Victor Gutierrez says that the suicide note was discovered by Evan Chandler who wrote “Don’t let it happen” on top of it,  but a much more precise name for the drawing (suggested by reader Aldebaran) is that it is picture of homicide where the father screams at the boy and exerts so much pressure on him that he is ready to jump off the roof as a result.

From another paper made in the same handwriting we also learn that Evan Chandler had to spend a substantial amount of time over a drawing of MJ’s penis making guesses how it could look like and putting down various ideas like “bleach cream” or “my theory” as a comment on it.

In general these papers may be helpful for disclosing the innocent truth about Michael Jackson – only please do not allow yourself to be intimidated by haters who will scream of the documents being “incriminating”. I’ve inspected those papers inside out and found nothing incriminating about them – unless you consider the photo of some boy’s (presumably Jordan’s) clean underwear to be proof of anything at all.

A good portion of Gutierrez’s lies has already been analyzed in the earlier posts (see this category please) however Gutierrez’s book is so packed with lies that it is impossible to exhaust the subject even in a series of posts, so the rest of the lies will have to be dealt with some time later. Now we need to put together everything we know of Gutierrez’s activities preceding and surrounding the 1993 events. They were also numerous, hence the difficulty of the task.

THE NAMBLA CONNECTION

The earliest Gutierrez is mentioned in respect of Michael Jackson is 1984. This was when he came to the US from his native Chile.

In the German article published in April 2005 in taz.die.tagerszeitung http://www.taz.de/1/archiv/?id=archivseite&dig=2005/04/05/a0170 found by Luoise (“Markoftheancients”) and translated by Suzy (“Jacksonantrak”), Gutierrez said that he came to the Los Angeles Olympic Games in the summer of 1984 accredited as a photographer.

He didn’t return to his country as “the American dream was too tempting for him” and later found work of a police reporter in a Spanish newspaper in Los Angeles (the translation from German explains that it wasn’t the work for the police – it was the work of a criminal reporter).

The next landmark event in Gutierrez’s life was his attendance of a highly secretive NAMBLA (North American May-Boy Love Association) conference held in Los Angeles, California in 1986. According to Gutierrez it was there that he first heard the member boy-lovers speaking of Michael Jackson as being “one of them” and hoping to use his name for the goal of their “social acceptance”.

A quote from Tagerszeitung 05.04.2005:

“He quickly finds a job at a Spanish newspaper in L.A., he becomes a criminal reporter for the paper.

…. In 1986 he reports from a congress of North American Man Boy Love Association.”

Tagerszeitung, 5.04.2005

But how is it possible to report from a NAMBLA congress? Is it a sports event or what? Can a journalist freely cover what’s going on there? Or is it a highly secretive mafia-like organization which even FBI secret agents have a difficulty to infiltrate? It goes without saying that the organization is a mafia with all the secrecy that goes with it!

Since their first meetings in the late 1970s the NAMBLA members have been exceptionally cautious in their activities, arranged their annual conferences in total secrecy, and opened their doors only to members and invited guests. Here is what their official “constitution” says:

(click to enlarge)

“The NAMBLA constitution provides that General Membership Meetings, which are the governing body of the organization, are to be held once a year.

Attendance at General Membership Conferences is limited to members of NAMBLA and invited guests, and that requirement is carefully enforced.

… If the person was not a member, he would not be registered for a conference or notified of its location.” https://vindicatemj.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/memo_nambla.pdf

The secrecy is so profound that the only information known to its members on the eve of the conference is the city where they are going to assemble. The venue is not disclosed to the attendees until the last moment and the place selected is masqueraded as a trade union or some professional convention. The members register well in advance and can attend by personal invitations only. Please see this excerpt as an example:

FBI targets pedophilia advocates

Little-known group promotes ‘benevolent’ sex

10:08 p.m. February 17, 2005

On its Web site and newsletters, the North American Man/Boy Love Association advocates sex between men and boys and cites ancient Greece to justify the practice.

It goes by the acronym NAMBLA, and the FBI has been following it for years, linking it to pedophilia and recently infiltrating it with an agent successful enough to be asked to join the group’s steering committee.

Law enforcement officials and mental health professionals say that while NAMBLA’s membership numbers are small, the group has a dangerous ripple effect through the Internet by sanctioning the behavior of those who would abuse children.

About 10 years ago [1995], NAMBLA counted about 1,100 members, said Fairfax County, Va., detective Tom Polhemus, who went undercover and joined the organization’s governing board.

‘Like a trade conference’

The annual meetings, Polhemus said, were hush-hush affairs. Attendees were told to go to the host city, and the venue was not disclosed until the last minute.

“They don’t want press and they don’t want the cops showing up,” he said.

After the main sessions, Polhemus said, “You break up and you go into different rooms,  . . . like a trade conference.” The networking for illicit activities occurs later, in private conversations over drinks or dinner, he said.

That’s what happened in November at a conference in Miami, FBI agents said in court documents. An undercover agent dined with several NAMBLA members at a burger joint where they discussed trips abroad to abuse children. After the convention, he contacted them by telephone and e-mail and set up the sting by promising the boat trip to Mexico.

http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20050217-2208-manboy-daily.html

Each newcomer to the organization is to pass tests and has to wait for a chance to attend its congress (and consequently meet others). From the court documents describing the adventures of a FBI secret agent within the NAMBLA organization we find out that this secret agent had to implement specific requests from the management and wait for two and a half years to be able to attend the conference at last.

An excerpt from court documents shows that a FBI agent had to wait for two years to be invited to a NAMBLA conference

A quote from the respective court document:

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

In 2001 and 2002, at the request of the organization, he sent holiday cards to incarcerated sex offenders. In 2002, he wrote two articles for the Bulletin [..] though these articles were never published. He requested an invitation to NAMBLA’s 2002 conference but was denied because he had not been a member for a long enough period of time.  

The next year, Agent Hamer was invited to the November 2003 conference in New York.”

https://vindicatemj.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/nambla-d181ourt-doc.pdf

In short the complexity of the attendance procedure makes it totally impossible for Gutierrez to be present at their event as a newspaper reporter, and this leaves us with a big question – in what capacity did Gutierrez attend the NAMBLA conference then ?

The conference itself did indeed take place in Los Angeles on November 7-9, 1986,  and Gutierrez does know about it, and it is only the reason why he was there is what he cannot give a convincing explanation of.

The official name of the conference was the 10th International Membership Conference which means that it was for members only and an international event too. This fits Gutierrez’s status perfectly well – he could be one of its foreign members (or at least an invited guest which also needs an explanation) and his membership in the organization could be the real reason why he attended that assembly.

The pretext of going there as a reporter was sheer nonsense from the start of it – none of the attendees would want their activities to be covered in the press, and surely none of them will ever risk to have their photo appear in the local LA newspaper!

It is baffling to realize that no one in the media ever asked questions about the reason why Gutierrez attended that conference. Of course the time when the Tagerszeitung publication was made was April 2005 and this was the moment when all attention was focused on Michael Jackson, and this is probably why it was so safe for Gutierrez to mention his visit to NAMBLA.

The game was played solely on Michael Jackson’s field, and all the facts leading to real criminals were ignored and went completely unnoticed. When Corey Feldman told the police that MJ had done no wrong to him but he had been molested by someone else in Hollywood and he even disclosed the name of his offender, the police behaved as if they were hypnotized – no one cared and everyone kept asking only about MJ instead.  No police action was taken following Corey’s words and no public discussion ensued, thus giving real criminals a chance to go on abusing children without anyone standing in their way.

Just think of it – while hundreds of law enforcement officers, media people and the public were busy harassing Michael for almost two decades, hundreds of children fell victim to real predators like Jerry Sandusky and Jimmy Savile. Now I hear that the number of Savile’s victims is over 200… And this was happening in front of everyone’s nose? Due to total disregard for the real victims’ complaints and signals from the witnesses of their abuse?  Because everyone was busy with the innocent man who was naïve enough to say that he had slumber parties with children?

Of course real criminals will never say things like that not to attract attention to themselves! So why didn’t people realize then and there that they were looking in the wrong direction?

The outcome of all this is very sad. While the public was entertained with stories about Michael’s fictional crimes the attention from real criminals was averted and as a result of that many young lives were corrupted. These crimes could have been prevented if the media had not been preoccupied with their profit only…

And have you ever thought that distracting the public from real abusers could be the primary reason why Michael’s harassment was arranged at all?

What a heavy price the general public is paying now for the many years of mocking a man who never deserved it! What a bitter wake-up it is after so many years of entertaining themselves at the expense of an innocent man! Can there be a worse punishment for the society which turned a blind eye on real criminals while stoning the wrong person and doing it for so long?

A SECRET TASK?

A year and a half after the 2005 interview to the Tagerszeitung newspaper Victor Gutierrez spoke to the British GQ magazine and mentioned his visit to NAMBLA again.

Now he presented a different version of the story which this time sounded even more incredible – he claimed that he attended a NAMBLA conference as an undercover agent for the Los Angeles Police Department! The GQ September 2006 article was discovered by Lynande 51 and discussed in this post.

Quote from the GQ magazine:

Gutierrez began his investigation in 1986 when he went undercover with the LAPD. While attending a secret conference held by a suspect organization in LA, Gutierrez heard many references to Michael Jackson. So far as the world knew at the time, “Wacko Jacko” was just an eccentric. The fact that he liked the company of young boys seemed no more suspicious back then than his hanging out with a chimp called Bubbles.

So now our liar Gutierrez realized that the newsreporter version was no good and invented a new lie which said that only two years after his arrival in the US he became a secret agent of the Los Angeles police and had worked on infiltrating NAMBLA long enough to attend it as a secret agent…. This sounds to me even more ridiculous than the initial variant, however what’s good about this second story is that Gutierrez confirms again that he did attend a NAMBLA conference in 1986!

The idea of being a secret agent with the LAPD is refuted by Gutierrez himself as only several paragraphs down the same text he complains that when “the first phase of the work was finished” he sent his papers to the LAPD (for which he was presumably working) however they didn’t pay attention to his findings and made it clear that “he was a nobody” for them and was just some insignificant “Latino reporter”!

Dear me, so was Gutierrez a secret agent for LAPD or was he a ‘nobody’ for them? A secret agent working undercover painstakingly collects all that “incriminating” evidence about Jackson but when he brings it to his bosses no one pays attention to his work and even thinks that he is a “nobody”?

And this is said within the limits of one article where the beginning clearly contradicts the end of it!? And none of those interviewers ever wondered why Gutierrez was saying all those ridiculous things?

No, they didn’t – they simply did not notice. The GQ magazine said:

” The book that Gutierrez finished after the first phase of his research never came out. Publishers thought it too hot to handle and although Gutierrez sent a copy to the LAPD they took no action either. “Because I was a nobody, just a Latino reporter in LA”.

Let us forget about that “undercover story” for some time – we know already that Gutierrez’s stories about the reasons why he attended a NAMBLA conference do not have a leg to stand on.

But the article provides us with even more important information than that – it gives us the year when Gutierrez started his “investigation” of Michael Jackson. It was 1986 or the year when he attended that very boy lovers’ conference and it was after it that he started following Jackson!

This is actually what I thought of the situation all along.  The ideas discussed by boy-lovers at the conference and their desire to use Michael Jackson for their social acceptance weren’t just mere small talk between the NAMBLA members – no, it was an open manifesto of their plans. And plans needed to be implemented, otherwise what’s the use of talking about them at all? And this makes the chances that Victor Gutierrez was actually sent on a mission against Jackson after the conference very high indeed.

An aspiring young journalist ready to jump out of his skin to make a career for himself and do a favor to his boy-love fellows? Gutierrez was exactly that kind. The magnitude of the celebrity to be compromised only boosted his self-esteem. The communication skills of a journalist and his Spanish were the ideal tools to talk to all those Spanish-speaking maids and bring them over to his side by planting suspicion, sowing doubt and encouraging them to help him uncover a possible “criminal”.

Oh yes, the unscrupulous liar Gutierrez was an extremely suitable candidate for the dirty job of ruining MJ, and I am not at all surprised that it was Gutierrez who was either selected for this task or took it upon himself of his own free will.

The idea that the organization even supported him financially does not look to me a too big stretch of imagination – some time during that period he quit (or was fired from) the job of a criminal reporter,  turned into a freelance entertainment journalist and said that even sold satellite dishes at some point to be able to afford his five-year “investigation” of Michael Jackson. Five years! Where did he get the finances to support himself with if he did not have any regular work?

SPREADING LIES

According to Gutierrez several years prior to the allegations scandal he started making rounds of the parents of the children who were friends with Michael Jackson. In his book Gutierrez gives an account of the process of “collecting information” about Michael which to me looks more like spreading lies about him.

The description provided below concerns Gutierrez’s alleged chance encounter with Wade Robson and his mother Joy on the Venice Beach in California. The boy was dancing in the street begging for money to buy some bread with it (!)

Well, it’s high time you stopped gasping at what he says – you are dealing with Gutierrez after all, so pull yourself together and try to extract the grains of truth (if any) out of the mammoth pile of lies he habitually tells.

All I can say about Gutierrez’s account of that meeting is that his manner of interviewing people is a full equivalent to spreading malicious lies about Michael Jackson and in the legal circumstances would be considered slander:

On a summer’s day in June 1992,I went with a friend to Venice Beach, California. While we were walking, my friend, who knew all about my investigation for the book about Jackson, pointed out a boy who was imitating Jackson. He was dancing to music from his radio. The song was “Black or White” from the album “Dangerous,” and the boy was dancing so well that he looked like a miniature version of Jackson. As we got a bit closer, I realized that it was Wade Robson, the nine year old boy from Australia who was one of Jackson’s “little friends.” I couldn’t believe it, I had been looking for this boy and his mother for more than five months without any luck and here, by chance, I found both of them. It was a great opportunity to interview them.”

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

“As I approached Joy, Wade ran up to her and said that he had only got three dollars from his latest performance. He took two one dollar bills and some coins out of his hat. I introduced myself to the mother saying that I was a journalist and that I was writing a book about Jackson which concerned his relationship with minors, including his being a pedophile.

When I explained that I was not from a tabloid or newspaper, Joy asked me what I wanted to speak about. I told her that the basic idea of the book was to speak about Jackson’s friendships with minors, and to listen to all sides and versions regarding this issue. When I finished speaking, Joy exclaimed “It’s not true!” I told her that the truth was going to come out one day.

I asked her to at least let me explain what I had found out up until now, and then ask her if there was anything that she wanted to add. If not, I would understand. She silently listened as I told her about the cases involving other young boys and about the several statements made in Hollywood about Jackson’s sexual preferences for boys. I gave details about how he went about persuading minors. She paid more attention when I told her about Jackson’s employees, who had seen Jackson with her son in compromising positions. She continued to listen attentively and without interruption.”

So Gutierrez actually started a conversation with introducing Michael Jackson as a ped-le. Then he enumerated all the cases that he allegedy “found” in support of his point of view and then he provided the “details”. And this vicious propaganda of his own views and imposing them on others is what he thought to be an “interview” ?

Mind you that this method of “interviewing” is actually Gutierrez’s own admission of the way he talked to Evan Chandler among many other parents he made rounds of.

EVAN CHANDLER AND OTHERS

Gutierrez says it himself that he made rounds of most Michael Jackson’s associates, so there is absolutely no reason to exclude Evan Chandler from the list. And it does not really matter whether this notable conversation with Joy Robson did or didn’t take place – the above description is priceless as it is the first-hand evidence of the typical way Gutierrez talked to ALL parents of children, their maids, secretaries, bodyguards and everyone else he could ever come into contact with MJ.

To all of them he introduced himself as a journalist who was writing about Jackson a book “which concerned his relationship with minors, including his being a pedophile” (!)

So it was already in the opening of the discussion that Gutierrez actually stated – not asked, wondered, or doubted – but stated that Michael Jackson had a “relationship with minors” “including his being a p-le”!

So this is how he went about this job? He put on his spectacles, assumed a serious expression on his face and presented himself as an unbiased researcher? He explained to the people that he was “listening to all sides and versions”, but in reality related his side of the story only as otherwise Joy Robson wouldn’t exclaim in reply to him: “It’s not true”!

And he assured people that some sinister “truth” (meaning his lies about MJ) would “come out one day”? He didn’t even ask them any questions but actually told them what he had “found about the cases involving other boys” and even “details how MJ went about persuading minors”?   He referred to some knowledgeable employees who allegedly saw MJ in “compromising positions” and all he expected of the people after listening to all that crap was what they had to add to his story? Not dispute, disagree, but just add to it?

Please remember that it was not only Blanca Francia, Orietta Murdoch and Norma Salinas who had  interviews with Gutierrez this way, but MJ’s personal maid Adrian McManus, bodyguard Ralph Chacon and many, many others who also admitted talking to this Gutierrez who was putting his nose into every corner and working his propaganda on almost everyone in sight!

Can you imagine what impression Gutierrez’s stories made on Evan Chandler when he heard them from VG? (I don’t doubt for a second that Gutierrez went to Evan Chandler too).

Evan was a seriously ill person and was suffering from Bipolar disorder which makes people alternate between hyperactivity, rage, delusions or even psychosis on the one hand, and anxiety, guilt, depression and suicidal thoughts on the other hand.

So it was one thing for the family like the Cascios to listen to Gutierrez’s stories (though I doubt that Gutierrez would have ever risked to approach them – they would have simply reported Gutierrez to Michael) and it was a totally different thing to have an unstable guy like Evan Chandler listen to the same story. He was suspicious and mistrustful the way he was, and if he listened to Gutierrez’s lies he could work himself into a condition of complete insanity.

Gutierrez was filling his mind with dark suspicions and provoking his rage which made Evan threaten MJ with a bloody massacre if he didn’t explain himself on the subjects which Evan even theoretically could not know of. This fury was immediately followed by heavy doubt, hesitation and total helplessness at the realization that he had nothing against Jackson except suspicions. Remember Evan’s conversation with David Schwartz where he spoke of a massacre for Michael Jackson though by his own admission he “had no idea what was going on”?

A quote from the GQ magazine tells us that Gutierrez was very much interested in Jordan Chandler’s case:

A pariah in the in the celebrity-sucking world of freelance entertainment journalism, Gutierrez was forced to give up his writing and for a while supported himself by selling satellite dishes. Then, in 1993, his interest was reawakened when he heard about a boy called Jordie Chandler with whom Jackson was appearing at huge media events, such as the World Music Awards in Monaco.

So his interest was reawakened when he heard of the boy called Jordie Chandler? And even after that you think that Gutierrez never spoke to Evan, telling him all those lies? But what reasons did Gutierrez have to exclude Evan from his list of parents or apply different tactics to him? None at all!

No, we can be absolutely sure that while Jordan Chandler was traveling with his mother, sister and Michael Jackson, Gutierrez was consistently poisoning Evan Chandler’s mind with fictional stories about other boys, providing their names, locations and horrible details of their “molestation” the way only Gutierrez is capable of doing it…

We also have every reason to believe that when Evan finally had Jordan solely at his disposal he used every minute of their time together to relate to him the stories of masturbation, oral sex and other atrocities persuading him that he should “come out clean” about Jackson at least for the sake of the other poor “victims”. Sodium amytal or no sodium amytal but after this kind of barraging, anyone could start thinking that there could be no smoke without fire …

The GQ article says that for the next five years after the NAMBLA conference (so at least until the year 1991/92) Gutierrez consistently danced around every person whom he managed to track in Michael’s surrounding. And to each of them he spoke in his inimitable style of a scandalmonger, agent provocateur and pedophilia taleteller (“I asked her to at least let me explain what I had found out”, “I told her about the cases involving other young boys”,  “I gave details about how he…”):

For the next five years Gutierrez tracked down as many of Jackson’s current and former associates as he could. Being Latino himself helped – it was relatively easy for him to strike up friendships with Jackson’s El Salvadorian maid, Blanca Francia, who left Jackson’s employment  in 1991, and the star’s Costa Rican PA, Orietta Murdock, who sued him for unfair dismissal in 1992. They told of a steady stream of young boy visitors to the ranch, all of them white, Asian or Latino. Jackson’s staff suspected that his “friendships” were more than friendly, not least because young guests to Neverland usually slept over in Michael’s quarters rather  than in one of the 36 guest bedrooms.

Never mind those 36 guest rooms lies – you are dealing with Gutierrez after all and should divide each of his stories by a hundred. Better pay attention to the people who were Gutierrez’s best sources:

“Thanks to the intervention of someone he will only identify as “a very good source within the house”, Gutierrez was able to arrange meetings with Jordie while the terms of the legal settlement were being hammered out. He obtained a copy of a diary, as well as legal papers. In many cases, these were supplied by the police, who started referring back to Gutierrez’s original manuscript after the Chandlers had come forward with their allegations in August 1993”

Gutierrez worked on Blanca Francia’s story too. He does not say when he contacted her, but it could be well before the 1993 allegations. Blanca left Neverland in 1991

He is talking here of Norma Salinas or a maid in Evan Chandler’s home, which is proof enough that he was in that home and most probably had a chance to talk not only to the maid but probably to the whole household.

He even claims that he met Jordan personally and talked to him while the civil settlement was “hammered out” (out of Jackson of course).

So was Jordan’s association with Gutierrez the real reason why his story was so full of pedophilia fantasies and looked so terribly disgusting?  Look at who his teacher was…

However let us remember that no matter what Jordan said the only proof of his story was the description he gave of MJ’s genitalia and this description turned out to be hopelessly wrong. The proof of the pudding is in the eating (and not in speaking about it) and this maxim refers equally well to the lies told by both of them – Jordan Chandler and his teacher Victor Gutierrez.

Gutierrez’s story was more pornographic than anything ever found in Michael Jackson’s home and was the result of stitching together bits and pieces of speculation from Evan Chandler’s maid and the embellishments provided by Gutierrez’s own sick mind.

Roger Friedman wrote about it:

Sneddon Evidence Based on Banned Porn

As of Monday’s ruling, people who appear in a 1997 book by Victor Gutierrez, “Michael Jackson Was My Lover,” have entered the Jacko trial’s cast of characters. The book was not published in the U.S. because Jackson won a libel suit against the author.

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

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

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

WHO IS HE?

The fact that Gutierrez was one of the first who were summoned by the LAPD as soon as the allegations broke out in 1993 was stated in another article found by Lynande51. The article said that Gutierrez was interviewed for two days, several hours each, however no information was provided as to whether his stories were found helpful:

August 28, 1993

One of those interviewed was Victor Gutierrez, a Southern California free-lance journalist who has been working on a book about Jackson for several years. Gutierrez spoke to LAPD officers for two hours Thursday and was interviewed again Friday.

He would not disclose what transpired during those sessions, but he told The Times that he has interviewed for his book some of the same youngsters being sought for questioning by the LAPD.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-28/news/mn-28760_1_michael-jackson

The fact that Gutierrez was one of the first to be interviewed by the LAPD made me wonder. Can there be at least something behind all those tales told by Gutierrez about his attachment to the Los Angeles Police department? Gutierrez is of course a totally pathological liar and we cannot believe anything of what he is saying, but what if there was some grain of truth in his pompous presentation of himself as a kind of an agent working for the LAPD?

There is one more article dating back to 2005 (the same period as Tagerszeitung and GQ articles were published) – it comes from a Spanish source and was translated for us by “Aldebaranredstar”.

Over there the tireless Gutierrez presented the public with one more version of why he started “investigating” Jackson. This third variant of the same story is the most pompous one and this is why it is probably his favorite – he recites it even now, each time someone wonders about how it all started.

This variant drops altogether the inconvenient fact that he attended the NAMBLA conference, but presents Gutierrez as some big shot who was important enough to be entrusted with a highly confidential task. Now he says that the FBI provided him with a “list of famous pedophiles in Los Angeles” and he started acting upon it!  Are we to believe that the FBI was so short of their own personnel that they were waiting for Gutierrez to arrive in the US to provide him with the list and ask him to verify it for them???

The article says that Gutierrez hired a private investigator who came up with 36 cases after which he started visiting the “victims” one by one. In addition to all that the article says that Gutierrez began working for NBC in 2004 to cover Michael Jackson’s trial and cooperated Martin Bashir at ABC (after the first documentary aired) as one of his four assistants. He had even made two TV reports by the time the article was published.

It also says that Gutierrez’s book was used by the police “as a document” and this validates the rumors we heard from other sources which said that the whole D.A. Sneddon’s department studied Gutierrez’s book before the trial.

El Universal, March 2005: “Victor Gutierrez is an advisor to Bashir” (computer translated from Spanish)

All this is very interesting of course, but let us leave these thrilling matters for another time and look only into that FBI thing as it is a top priority for us at the moment:

Victor Gutierrez, an advisor to Bashir

Saturday March 19, 2005 Paulina Toro / Mercury | The Universal

Chile. When no one imagined that Michael Jackson could have deviant sexual relations with boys, FBI agents gave journalist Victor Gutierrez a list of famous pedophiles in Los Angeles. Among them was Jackson’s name.

Gutierrez, who at that time worked at a ‘hot’ American newspaper, was interested. He contacted a private investigator, came up with 36 cases and began to visit the victims of Jackson one by one. Afterwards, he wrote a book, Michael Jackson Was My Lover.

Jackson sued him. A chief of security of the King of Pop threatened Victor Gutierrez with death.

But Gutierrez continued his investigation. In 1993 the first case of sexual abuse against Jackson appeared, the minor Chandler. Gutierrez began to be right. He was able to publish his book and the USA police used it as a document.

In 2004 the Chilean journalist started working with NBC in its reports on Jackson’s case. But in December of that year, another TV channel ABC, contacted him as an advisor to the reporter who succeeded in bringing Jackson before the court: Martin Bashir. This is the British journalist who got Jackson to admit that he had slept with children.

Gutierrez, who here in Chile uncovered the “Colmillo Blanco” case about the Comando Conjunto in 2002, thus began as an official ‘consulting producer’ for Bashir. In ABC in NY they explain that the Chilean works with an exclusive contract with Bashir and is one of his 4 direct collaborators.

The Chilean also will collaborate with ABC’s  20/20 and will follow the Jackson case, a scandal which he discovered more than 10 years ago.

Martin Bashir is a witness inside the Jackson case. Victor Gutierrez is his investigative advisor. Bashir and his team have already made 2 reports, one of them was the interview with Corey Feldman, who said that Jackson had showed him a book of nudes. Feldman also will be a witness.

http://www2.eluniversal.com.mx/pls/impreso/noticia.html?id_nota=60374&tabla=espectaculos

So the FBI agents gave journalist Victor Gutierrez a “list of LA famous pedophiles” so that he could check it up? And this was in the year 1986 mentioned by Gutierrez in another article – which can indeed be described as the time when no one yet imagined anything bad about Michael Jackson?

The idea of the FBI request is highly ridiculous of course, however the question we need to ask is how ridiculous it is – wholly or only partially? Was there ever such a list at all? If the police knew all these people why didn’t they arrest them? And how could they entrust a total outsider with a highly confidential document like that? Why didn’t the police conduct all those interviews themselves? What did they need Gutierrez for? And if he received the whole list of many abusers where are his findings on the other people?

You see that to solve this FBI matter I had to ask myself all possible and impossible questions.

Could Gutierrez be an FBI agent, for example? The answer is No, he couldn’t. To become an FBI agent a foreigner should first become a US citizen, have certain qualifications, undergo a lengthy period of various tests and should be well above many others on a highly competitive federal level. Even if Gutierrez obtained a US citizenship within the period of 1984-86 he would still not qualify for the job. However the article does not even claim that Gutierrez was a FBI agent (he only “received a list from them”) so my question about such a possibility was an unnecessary one.

Could Gutierrez be a sort of a special agent, but working for some local law enforcement body? Police, a special sex-abuse crime unit, drug-enforcement agency (all of which he also mentioned in some interviews, assuming a serious expression each time)?

The description of a special agent convinced me that over here Gutierrez wouldn’t qualify either – there was nothing special about this creature that would make him eligible for this highly competitive work, especially immediately upon arrival in the US:

A special agent is someone who works for a government agency in an investigative capacity. A career as a special agent usually requires citizenship with the government the agent works for, along with the ability to pass a background check and physical exam.

The title of special agent is reserved for employees who engage in investigative duties. Special agents can be involved in criminal investigations, drug enforcement, investigations into financial crimes, anti-terrorism units, and a variety of other tasks. To work as a special agent, someone may need to qualify for employment as a regular agent first, working his or her way up the ranks and eventually applying to become a special agent. Other agencies hire special agents directly, often preferring people with a military or law enforcement background, or a high level of education. The requirements for different kinds of special agents can vary considerably; the IRS, for example, likes people with an accounting background, while the Secret Service may look for ex-police and ex-military.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-special-agent.htm

However there is one status which Gutierrez would probably fit – and this is the position of an informant. In my opinion Gutierrez has all the makings of an informant who can work for the police on a voluntary basis, for money or in order to obtain lenient treatment for himself:

An informant is a person who provides privileged information about a person or organization to an agency. The term is usually used within the law enforcement world, where they are officially known as confidential or criminal informants (CI), and can often refer pejoratively to the supply of information without the consent of the other parties with the intent of malicious, personal or financial gain.

Informants are commonly found in the world of organized crime. By its very nature, organized crime involves many people who are aware of each other’s guilt, in a variety of illegal activities. Quite frequently, confidential informants (or criminal informants) will provide information in order to obtain lenient treatment for themselves and provide information, over an extended period of time, in return for money or for police to overlook their own criminal activities. Quite often, someone will become an informant following their arrest.

Informants are also extremely common in every-day police work, including homicide and narcotics investigations. Any citizen who aids an investigation by offering helpful information to the police is by definition an informant.

The part which impressed me most is that informants can cooperate with the police for money or in order to obtain “lenient treatment for themselves” as well as the fact that “their own criminal activities can be overlooked” in return for their services.

Why is this so important for us? Because it fits in perfectly well with such facts of Gutierrez’s biography like his attendance of the NAMBLA conference and the probability of him being a member of this organization.

Generally speaking boy-lovers come under heavy suspicion of the police, but in case of informants their activity can even be encouraged (in order to meet others, attend conferences, join various activities) or intentionally “overlooked”, of course if they behave well with the police.

What I mean is that it is one thing to have to infiltrate the organization by a special agent who should be trained for the job and wait for full two years before he is finally admitted there, and it is a totally different thing to use a ready-made member of it, who is willing to serve as an informant and in return for his services is not touched by the authorities.

They will be totally disgusted to use this informant’s services of course, but will still listen to the scoundrel as it is their scoundrel and he may be occasionally helpful to the police who he sometimes associates with.

Does the definition of an informant apply to Victor Gutierrez? I think it does, and applies admirably! Psychologically he is just the right type, very well motivated by his own pedophilia agenda, extremely interested in financial incentives and the promotion of his career, and thinking that his own boy lover’s interests would help him in the job of “investigating” Michael Jackson.

The strange boy-lover’s interests of this strange guy explain perfectly well the strange role Gutierrez is playing in this strange Michael Jackson’s case.

There is indeed something unusual about Gutierrez’s status in this story – everyone in the police reads Gutierrez’s book and he was even the first to be interviewed by them, however when it comes to Gutierrez himself there is a totally unnatural silence around his name. You can even notice some shyness, if I may say so, or embarrassment on the part of the D.A. or police, when they have to mention him. Even Diane Dimond for whom Gutierrez was indeed her “best source” rarely speaks of Gutierrez as such.

This is the paradox of Victor Gutierrez – everyone knows him, but no one admits that he does.

Isn’t it highly unusual? What is the reason for it? Isn’t it the fact that he is really the one we think him to be and people try to disassociate themselves from this person?

And isn’t it due to him being a boylover that his attendance of a NAMBLA conference was absolutely not a chance one? In fact the question is unnecessary as he simply could not be there in any other capacity than a member of it, as our joint investigation has shown it!  So it looks like everyone knows who Gutierrez really is, only no one says it out loud and pretends they have no idea…

If our supposition about the awkward connection between Gutierrez, Diane Dimond, the LAPD and probably Tom Sneddon is correct, it can lead us to some other important and rather unexpected conclusions.

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT

But let me ask a question first. Which variant is it:

  • Is Gutierrez the kind of a person who will make rounds of those parents keeping silence of his connections with the police?
  • Or is he a person who will tacitly present himself as a “secret agent” working for the LAPD, entrusted to investigate Michael Jackson’s alleged ped-lia activities?

Of course he will say that he is a undercover agent. If he managed to say it in so many articles this would be exactly the story with which he would approach all those parents, their children, their maids, their bodyguards, including Evan Chandler of course.

Another question.

  • How would all those opening statements with which Gutierrez approached those numerous people sound if they were pronounced not by a mere “Latino reporter” but a so-called “secret police agent working for the LAPD”?

Like a bolt of thunder in the clear blue sky, right? Imagine yourself approached by an agent who shares with you highly confidential information about a secret investigation of someone else’s activities and check yourself for the reaction. Will you be awed by the importance of the mission, feel a little flattered that they entrusted you with their secrets, and even be enthusiastic enough to contribute your little bit to their cause? Will you painstakingly try to recall every little episode that might remotely be connected to the subject of the investigation? And will you eye with terrible suspicion forever after the person who has come under the scrutiny of the police?

This is what our beastly Gutierrez most probably did to Michael Jackson. He built up so much mystery around this “case”, and presented himself as so big a shot working for the police that people started willingly cooperate with him swallowing his lies about MJ hook, line and sinker.

No, I am not justifying these people – I am just trying to understand the psychological reasons for their mass behavior against Jackson.

As far as I understand using informant’s services is standard police practice, however the worst part of this particular case was that the person they agreed to use for collecting information about Michael Jackson is most probably a pedophile himselfThis was why he projected his own views and feelings onto every piece of information he handled and interpreted everything he heard and saw in a totally specific light typical of someone who is gravely sick himself.

This is why the police or whoever devised this devilish game for Michael Jackson fell into their own trap – when Gutierrez reported his findings it was very difficult to distinguish between Gutierrez’s own fantasies and the real facts that existed against Jackson.

As we know there were actually no facts at all and that is why the police did not officially use any of Gutierrez’s “information”. But the harm was still done as Gutierrez’s views, fantasies and sick lies were freely spread by people like Diane Dimond who hammered them into our heads in every way possible  – presented his hallucinations as facts on TV, read his fictional diaries on the radio, published all his bullsh*t in the press – and this is how we came to know all those Gutierrez’s stories without actually knowing their author who stayed in complete shade.

Diane Dimond was not risking anything. She could always say that she received the information from her source (as she did say in that huge $100mln. Michael Jackson’s slander suit to her over a non-existent “graphic’ video).  And by the Shield law journalists are not responsible for the lie as long as they got it from their “source” and did not invent it themselves. But who needed to invent anything if Diane Dimond had such a professional and prolific liar like Gutierrez at her disposal?

But the worst part of it was that Diane Dimond knew what kind of a person was her best source. She knew that her best source had attended the NAMBLA conventions. If he was so open to the whole world about it there was no need for him to hide it from Dimond.

Diane Dimond KNEW that her best source was a pedophile. But this nevertheless never stopped her from using his services and spreading his lies.

However let me ask you my last question.

What do you think would be the reaction of Jordan Chandler if a certain “secret agent” approached him and told him that he had “irrefutable evidence” that boys  X, Y and Z were molested and relayed to him in most horrendous detail the particulars of his secret investigation? Masturbation, oral sex and all those other fictional horrors?

What could a thirteen year boy think about all those stories, if they came from an adult who presented himself as a secret and knowledgeable agent – even though the boy never saw anything himself?

305 Comments leave one →
  1. October 7, 2013 10:41 am

    “Michael, You were the only truth like a dew pure…
    When I think of your suffering at that moment,
    when I feel the pain of your soul in those long days,
    my heart breaks.
    My soul trembles by a world without truth…” – Yoshimi

    vindicatemj permalink*

    Yoshimi, as time goes by Michael indeed gets increasingly associated with the word truth, while all the games played around him with the word lies. The lies suffocating Michael baffled him immensely as he often repeated in his songs “I don’t understand it”.

    It is awful that only a handful of people stood by the truth about Michael when he was alive and slandered all over (Tom Mesereau, and Michael’s little friends and their parents like the Culkins, Barnes and Robsons) while the rest of the world simply could not believe that all of them could be lying – the well-known Prosecutor, seasoned investigators, witnesses like that angel Star Arvzio who was inspired by his role of a brother of a “victim” and used the courtroom for showing his acting skills.

    We simply could not imagine that all the media could be lying too and that hordes of maids and bodyguards would be just trying to enrich themselves at the expense of bringing Michael down. Everyone lied – MJ’s PR man Bob Jones, queer personalities like Victor Gutierrez, the good old brothers Evan and Ray Chandler, “knowledgeable” Diane Dimond, Nancy Grace, Martin Bashir and the rest of the gang. Larry Feldman lied too – he admitted to Larry King that he thought Janet Arvizo was after money only, but nevertheless took their case directly to Tom Sneddon as if it were real molestation. Apparently it was also his office which released those documents about Jordan Chandler’s settlement on the net in 2003….

    Now it is a sort of a miracle that despite the many-years effort on the part of Lies we are finally beginning to see the process of Truth emerging. The division between the truth and lies is becoming so vivid, so clear, so dramatic that the whole world seems to be falling into two parts – those who value the truth (whatever it is) and a huge mass of those who are totally indifferent to it and are happy with their ignorance, deceit and illusions as this way they feel more comfortable.

    This reminds me of the Matrix movie where only a handful of people woke up to reality with all the rest of the people living in illusion but eventually following suit (I hope the finale of Michael’s saga will be the same).

    It is extremely sad that the process of the differentiation between lies and truth started on a mass scale only after Michael’s death, but the quality of the people who are now siding with the Truth is impressive. Shelly is right – we need to add to the list of honorable people standing up by Michael (Tom Mesereau and Susan Yu, David Walgren and Deborah Brazil, Dr. Steven Shafer and Dr. Alon Steinberg, Dr. Patrick Treacy and David Nordahl, Aphrodite Jones and Larry Nimmer) journalists like Linda Deutsch and Charles Thomson and truth seekers like Geraldine Hughes and William Wagener.

    Compare them with the Topix scum of the earth, for example, and you will see all the the difference in the world between the two of them.

    Like

  2. August 11, 2013 5:27 am

    “VG of course was one of the journalists headed for the 1984 Olympics–and he would stay there till he fled due to MJ’s lawsuit and the huge fine he had to pay. What is interesting here is the LAPD and FBI were spying on political figures and celebs–Stevie Wonder, as well, a close frind of MJ–and used undercover agents. This is their history up to 1984 and it undoubtedly continued afterwards, with perhaps a little more care so as to avoid another lawsuit. To me, it is believable that MJ’s name would be on a list of potential criminals (a list drawn up either by the LAPD or FBI or both, as they seem to have worked together in Jeff’s case). They were targeting Stevie Wonder, why not MJ.” – stephenson

    As regards all this spying I am not surprised because I live in a country where even the closest of friends may turn out a KGB spy. Now I simply pay no attention and speak my mind no matter what. Let them battle with their conscience whether they will report on me or not. I even prefer to talk to them openly so that they also see some crazy aspects of our life and speak up against them too. After all they are also humans and also have eyes.

    But for making any conclusions about Victor Gutierrez’s being an “official” spy on Jackson, first we need to agree that he was a LAPD agent, which I doubt very much. He wasn’t an agent – he was an informant, a person whose own criminal activities or inclinations are overlooked by the police for the very reason that he is helpful to them.

    This informant position explains a very strange public status of Gutierrez – everyone in the police read his book but no one talks about it openly and none of them acknowledge ever being in contact with Gutierrez and using his “sources”. It looks like they are embarassed by their connection to him. In every Chilean article Gutierrez presents himself as someone really important (he will testify here, he will testify there), only Tom Sneddon never subpoenaed Gutierrez despite all that bragging.

    And Gutierrez did not pay the fine of more than $2mln. to Michael for losing the case in court to him. Gutierrez fled to Chile not to pay, but even when he returned and worked at NBC and ABC as a “consultant” no money was deducted from his salary in repayment of that fine. It looks like the official bodies closed their eyes on that fine and thought that it was Gutierrez’s private business whether he pays MJ or not.

    But it should not have been his private business only, and this is what makes it so strange and makes us think that someone else was involved here.

    Like

  3. August 11, 2013 12:25 am

    Here is something interesting from journalist Jeff Cohen, the founder of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), and the author of “Cable News Confidential” (he is also a lawyer). I am going to quote extensively from Cable News Confidential:

    “At age 23, I moved to Los Angeles to attend the People’s College of Law, a leftish law school where students cleaned the toilets, hired the professors, and pretty much ran the place. This was not your typical competitve law school–PCL had no dean’s list. It didn’t even have a dean. It was the only law school where an arrest recod actually helped you gain admission–think of it as “affirmative action for civil disobedients.”

    “I worked my way through school as a freelance journalist and activist, exposing police brutality and political spying by the LAPD and FBI. In that era, criticizing the cops prompted retaliation. My tennis partner, I would learn years later, was a full-time LAPD undercover agent assigned to spy on me and my friends. She apparently had a crush on me. Fortunately, it wasn’t mutual.

    After graduation, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California hired me as a junior lawyer to work on a massive First Amendment lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles over the actions of my former tennis partner and a dozen other undercover spies. We unearthed documents showing that the LAPD had taken notes on the political activities of Rev. Jesse Jackson, farmworker leader Cesar Chavez, Stevie Wonder, Jackson Browne–not to mention the black mayor of Los Angeles and thousands of other law-abiding citizens.” (6)

    “Our ever-expanding suit was heading toward trial just as journalists from around the globe were preparing to head to Los Angeles for the 1984 Olympics. The whole world would be watching. To avert an embarrassing trial, the city offered us stricter surveillance rules and a $1.8 million settlement. We said yes. I received some cash as both an attorney and a plaintiff in the case.” (7)

    VG of course was one of the journalists headed for the 1984 Olympics–and he would stay there till he fled due to MJ’s lawsuit and the huge fine he had to pay. What is interesting here is the LAPD and FBI were spying on political figures and celebs–Stevie Wonder, as well, a close frind of MJ–and used undercover agents. This is their history up to 1984 and it undoubtedly continued afterwards, with perhaps a little more care so as to avoid another lawsuit. To me, it is believable that MJ’s name would be on a list of potential criminals (a list drawn up either by the LAPD or FBI or both, as they seem to have worked together in Jeff’s case). They were targeting Stevie Wonder, why not MJ.

    Like

  4. Alinne permalink
    July 5, 2013 10:23 am

    interview with Gutierrez (Google Translate):

    Regarding the death of Jackson, Gutierrez reaffirmed its version from the start, “I said in a program in Spain, Michael Jackson was killed. And after it was learned that yes, but it is necessary to know who is behind Dr. Murray “.
    He said he is investigating the case, but always with LaToya Jackson as a conductor.
    http://www.lanacion.cl/victor-gutierrez-la-farandula-me-da-el-dinero-para-vivir/noticias/2012-04-24/235109.html

    if true, why is latoya even talking to this guy?
    —————————————

    Victor Gutierrez: The most controversial journalist confesses his fears and loves

    The reporter laughs at those who doubt his university studies and label as gay. Ensures that was about to marry, than in the U.S. his colleagues identified him as “nerd”, says he cooks sushi and he wants to return to America.

    Outgoing and addicted to sushi, this former reporter from “The National Enquirer” (the best-selling tabloid in the United States) and “Hard Copy”…

    As Eduardo Rojas, other Chilean journalists who went to America in the 90s lived there with Gutierrez. One of them says, “I never knew if he had a family, whether living alone, if he had a girlfriend or boyfriend, nor his address. He was very secretive about his private life”.


    he says nothing here about being an agent

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chile-w/message/1688

    Like

  5. shellywebstere permalink
    November 27, 2012 2:43 am

    ““Mary Fischer’s “Was Michael Jackson Framed” has been re-issued and I read a fan comment about it that says that “Feldman was up his ears in unpaid debt and judgments.” I didn’t know that Feldman was in the same boat. Gives him motive to support the lies”.

    It was Rothamn, not Feldman, who had debts.

    Like

  6. shellywebstere permalink
    November 27, 2012 2:41 am

    I wonder if that drawing wasn’t done only by Evan, He admitted he knew what MJ’s ass looked like. Maybe he was just tatking note for the book.

    Like

  7. November 19, 2012 11:25 pm

    “I do have the book, did a skim read and can bring passages if it will help. Even if we get it wrong lets debate intelligently.”

    Dial, are you talking about Sullivan’s book? Thomas Mesereau gave it five stars? Then I am probably misinformed. I had no chance to read it, only some reviews about it, so if someone can send me at least a chapter from it, please do, I’ll be very thankful.

    Like

  8. November 19, 2012 11:19 pm

    “Mary Fischer’s “Was Michael Jackson Framed” has been re-issued and I read a fan comment about it that says that “Feldman was up his ears in unpaid debt and judgments.” I didn’t know that Feldman was in the same boat. Gives him motive to support the lies”.

    Very interesting information! I’ve read that Michael Jackson’s case was what actually “made” Larry Feldman and gave him the name of a successful civil lawyer. Since that time he has been retained by big corporations.

    “Sullivan tells this story about Michael hiding from his family (Joe, Katherine, Jermaine) in the ‘secret room’ at NL, but I think his family certainly knew about that room, if not from their own experience, from Michael’s cousins, like TJ, who had been in his bedroom.”

    From what I hear about his book I won’t spend a single minute on this garbage. Sullivan is just belching old nasty lies. No need to waste a single minute on him – Sullivan is unable to provide any true information in principle. I wish someone could read this sh*t and left a damning review about it.

    Like

  9. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 19, 2012 10:11 am

    I heard that the chapters on the 2005 trial are very good, so maybe that’s why T. Mez gave it 5 stars? However, in that interview Sullivan says he cannot 100% clear Michael from the 93 allegations b/c there is a ‘shadow’ of doubt. T. Mez also recommended the Defending a King book. He is a great guy who saved Michael in 2005 but he is not infallible.

    Like

  10. November 19, 2012 3:07 am

    I only want to ensure the work previously done here and elsewhere remains credible. In truth I feel it is the MJ Fans who are doing the most to make the book popular. Most ppl no longer buy LARGE paperbacks preferring Kindle versions and it is written in a style which reminds me of the bash books written during and after the trial. It really is our market although we are doing a damn good job of promoting it and in some cases promoting ourselves, but not in a positive way.

    I do have the book, did a skim read and can bring passages if it will help. Even if we get it wrong lets debate intelligently.

    I should tell you I have just come from the Amazon MJ Forum and it is reported Mr. Messereau has given it 5 stars based on the fact the author is a hit artist who has stated Michael was not a “P” nor did he molest children. There is sure to be a barrage of emails and calls to verify if T. Mes did in fact post the rating and comment.

    Like

  11. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 18, 2012 8:35 am

    Dialdancer, I just watched the HuffPost Live interview with R. Sullivan. They talk about Michael needing ‘mental health’ treatment and yet Michael told Rabbi S. that he had been in therapy, so he was in therapy, yet R. Sullivan acts like he never knew that. The host didn’t let the other guests, meaning sanemjfan have enough time, so R. Sullivan just blathered on. This book is very disappointing b/c it stirs up all the bs we thought had died down. I read the part of the book that you can preview on Amazon and was interested in those pages, apparently he talks about VG later on, but I am not sure.

    VMJ, Mary Fischer’s “Was Michael Jackson Framed” has been re-issued and I read a fan comment about it that says that “Feldman was up his ears in unpaid debt and judgments.” I haven’t re-read Fischer but if she says this, then Feldman, Rothman, Evan were all needing $$ and in serious financial debt, when Michael was riding a wave of success. I didn’t know that Feldman was in the same boat. Gives him motive to support the lies.

    Sullivan tells this story about Michael hiding from his family (Joe, Katherine, Jermaine) in the ‘secret room’ at NL, but I think his family certainly knew about that room, if not from their own experience, from Michael’s cousins, like TJ, who had been in his bedroom.

    Sullivan comes acrosss in that interview as very sleazy. He says he spoke to the Chandler ‘family’–so who? Ray? June? He says Michael was obsessed with Jordan and called him every day after school.Well, if they were friends, friends who are close do call friends every day–that is normal. Why does it mean an obsession??

    Like

  12. November 18, 2012 1:12 am

    Yes,Dialdancer, this latest boring, negative book has to be dealt with too.A totally unnecessary piece of writing.The NYT had a review,a couple of quotes:This haphazard and unconvincing book, and;fails to give any new information into Jackson´s enigmatic personality.
    I hope for a change someone would write a book on V.G.:The man behind the destruction
    of Michael Jackson´s public image.

    Like

  13. November 18, 2012 12:22 am

    Helena,

    Do you intend to discuss the latest book on Michael by Randall Sullivan? I hope so and if so we go back to using a very tried and true method of some reading the book first. Information from the book can be posted as question in quote targeting specific passages rather than copy & paste pages as not to violate copy-write. Then we can test the more ludicrous of Mr. Sullivan comments against known information.

    There is a need to show Vindication Advocacy information remains credible after David’s ill-prepared debate on the HuffPost Live interview. It is equally important this is done before anyone else goes up against Mr. Sullivan in a public setting. Mr. Sullivan was well prepared and waiting for us.

    Like

  14. November 17, 2012 6:00 am

    Victor Guitirrez has a vivid imagination,akin to pseudologia fantatsica,graphomania, at least from 9 yo of age.His great interest is pedophilia and for the past 2 decades or more Michael Jackson has been his obsession.Those are pervasive charactertraits and it is unlikely they suddenly sprang to life when Jordan Chandler and father Evan entered the public mind and the attention of the police.He wrote, according to his own words a book,
    rather a manuscript, about Michael Jackson prior to the Chandler affair.Michael was known worldwide already by the mid 80:ies. V.G.´s charactertraits fit perfecty with writing such material which must have given him pleasure and satisfaction of sorts..
    Ofcourse the 93 allegations gave him opportunities he only could have dreamed of.

    Like

  15. November 16, 2012 2:33 am

    “It’s: “my theory: / ass blotched / shades of / brown – so / how is MJ(?) p. V / be selective / Orietta bleach”
    According to Ray’s book Evan injected Michael in the gluteus that night when he drugged him up. So Evan knew how Michael’s butt looked like. IMO here they are trying to derive from that how his genitalia may look like.”

    Jacksonaktak, the interpretation was helpful. I wouldn’t have deciphered it myself. But if this is correct then it is a clear indication that Evan Chandler was sitting over this picture and thinking how MJ’s p. could look. These “reflections” are based on the information about the brown patch he saw on MJ’s “blotched ass” when making that injection and what we see in this picture are the pangs of creating his, Evan Chandler’s theory how the other side of the body can look – the one where “MJ’s p.” is!

    The handwriting is that of Evan Chandler. Please compare it with his signature under the retainer agreement.

    The one under Jordan’s declaration is pointed, slanted to the right and – whether Jordan’s or not – is totally different:

    Like

  16. November 16, 2012 2:15 am

    “I’m having trouble posting comments here. Wonder why.”

    What trouble do you have? Can it possibly be due to so many comments in this post? I need to make a new one but don’t know where to take time for it!

    Like

  17. November 16, 2012 12:43 am

    @ald

    Good, I thought it was just me.🙂

    Like

  18. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 16, 2012 12:42 am

    Ok, that one worked, so I’ll try again.

    Thanks for the info re the drawing, Jacksonaktak. Of course, Evan used his knowledge of Michael’s body from the time he gave him the injection.

    Jordan said that he was masturbated “many times” –how could that be if there was no physical evidence in any of the places he said these acts occurred–June’s house, Evan’s house, NL?? It makes no sense. And that drawing and the words written are so vague and say nothing. So they go pouring over Michael’s body for evidence on the basis of a ridiculous drawing and Jordan’s verbal description??

    Like

  19. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 16, 2012 12:38 am

    I’m having trouble posting comments here. Wonder why.

    Like

  20. November 15, 2012 9:02 am

    @ Aldebaran

    “About Orietta: I can read ‘Bleaching cream Orietta” but not the reference to her in the box–could someone tell me what he writes here (MY theory, etc.)?”

    It’s:

    “my theory: / ass blotched / shades of / brown – so / how is MJ(?) p. V / be selective / Orietta bleach”

    According to Ray’s book Evan injected Michael in the gluteus that night when he drugged him up. So Evan knew how Michael’s butt looked like. IMO here they are trying to derive from that how his genitalia may look like.

    Like

  21. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 15, 2012 8:09 am

    Yes, VMJ, the quote no doubt means Norma Salinas, but it says “sources”–so they mean more than one person. I am wondering who translated for her as she does not speak English, although she probably understood some words or else how would they communicate with her? She says Michael and Jordan acted like ‘a couple’ and that’s the way VG describes them too. Was Michael there 2 weekends or just one? Memorial Day is late May.

    Like

  22. November 15, 2012 1:58 am

    “VMJ, look at the words Feldman uses: “if we were writing A SCRIPT.” It is right there. Why would he say that–why not say, “of course, we would prefer that etc. etc.” B/c they were in fact writing a script.” – aldebaranredstar

    I also shuddered at this word but it only confirmed to me what I thought all along. It always looked to me like a script – a very well thought-out script but nevertheless a script, lacking real emotion and not true to life.

    And what Jordan said to Dr. Gardner was also a story, and not his real life-experience. No emotion, no nothing, just a movie plot being retold. I also think that the interview is authentic as there are some details there which are very unfavorable for the Chandlers. Lack of real emotion, vagueness over the dates and the “phases” of “molestation”, Jordan’s fear of cross-examination as the only fear he had, his real confusion when Dr. Gardner asked him if and when he stopped masturbating. All this makes the interview look authentic.

    However even if it is forged so much the worse for the Chandlers – they have made it only to their detriment. Not enough talent, professionalism and research in this case.

    Like

  23. November 15, 2012 1:35 am

    “Victor is becoming a bit of a loose cannon,” said one tab vet. “His main sources are in the family [of the dentist’s son]. Outside of them, his stories don’t hold up so well.” http://articles.nydailynews.com/1995-01-26/gossip/17968446_1_blanca-francia-jackson-lawyer-howard-weitzman-victor-gutierrez

    Aldebaran, they are talking of Norma Salinas who worked in Evan Chandler’s house. Recently I read that she barely spoke English and hardly understood what Michael Jackson, Jordan or the Chandlers talked about. Any meaningful conversation with her would have been impossible, so we can imagine what she could think or invent in her small isolated world where she interpreted in her own way everything she saw but could not understand.

    And here enters Gutierrez with his spectacles, professorial looks, his Spanish and his invented story of being a “secret agent” working for the authorities. The two of them have met…

    Here is a piece about Norma Salinas from nasty Dateline (where Gutierrez would later work) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5906855/ns/dateline_nbc-newsmakers/

    It also mentions Ernie Rizzo, who suggested his services to Evan Chandler as an enemy of Anthony Pellicano, but was fired by him several days later. It didn’t prevent him though from going on to present himself as someone working for Evan Chandler:

    Caretaker speaks out for the first time

    Norma Salinas worked for the boy’s father and step-mother, cleaning house and caring for their two younger children in their comfortable Brentwood home. She says she was surprised when the boy came to live with his father because the teenager was rarely more than a weekend visitor who spent his time alone. The father usually too preoccupied with work, until that weekend.

    Norma Salinas: “Much later I started to understand everything. At first, they didn’t want this boy in the house and later when the relationship started with Michael, the boy came here to live. From then on there were strange things going on in this house.”

    The story about what happened that weekend changes, depending upon who’s telling it. Jackson says it was the beginning of a plot to extort money from him. The boy’s father wrote in a letter to his lawyers that he was simply trying to protect his son, re-establish a relationship that had been damaged by his son’s involvement with Michael Jackson, and get to the bottom of what was really going on between a 13-year-old boy, and a 35-year-old man.

    Salinas: “It was a big impression on me because the father brought him home for an entire weekend. I was very surprised because he is a big star and to arrive like that without bodyguards without anything I was a bit astonished.”

    The boy introduced Jackson to Salinas as his best friend. A moment both thrilling, says Salinas, and disturbing.

    Salinas: “They were hugging, laughing. They looked very happy, like a couple.”

    She says the boy’s father and step-mother acted as though there was nothing unusual about the visit, except when they instructed Salinas to keep the drapes pulled shut the entire weekend while Jackson was visiting.

    Salinas: “The boy’s step-mother told me to pull out the trundle bed that goes next to the boy’s bed because that’s where Mr. Michael was going to sleep.”

    It was in this spartan room, a room without a TV set Salinas says, that Michael Jackson and the 13-year-old boy spent virtually an entire weekend — all with the father’s full knowledge and consent.

    Salinas: “I entered the room the next day to do the housekeeping as I always do. I noticed that no one slept on the bed because there were no signs of anybody having slept there… I suspect that he slept on the bed because there was no other bed.”

    An undocumented worker who doesn’t speak English, Salinas says she never went to police. She admits she didn’t always get along with the father, whom she holds partly responsible for what happened.

    Salinas: “In few words, you can say that he sold his son to Michael… They should both be in jail together. Michael, for what he did to the boy and the boy’s father for what he did to his son.”

    Ernie Rizzo says the father used that weekend as a sort of fact-finding mission.

    Mankiewicz: “Was there any surreptitious recording done of Michael Jackson and the boy during the time that Jackson was at that house?”

    Ernie Rizzo: “Well yeah. Let me say this, the father had related some conversations to me. There were things that I don’t think anybody could have heard through that bedroom door. My gut feeling would have been that there may have been a tape recorder in that bedroom.”

    Rizzo says the father knew he would need powerful evidence, like an audio tape, before he could take on the extremely powerful Jackson.

    Rizzo: “It takes a lot of guts to accuse Michael Jackson of molesting. I think before he made his move he wanted to make sure, and I think he made sure.”

    Mankiewicz: “Even though that would mean exposing his child to someone who he suspected might be molesting him?”

    Rizzo: “I mean, I wouldn’t do it.”

    Salinas also suspects that the boy’s father rigged the room with a recording device, but she has no evidence of that either. But she says after that Memorial Day visit, everything changed.

    Salinas: “After that weekend, the boy’s father stopped going to work.”

    Salinas says that from then on, to say that Jackson was unwelcome in the home would be an understatement.

    Salinas: “Michael’s name was never mentioned again in the house. That name was prohibited in the house.”

    The father has refused to talk to Dateline. He did tell a family member that although he told both his son and to others that he’d secretly recorded his boy and Jackson together, he was in fact bluffing, hoping to get his son to confirm or deny his suspicions. And the family member also quotes the father as saying he wishes he had acted on those suspicions much sooner.

    Like

  24. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 15, 2012 1:31 am

    About Orietta: I can read ‘Bleaching cream Orietta” but not the reference to her in the box–could someone tell me what he writes here (MY theory, etc.)? Interesting word “theory”–why would he need a theory if he knew?

    About the drawing, to be clear I think the dark figure looking angry and unhappy and standing on the edge is Evan. The smaller figure behind him on the roof is Jordan, saying “No No!”). The two figures falling are June and Lily (maybe), and the one smashed on the pavement is Michael. The drawing shows the murderous violence that Jordan saw in Evan, his capacity to destroy and massacre, and Evan misread it totally.

    Like

  25. November 15, 2012 1:04 am

    “Now why would Evan or Jordan be talking about Orietta when she had been fired more than a year before? What were they trying to find out from her. I think VG brought her, or Blanca over to Evan’s house to help out with some details of that description.” – Lynande

    Lynande, good you noticed it. This point about Orietta is also very important. For Evan or Jordan to make a note about Orietta Murdoch (whom they never met) there must have been someone else in the story and this third party could be only Gutierrez.

    It is the second time the Chandlers give themselves away by referring to someone whom they could not know of even in theory – first it was a boy “Garcia” (we think him to be Francia, though it is a supposition only) and now comes a direct reference to Orietta whom they didn’t know either.

    There are too many signs pointing in the direction of Evan being under the influence of Gutierrez and his stories. Only Gutierrez could tell them about Francia and Orietta from the earlier past.

    Like

  26. November 15, 2012 12:54 am

    What the Chandlers were not content with was VG’s portrayal of Evan as the greedy bastard he was. IMO that was the reason for their falling out, not the “romance” angle. – jacksonaktak

    It sounds right! Yes, this must be the reason.

    Like

  27. November 15, 2012 12:41 am

    “Here is Carrie Fischers take on Evan Chandler. This happened in April shortly after they went to Las Vegas”

    What a great account by Carrie Fisher! It gives a lot of food for thought about Evan Chandler and his sick nature!

    The same situation is described by Gutierrez in his book. His variant clearly shows Evan Chandler’s side of the story and proves to us again that Gutierrez worked on his book in cooperation with Evan:

    “Friday, April 16, 1993, Evan saw his patient actress Carrie Fisher in his dental clinic, and he took the opportunity to ask her about Michael Jackson. The actress and Jackson had a friend in common, dermatologist Dr. Arnie Klein. “I told Carrie that my son was sleeping in the same bed with Michael Jackson and that I wanted to know a little more about him.” The actress listened attentively and did not interrupt the anxious dentist. Evan offered to drive her home, since she had come by taxi, and she accepted. During the ride, the actress used Evan’s car phone to call Dr. Klein in Philadelphia. In Los Angeles it was 8 p.m.; in Philadelphia it was 11 p.m.
    Dr. Klein was sleeping when he got the call. The actress 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.”

    When I was reading Gutierrez’s book I wondered how Evan Chandler learned about those sleeping arrangements at all. Now I’m beginning to think that Jordan could tell him about them himself. So in the middle of April the boy was not shy to mention to his father that he stayed in MJ’s room and slept in his bed? Compare it with the secrects kept by real victims of molestation (for half of their lives) and revealed at a grown-up age with much sobbing, and you will see all the difference in the world between them and a fake “victim” like Jordan. To me this openness in the relations sounds like the best proof that at least in the middle of April nothing was wrong in his relationship with MJ.

    And if we talk about the later period Aldebaran was very attentive to notice that Jordan said to Dr. Gardner Jordan that the first hug came in early – middle May (while according to his other versions May 9-13 in Monaco was when “things went out of hand”). So did “masturbation” and “scenes in the bath” take place on May 9 in Monaco or were there only hugs in the middle of May, well after Monaco – even in accordance with Jordan’s own stories?

    By the way it was Jordan’s total inability to give coherent dates for the alleged “molestation” which was one of the reasons why the case went nowhere. The police said Jordan was inconsistent in his evidence.

    Like

  28. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 15, 2012 12:05 am

    “I think that if we were writing a script we would have wanted this case to go through the criminal system first and immediately, like any other child molestation,” Feldman said. “That would have been our preference. We’re not the district attorney. We could not force that to occur, so we did the best we could to take things in our own hands and get this over with.”

    VMJ, look at the words Feldman uses: “if we were writing A SCRIPT.” It is right there. Why would he say that–why not say, “of course, we would prefer that etc. etc.” B/c they were in fact writing a script.

    Just as Evan and Jordan collaborated on Robin Hood, they were now collaborating, together with Feldman, on a new script–the MJ-Jordan child molestation script, a script that got rewritten and revised along the way (as Lynande points out about the changes) in terms of the boys, who got masturbated, the time line, etc. A script that Jordan had to memorize and repeat.

    I am sure that there were rehearsals (G. Hughes says she saw Jordan with Rothman, just the 2 of them, in his office before Jordan went to Abrams). But as far as the Gardener interview, it is so long, over 30 pages, that IMO it is a real interview with Gardener, not a rehearsal with Evan.

    Another reason I think it is real is that Gardener asks a very legitimate question about how could it (molestation) hurt you. And Jordan hasn’t got an answer, doesn’t know what to say, and can only come out with everyone thinks so. In other words, the question is an unexpected curve ball. This shows he is describing a fiction, as any child truly molested would know all too well how it would hurt you.

    When you say it could have hurt you, how could it have hurt you?
    Everybody thinks what he was doing could hurt, otherwise it wouldn’t be a crime.
    Okay, how could it hurt? As you see it, how could it hurt you?
    Because—that’s a touchy subject, I guess. It separates you from any other people.
    How?
    I don’t know.
    Just your own guess.
    It could make me depressed or something, I don’t know.

    Like

  29. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 14, 2012 11:48 pm

    I came across this article, where a “tab vet” is quoted as saying VG’s “main sources” are in the Chandler family:

    Boy, Oh Boy, Jackson Report Maid-to-order For Fleet Street
    BY GEORGE RUSH
    Thursday, January 26, 1995
    Will Michael Jackson buy the silence of another boy?
    London’s Today newspaper reported yesterday that lawyers for the singer have been hammering out a deal with attorneys for a 15-year-old who claims he was molested by Jackson.
    The youth is said to be the son of Blanca Francia, the former Jackson maid.
    . . . .
    But even reporters who work the edge of the Jackson-scandal territory have their doubts about the video claim, which traces to a freelancer named Victor Gutierrez.
    “Victor is becoming a bit of a loose cannon,” said one tab vet. “His main sources are in the family [of the dentist’s son]. Outside of them, his stories don’t hold up so well.”

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

    Like

  30. November 14, 2012 11:43 pm

    “Here are some questions asked in court of Ralph Chacon:
    Q. All right. Do you recall speaking to a book
    author named Gutierrez?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And approximately when did you speak to a
    book author named Gutierrez?
    A. I believe that was before we went to Star,
    and — but I don’t remember the — I don’t remember
    the date or the time.”

    Guys, isn’t it meaningful that the prosecution and defense ask the Neverland 5 questions whether they met Gutierrez at all and especially when they met him? I just imagined another journalist, for example, Jim Newton of the LA Times in Gutierrez’s place – would the parties be so interested to know about him then? Let us suppose that it was Jim Newton instead of Gutierrez – so what if they talked to him?

    What I mean is WHY is the fact that they talked to Gutierrez so important for both prosecution and the defense? And why is the time of that conversation important too? Is it because both parties imply that Gutierrez was influencing the Neverland 5 and advising them on what to say?

    Like

  31. November 14, 2012 11:06 pm

    “Are we sure the Gardner interview is the real one? Because the part where JC had to masturbate MJ is not in the lawsuit either.”

    Shelly, right. That masturbation is not part of the lawsuit either, and it might be one of the reasons to call the transcript false. But if it is false then it is false through and through as any forged document is – from beginning to the end of it.

    However Michael’s detractors, I am afraid, don’t think it false. I have seen people from my country appalled by this interview published as a supplement to Halperin’s book. And it is impossible to explain to each and every that the transcript is false by comparing it with the lawsuit – most people will be simply too disgusted to listen.

    So for me the way out of this situation is easy – if it is false, it is good for us because then it means that it is a lie as any forged document is.

    If it is not false it is good for us too as then it shows that Jordan Chandler was a liar who said he “masturbated” MJ “ten times” but absolutely did not see what he was supposed to see so well.

    I know that now I sound like Larry Feldman who said that no matter how Jordan described Michael’s genitalia it would be for their benefit (as with vitiligo you never know). But they were inventing things about Michael, while in our situation truth itself is helping us.

    Like

  32. November 14, 2012 10:54 pm

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/051805pltmotexcl352.pdf

    Lynande, what a surprising document! First I thought that the defense wanted to subpoena one of the Newts family (those who were promised $100,000 by the National Enquirer for telling a false story about Michael, only they refused – here are the details for those who don’t know them – http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152708,00.html)

    But when I read the document it became clear that the prosecution was talking of Jim Newton, the LA Times Staff Writer (Tom Sneddon calls him James Newton). The article written by Jim Newton is very interesting as it sums up the 1993 case (from the point of the prosecution of course).

    The article gives a “chronology of the events in 1993” but it is highly biased and distorted. The list includes, for example, what LaToya Jackson said about her brother but does not say a single word about Michael’s strip search and the resulting mismatch. Not a word is said about it as if it never took place!

    This article is so full of lies and half-truths that it deserves a full post: http://articles.latimes.com/1994-09-22/news/mn-41669_1_michael-jackson

    In the meantime here is one of its most impressive pieces. Larry Feldman lies about why the civil case went first. We know the real reason for it from Ray Chandler’s book where Feldman says it directly that THEY DID NOT WANT IT (remember Evan Chandler exclaiming in horror – Jesus Christ!), but over here Larry Feldman presents a different version, absolutely disgusting in its falsity:

    It was their own delays, Feldman said, that crippled the prosecutors’ efforts.

    “I think that if we were writing a script we would have wanted this case to go through the criminal system first and immediately, like any other child molestation,” Feldman said. “That would have been our preference. We’re not the district attorney. We could not force that to occur, so we did the best we could to take things in our own hands and get this over with.”

    Larry Feldman is lying in so outrageous a manner that reminds me of Gutierrez and Dimond! Is he really any better?

    Another important point is the date when Jordan Chandler finally refused to take part in a criminal trial and testify – it was as late as July 6th 1994 – half a year after the settlement agreement! So all this time Jordan was cooperating with the authorities!

    But it was not until July 6, according to Feldman and Weiss, that the boy finally decided he could not take the stand against Jackson.

    Like

  33. November 14, 2012 9:35 pm

    “One of those interviewed was Victor Gutierrez, a Southern California free-lance journalist who has been working on a book about Jackson for several years. Gutierrez spoke to LAPD officers for two hours Thursday and was interviewed again Friday. August 28, 1993 http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-28/news/mn-28760_1_michael-jackson

    Let us remember that Gutierrez did indeed work on a book against Michael Jackson for several years before 1993 and move on after accepting is as fact.

    Like

  34. November 14, 2012 8:47 pm

    Here is something else I didn’t make clear. It is in fact the LAPD statement that leaked to the press. It was not Jordan’s statement to SBCounty that was leaked to the press. But Diane Dimond had a copy of that one.
    The there is the fact that Jordan gave one statement that says one thing on August 20th to LAPD. He gives anothers statement on Septmber 1st that says something different.
    The RIchard Gardner audio tape? It has the same information from the August 20th statement to LAPD.
    That is not the transcript of the Gardner interview. Go back and read it again and when you know that think of what else it could be. It is most likely a taped rehearsal of Jordan giving his statement and it was done with his father.
    Dr. Gardner was going to be called as a expert witness in a civil trial. To make sure that the interview remained true to the testimony he would have locked up that tape and no one would have gotten a copy. If it was used in a criminal trial it would have had to be even more true to the statement.

    Like

  35. November 14, 2012 7:31 pm

    @ jacksonaktak
    I for one don’t believe that the “drawing” was made in October. I think it was sooner because the notes that are in the side lines are in fact coaching someone o how to give that description. I think it was made in August because if you look closely at the top is a date and it looks like an 8 was truned to a zero.
    Now why would Evan or Jordan be talking about Orietta when she had been fired more than a year before? What were they trying to find out from her. I think VG brought her, or Blanca over to Evan’s house to help out with some details of that description.

    Like

  36. November 14, 2012 1:38 pm

    Oh, and if you read the transcript of the Schwartz-Evan convo of July’93 there too the “romance” angle seems to filter through at times. Again, it is possible that Evan came up with that angle all alone. But one heck of a coincidence, when we know that a guy with the very same agenda makes his rounds around parents of children in Michael’s environment and he approached other parents before…

    Like

  37. November 14, 2012 1:18 pm

    @ aldebaranredstar


    “Who was Jason’s therapist? Interesting that he kept denying anything happened to his mom and to cops so he was sent to a therapist.”

    Jason’s therapist was a guy called Mike Craft. According to a USA Today article, he was paid by the prosecution. Jason was sent to this therapist by the prosecution when his mother expressed concern that Sheriff Deputies had called and met with Jason while she was not present…

    Like

  38. November 14, 2012 1:13 pm

    @ aldebaranredstar

    “Chandlers fell out with VG b/c he saw MJ-Jordan as a romance, a ‘love story.’”

    I don’t think that is the reason for their falling out, because the Chandlers were content with VG portraying it as a romance. In fact, Ray does it too in his book… Not as in your face as VG, but it’s there. So much that actually he even feels the need to explain himself about it in a footnote at one point:

    “Evan and Monique’s belief at the time, that Jordie and Michael were “in love,” is significant to the problem of understanding sexual molestation in older children. It did not occur to them that the thirteen-year-old was not a willing participant.”

    I find it a bit too much of a coincidence that Evan would think of child molestation as a romance (just what VG’s agenda is) if not for VG. Possible? Yes, it is. But too much of a coincidence IMO.

    What the Chandlers were not content with was VG’s portrayal of Evan as the greedy bastard he was. IMO that was the reason for their falling out, not the “romance” angle.

    Re: The Joy Robson story in Jermaine’s book. I think Jermaine’s source for that was Joy herself. In another part of the book he mentions that Joy was offered six digit figures by tabloids to say MJ molested Wade. I have the impression Jermaine talked to Joy for his book.

    Another interesting thing is the October, 1993 drawing of MJ’s privates that is out there. On that drawing there is a reference to an Orietta twice. But Orietta Murdock was fired by Michael in 1992, she was not in Michael’s life any more when Michael befriended the Chandlers. So why the mention of her twice on that drawing? Well, the link between them is VG. Murdock was one of the employees VG befriended…

    Of course this does not prove a pre-August’93 connection between the Chandlers and VG, but points very strongly to that at least as of October’93 they were in contact. (I personally believe they were in contact pre-August as well.)

    Like

  39. November 14, 2012 10:12 am

    @ aldebarenredstar
    The transcript of Blanca Francia’s Hard Copy Interview is in Diane Dimond book. it was one of her proudest moments.
    Then about the statement that has the name Garcia. I found it in a court document that was redacted but they forgot or missed redacting the last line of a page and that is what it said. These were the pages from the Linden affadavit that was the source of the Telltale Splotch.
    Jordan in fact gave two statements to police. The first one was on August 20th 1993 at his fathers home and was to the DCFS and the Los Angeles police because that is who it was reported to.That is the one where he names Brett , Wade, Mac, Jimmy and Jonathan.
    Brett and Wade go on TV defending Michael on August 24th. They were on CNN.
    Then when he is represented by Gloria Allred he makes a second statement. This time it is to Detective Deborah Linden of the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department and ADA Lauren Weiss of LA County. That was on September 1st 1993.
    It is from the second one that the name Garcia came into play.He dropped Wade, Jimmy and Jonathan but left Brett, Mac and a local boy named Garcia.
    First let me explain something. This had to be a line from the Linden Affadavit because it was attached to the search warrant affadavit in the Arvizo case and that was in SB County.
    So between the time that he gave his first one and the second one he changed it to include “a local boy named Garcia”. But the LA police report said that he named 4 other boys.
    I am looking through my court docs to find it and when I do I will post it. It takes a while because I have alot to go through but I do have it.

    Like

  40. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 14, 2012 6:10 am

    I read the Court TV transcript of the interview with Gardener and the nipple stuff IS there after all, so it wasn’t added later, it was there in the October interview. However, I still believe it is the only specific sex act described (unless others were redacted?). Yes, he does say here he masturbated Michael 10 times. What a liar!!!

    I did notice something strange, though, when Jordan is talking about all the different phases and graduations from one to another, he talks about physical contact starting, like hugging. Gardener asks him (p. 13) “When was the first hug? I don’t know. Do you have any idea? No. Was it before the summer of ’93? I would think early May, middle May.” This is strange b/c May 9-16, according to Adrian Grant, is when they are in Monaco and that’s when Jordan claims he was masturbated! So how could this early phase of a hug be starting then?

    Gardener states that he thinks the mere act of sleeping in the same bed is sexual. He seems sympathetic to Evan in his statements, as if he bought the protective father bs.

    Wish we had access to the Hard Copy interview with Blanca–maybe in the photo w. VG she was wearing her TV outfit? She was dressed up for a special occasion, that’s for sure.

    Like

  41. November 14, 2012 5:35 am

    @VMJ
    Hey,
    I need to take this one point at a time because there are a lot of different things being thrown at me at once. VG had a huge influence on the media in the after math, that’s obvious. Remember, the disagreement circulated around the notion that VG was involved prior to the story breaking, not after.

    Gutierrez likes posing himself as someone important while he is not.
    I agree with this statement, I don’t know why it’s like I wrote gibberish when I indicated that he could’ve made up the other things too. By claiming that he was researching Michael’s relationships with minors before the accusations broke makes him seem more important as well.

    The article pointing to the interview with the police, what does that prove? We’ve been going back and forth for so long I don’t think everyone here remembers what we were discussing.

    If anyone has a chance to do the research of this small but crucial matter, please help. I will also try to at the first opportunity. We should be ready that it may bring us nowhere but even a negative result is also a result and helps to learn the truth.
    And I will do the same. This is crucial which is why I questioned it.

    Like

  42. November 14, 2012 5:17 am

    @lyn
    So your take on all of this is that Evan worked alone and Jordan was a completely willing participant of the whole thing. What was his motivation to lie? The money he could get? What about how he felt about Michael? He was close to Michael. And at what part did Jordan know that this was going to ruin his life?
    The evidence shows that it was a combination of a custody battle, greed, envy and revenge initiated through Evan and Rothman. I believe Geraldine when she says this initiated from a custody battle. Jordan was very close to Michael which is why in his depressed state it was easy to manipulate him. June even expressed in court documents that Evan had manipulated her child’s affections. Jordan was only 13 years old, but he had a motive as well, and in his mind Michael had abandoned him – just like Gavin felt. If he is not a willing participate, (after adulthood) why didn’t he testify in 2005? Why has he told people it didn’t happen? He is guilty for his actions as an adult.

    Did all that go away because he thought his father would get $20 million dollars? Because if he was a willing participant he would have been just as sick and greedy as his father to do this.
    Who had possession of Jordan for weeks the moment he officially accused Michael? I don’t believe Jordan plotted and planned like Evan or Rothman, I think he was angry at Michael, manipulated, brainwashed, and went along with everything. Not to mention, children do what their parents tell them; rarely will you hear a case of the opposite. Why would this kid meet with Rothman by himself?

    I don’t really care about Fischer’s take on the matter but what she says about Evan’s words is interesting. Fischer said that Evan was happy if anything, and when she expressed concerns after hearing the bed part, he told her that it was fine because June was there etc. Fischer only proves that it wouldn’t take a pedophile to set a bi-polar, jealous, partially schizophrenic man on a path of getting even through sexual impropriety especially if he’s going around bragging. The only difference is that when Fischer said this, Evan was going to use Michael as a meal ticket- when Rothman made suggestions he knew his relationship with Michael was over.

    Here is the other think I think everyone has forgotten when they debate this. Up until Jordan came along no one knew that these kids were sleeping in the same room with Michael. No one even suspected it. Except for one person.
    There doesn’t have to be bed-sharing to accuse someone of molestation. Had Gavin slept in the same bed with Michael? What about a real pedophile; did any of those kids sleep in the bed with Sandusky? Is a bed the common denominator in other molestation cases, the real ones?

    Like

  43. nannorris permalink
    November 14, 2012 4:56 am

    Vindicate..
    ———-
    Nannoris, the hypothesis that it was Michael Jackson’s side which sent Jordan to Dr. Gardner is very interesting. We need to keep it in mind when looking for facts proving or disproving it. But even if it was Larry Feldman who sent Jordan to the psychiatrist it does not change anything for us…
    ————–
    actually I dont think mj would have sent Jordan to Gardner, I thought Feldman did that to head them off at the pass..So MJ defense couldnt ask him to review JC statements and give his opinion
    Because if they went to Katz first to give his impression and MJ side took JC statements and brought them to Gardner to analyse,and he is the expert, that would have made The Chandlers, Feldman and Katz look like fools..
    You dont have to be a professional to see the holes in this kids statements..
    II agree with you ….I am not so sure that Feldman didnt plan it that way from the beginning, perhaps he never asked for his opinion , because he knew it what it was going to be.
    We all know Katz is just his puppet..
    I thought of that too when Katz said MJ was not a p…..
    You might think that Sneddon would have caught that also , since he was interpreting JC statements, back in 93 too..but we all know Sneddon ignores or buries exculpatory evidence..
    ———.
    I hope your mom and you are doing better ..please take care of yourself also….:)).

    Like

  44. November 14, 2012 4:39 am

    It could be at Neverland too.

    Like

  45. November 14, 2012 4:36 am

    Maybe it was taken just before Blanca did that interview with Dimond. It was in an hotel I believe.

    Like

  46. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 14, 2012 4:32 am

    The photo with Blanca looks like it was taken in a nice hotel or restaurant. Blanca is all dressed up. Does anyone know or have a suggestion where it was taken?

    Like

  47. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 14, 2012 4:16 am

    Hi, VMJ, I hope things are going better with your mother.

    I didn’t mean VG’s contributions were credible–just ‘credible enough’ to get that large salary from NBC, and you are right, it was per month, my mistake. To have been hired in 04 as an expert, despite losing the defamation and fraud suit, is rather incredible. I can only assume they thought what he had to offer was worth it.

    Thanks, Lynande, for the Carrie Fischer comments. She makes a lot of sense and shows how Evan was alluding to the relationship as sexual even early on. That’s what I get from her description of the winks and leers in the ‘my son is very good-looking’ remark.

    One thing that is strange to me about the declaration is the specific reference to nipple twisting and sucking in an otherwise vague, generalized account. I wonder where they came up with that idea. Seems like someone decided at least one specific about the sex acts was in order–but why that one?? Is it in MJWML? It really stands out in an otherwise bland account with no descriptive content.

    I agree with the supposition that Katz was sent Gardener’s tape to review in order to buttress something that wasn’t there in Gardener’s professional opinion. It is very interesting that the dialogue has been leaked but not Gardener’s own analysis or professional opinion of whether this story hangs together. I mean that is the whole crux of the matter–not only what was said but how Gardener read Jordan. If he didn’t see right through him, he doesn’t deserve his reputation! I would seem he would at least discuss the lack of details and emotional content in his conclusion. (maybe that’s why they added the nipple stuff?). I mean Gardener asks Jordan, what was Michael doing while he was masturbating you? And he says “Nothing, just that.” It is like talking about any mundane matter. Can’t believe Gardener fell for it.

    That VG is so chummy with Blanca, arm around her in the photo, is disturbing and her son is the only one manipulated into being a witness. Who is this Evvy Tavasci? Is she the one arranging the Hard Copy interview? Why would she do that? In VG’s book, this photo is the one that suggests the closest friendship–the one with Blanca.

    Like

  48. November 14, 2012 2:47 am

    “Now answer or ask yourself the following: How did VG’s book come to have references to Jonathan Spence, Jimmy Safechuck, Wade Robson, Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes in it? Did you know that they were the boys that Jordan named in his original police statement? Did he get those from Evan? No he did not, Evan got them from him and gave them to Jordan.”

    Lynande, I think that this line of research is very promising. Now we need to check everything up – Gutierrez and Ray Chandler’s books plus all newspaper reports for that period. The argument that those five boys were mentioned by the press does not satisfy me. Michael was familiar with many more families and children – Dave Dave, Ryan White and the Cascios for example. But for some reason these two authors and Jordan spoke only about the remaining four.

    It would also be interesting to know what five files were passed by Gutierrez to Diane Dimond. This alone shows that Gutierrez had been working against Jackson for a long time before he contacted Dimond. For some reason Tatum disputes the matter but I suggest we go forward as this “discussion” with her is not taking us anywhere and has become totally unconstructive.

    The fact that Jordan mentioned “Garcia” is also extremely interesting. Is it in the interview with Gardner? If it is over there they agreed that they would not use the real names of the boys, so Garcia could very well stand for Francia.

    If he really meant Jason Francia this would be sensational, because – as you said it yourself – Jordan could not know Francia directly (Blanca Francia stopped working for MJ in 1991 and never came back to Neverland and this was two years before Jordan), so the only person he could get this information from was Gutierrez. Over here it is important to know when Jordan mentioned this Garcia for the first time and when the name of Francia was disclosed by the press.

    Before making any conclusions here we first need to check up everything very thoroughly – where he mentioned Garcia, at what point in time, how long he knew him, and check up all other sources where Jordan could get that name from. It is a tremendous amount of work.

    If anyone has a chance to do the research of this small but crucial matter, please help. I will also try to at the first opportunity. We should be ready that it may bring us nowhere but even a negative result is also a result and helps to learn the truth.

    Like

  49. November 14, 2012 1:55 am

    “I think we should not get bogged down with the need for hard, undeniably proof. we need to keep moving. I mean science would never make progress if everything came to a halt until undeniable proof of something was found. For example, the atomic theory was constructed not because people could actually see these tiny particles, but that they theorized they had to be there on the basis of how other particles that they could see were moving and changing.” – Aldebaranredstar

    This is exactly our situation. The biggest problem with the 1993 case is that there are no documents left about it except haters’ sources. These include a package of papers connected with the Chandlers’ lawsuit (the original suit, declaration, the settlement – all of which were leaked to the press by Michael’s “well-wishers”), the tapescripts of Jordan’s interview with Dr. Gardner and of Evan Chandler’s conversation with Dave Schwartz, plus a big collection of poisonous books or articles written by Michael’s haters – Gutierrez, Ray Chandler, Diane Dimond, Maureen Orth and others.

    The 2005 case was different – over there we have a powerful ally Thomas Mesereau and the findings of the defense team. But with regard to 1993 we haven’t got a single positive or at least neutral document. All we have are the breakthrough article by Mary Fischer and the good books by Geraldine Hughes and Lisa Campbell. Plus scarce newspaper articles which (again) tell us mostly lies and allegations about the case.

    We also have the 2005 testimonies of the Neverland 5, June Chandler and the Francias which aren’t much help either in terms of finding out the truth.

    This is all we have. Many documents have long disappeared and keep disappearing from the net (like Linden’s affidavit for example). In these circumstances when nothing else is left except the haters’ sources all the work on getting the truth about the 1993 case will have to be done on the basis of the remaining documents and will have to be done by us. No one else will do it for us.

    Rebuking us for using the haters’ and therefore liars’ sources is a blow below the belt. If we had something else we would gladly stop digging up this “masturbation” dirt and deal with someting nicer instead. But we cannot, because there is simply NOTHING nicer left from that time than Jordan’s interview with the psychiatrist or his declaration.

    How can we get to the truth if we totally lack neutral and unbiased information? Only by comparing the haters’ sources between themselves. This alone may substantially decrease the number of lies about Michael Jackson – for example, when we see that one haters’ story totally contradicts the other haters’ story. In this case even in theory only one of the two haters’ lies may be “true”.

    This alone is already a positive result, because instead of two lies now we have only one. And with a little bit of luck even this one remaining lie will be fully eradicated one day.

    Like

  50. November 14, 2012 12:58 am

    Reasons that point to VG as being highly involved in the media and court take-down of Michael:
    1. VG has interviewed many of the major players and they have testified to this in court, including Blanca Francia and the Neverland 5
    2. VG has interviewed ex-employees of NL, close family friends of Michael’s whose children were friends of Michael’s, like the Robsons, and Hispanic employees, such as Norma Salinas, and even a judge Hugo Alvarez
    3. VG’s book has many artifacts, like photos, drawings, documents that indicate inside information
    4. VG is acknowledged by DD as her ‘best source’ and one who gave her 5 large file folders of information
    5. VG was contacted by Maureen Orth for her 2003 VF article which rehashed the 1993 allegations in order to set Michael up for the new allegations
    6. VG was hired by NBC for $25,000 a week. This is one of the most convincing arguments to me that he had information that was valuable, credible enough to be worth all that $$$.
    7. VG was hired by Bashir as one of 4 consultants for his ABC programs in 2004
    8. VG is a known homosexual who believes that relationships between men and boys should be legal and socially accepted. This is evident from his interviews, his book, his association with NAMBLA
    9. VG was one of the first to be interviewed by the police in their 1993 investigation and over a 2 day period
    10. Ray Chandler knew VG and acknowledged this publicly.
    11. VG’s book is a porno love affair between a man and a boy, which is the basic script of Jordan’s account, where there is no force, no revulsion, no disgust, just ‘he was my friend and it felt good so whatever.”
    12. Sneddon and his team read VG’s book and probably considered it an accurate account. Their approach to the Arvizo case was essentially the same script (but with alcohol added). The fact that they were allowed to use ‘prior bad acts’ brought up all the old 1993 circumstances and people, including boys mentioned in 93 and in VG’s book.

    Aldebaran, I fully agree with your list except point 6. Gutierrez was hired by NBC for $25,000 (I think it was a salary per month, not a week), but the fact that Gutierrez had “credible” information is wrong. He had his own fantasies about Jackson supported by the papers from Evan Chandler and he was the one who spoke (and instigated) a whole crowd of maids, bodyguards and other personnel around Jackson. He was indeed the most “knowledgeable” person but only on the art how to set up Michael Jackson. His information is not credible – it is nothing but fiction, and the biggest problem with Gutierrez is that he may not even understand it himself.

    A very interesting fact from Gutierrez’s biography was found by Markoftheancients and me in the El Mercurio newspaper.

    It says that when Gutierrez was 9 years old his neighbor, a famous Chilean writer, gave him his book to read and make a summary of it. When he received the summary the writer was horrified – it was longer than the book and there were even new characters there which the boy invented himself! This is how Gutierrez began writing and this is how he started inventing things which he is doing until today.

    This is what pathological liars are all about. They enjoy the process of inventing, they derive pleasure from fooling others, they show off their fantasy and think themselves to be exceptionally clever, and want to be admired for it.

    I would like to write a post about the facts we found about Gutierrez. If everything is okay, I’ll probably do it within the next few days.

    Like

  51. November 14, 2012 12:39 am

    “I haven’t read Jermaine’s book. I’ve heard nothing else outside of that”.

    You have probably not heard but I have analyzed what Gutierrez said about Joy Robson in 1997 and what Joy Robson said in her testimony in 2005. That comparison brought me to a conclusion that Gutierrez did meet Robson in 1992. And not because he told the ridiculous story about Wade “dancing for bread” – it is because of small details mentioned by Gutierrez in his book and Joy Robson speaking about the same things at the trial, but only in a different (true) interpretation. Joy Robson’s interpretation was a normal account of a normal person while Gutierrez’s interpretation was absolutely abnormal (in his view a dance in the street should be necessarily a sign of them being poor and homeless), but in this case the interpretation is not important – it is those small details themselves described eight years before the trial whcih show that Gutierrez knew Joy Robson and spoke to her.

    The information I am talking about is probably here: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/joy-robson-vs-victor-gutierrez-the-truth-against-lies/

    “The whole scenario about Gutierrez meeting with the police could have been for anything. Did he reach out to the police or did they seek him out? Were the police giving him information, was he providing it or was he seeking it?”

    Tatum, it is beginning to grow ridiculous. If you think that the police asked about Jackson every person they met in the street (for two days three hours each) and that they gave information to everyone who asked for it I think we can round up our discussion as over here I am unable to help you.

    Like

  52. November 14, 2012 12:17 am

    Nannoris, the hypothesis that it was Michael Jackson’s side which sent Jordan to Dr. Gardner is very interesting. We need to keep it in mind when looking for facts proving or disproving it. But even if it was Larry Feldman who sent Jordan to the psychiatrist it does not change anything for us.

    – If it was Larry Feldman who sent Jordan to Dr. Gardner he was either not sure of Jordan’s story himself or wanted to brag to the jury that he had the opinion of the best expert in false accusations.

    – But something evidently went wrong there as AFTER consulting the best expert he sent the videotape of it to Dr. Katz (as Katz said in his 2005 testimony). So Katz came after Dr. Gardner and it is strange that Feldman asked him to verify the result.

    – Let us also remember that when Katz was discussing the 2005 case with a police investigator (in a secretly made police recording) Katz said that Michael did not fit the profile of a ped-le. He said it in general terms, referring to the previous case too, and this shows to us that even Katz was not sure that Jordan was telling the truth in 1993. Katz would not have said it if he thought that in the first case MJ fit that profile – you cannot fit the profile in one case and not fit it in another case, it is either this or that.

    So there is a very high chance that Katz made a negative conclusion too after watching Jordan’s interview with Dr. Gardner.

    Like

  53. November 13, 2012 11:18 pm

    “Actually Jordan does say that he masturbated MJ in the “Gardner interview” at least two times he says. That interview was in October of 1993. Then after the photos were taken and it was obviously not a match the declaration leaves it out. No self incrimination for the Chandler’s.” -Lynande

    Exactly!

    “Why would he need to have those tapes analyzed when the sole purpose of going to Gardner was to have him analyze them?Because he was the nations leading authority on false accusations of molestation so if he had said that he believed Jordan that would be the gold standard at the time.”

    The possibility that Dr. Gardner determined Jordan to be a liar is a very high one. Firstly, we have only the transcript but we don’t have the doctor’s conclusion which is very suspicious under the circumstances. And secondly, it would be highly unusual to ask another scientist to verify the conclusions made by an expert who is the gold standard in the profession. It is like asking some physicist to verify the conclusions made by Albert Einstein.

    Like

  54. November 13, 2012 11:16 pm

    “Gavin fit Bashir´s motive. Dave Dave would have brought out Michaels deeply felt urge to help children in poverty, with severe illnesses or otherwise dire life circumstances” – Kaarin

    Absolutely!

    Like

  55. November 13, 2012 11:09 pm

    I’m not trying to hint or be insulting by saying that it’s speculation because there are two kinds; reasonable speculationand over speculation. The examples of both kinds are below.

    Tatum, since you keep speaking of some ‘speculation’ on my part I will have to answer (see the text).

    1. Reasonable Speculation: June and Michael possible relationship
    It is a hypothesis only and a delicate matter as even the two people involved in it may not interpret their relations in a similar way. One will say “I am in a relationship”, while the other will say “I am not”. It is the nature of love in general.

    a. Dave Schwartz and Evan’s conversation ( FACTS)
    We have a tape but whether it is full or not we don’t know.

    b. Her testimony in 2005 about their conversation ( FACTS)
    The testimony itself is no fact at all as June answered only those questions she wanted to answer and answered them in a way she wanted to. Learning what she tried to hide and where she lied can result in some new facts. So the testimony itself is no fact, it is its interpretation which may lead to uncovering some.

    c. Michael’s charming/gentlemen/flirtatious ways ( FACT)
    Flirtatious with whom? Women? Boys? Children? People in general? Flirtatious or childlike, natural and unaffected? Different with other people? The fact that he was flirtatious with women is a fact for me but is no fact for Gutierrez and other Michael’s haters. On the contrary the insinuation that he was flirtatious with “boys” is absolutely no fact for me, but is a “fact” for Gutierrez.

    “June Chandler by herself would not be credible, but her interaction with Mesereau leads us to conclude what certain conversations were about.”

    She is absolutely not credible, and that is why her testimony is not “fact”, but the analysis or interpretation (again!) of her interaction with Mesereau does bring us to some facts. For example, she remembered who sent planes to take them to various places (Michael’s friend, Sony) and what Michael’s interests were (Pepsi, etc.) but she could not remember that she had filed a lawsuit against MJ though she had put her signature under the retainer agreement with Larry Feldman. This comparison shows two facts: 1) that she is a liar and 2) that she is a gold-digger as she remembers MJ’s business better than her own. So her testimony per se is no fact, but the conclusions from it are.

    2. Over Speculation: Victor Gutierrez involvement before 1993
    This is absolutely no “over speculation”. Victor Gutierrez said so and some pieces from the account of his conversation with Joy Robson in 1992 (reported in his book of 1997) were even confirmed by her own testimony in 2005. The examination and cross-examination were very funny because they looked as if there was an invisible third party to it – Gutierrez, whose “ideas” both sides referred to.

    a. Gutierrez is linked to Evan (Never Proven)
    It IS PROVEN all right! The book by Gutierrez has a lot of pictures and documents which could be obtained only from Evan Chandler. The only question is WHEN they met while the FACT of the meeting cannot be disputed.

    b. Gutierrez gave information to the FBI about victims (Never Proven)
    You are absolutely wrong even in the idea of it. I never said that Gutierrez “gave information” to the FBI. He was summoned by the police in the first days of the criminal investigation, but that’s it. He claimed that he was given a list of possible pedophiles by the FBI but this is a totally ridiculous story which I never believed. Gutierrez likes posing himself as someone important while he is not.

    c. Gutierrez claimed he was involved prior to ( Never proven and is a liar)
    He claimed that he had made rounds of the parents telling them stories about Jackson and I see no reason why I shouldn’t believe him. His story explains a lot.

    d. A case Victor Gutierrez allegedly developed prior to 1993 ( Never seen)
    See the answers above.

    Do you understand the pattern here?
    I do. It is you who don’t see it.

    Like

  56. November 13, 2012 10:09 pm

    “Shocking that there are still people out there claiming it was a strong case. Don’t these people have any sense at all??” – aldebaranredstar

    Absolutely shocking.

    “I am looking at Jordan’s declaration–interesting that he says Michael masturbated him but not that he masturbated Michael. Although he does say Michael masturbated in front of him at least twice. But he didn’t notice he wasn’t circumcised! His declaration is quite vague, with just two or three “highlighted scenes” (Exorcist, Monaco)”

    By the time the declaration was made Jordan and his lawyer realized their mistake. The declaration came after MJ’s strip search on December 21, 1993, so by December 28 when the declaration was made they must have already received a word from the police that nothing matched.

    So Jordan could no longer say (the way he did to Dr. Richard Gardner in October 1993) that he allegedly masturbated MJ. How could he? If he had done it he should have noticed all those differences, but he didn’t, therefore the scene of “Jordan masturbating MJ” was dropped from the account. Saying that he saw MJ masturbating was safer as he could always explain that he didn’t see the details at a distance.

    And please remember that the Exorcist thing was not confirmed by June Chandler. Though this was supposed to be “the first time” of Jordan staying in MJ’s bedroom she didn’t know anything about it! During her testimony she only said that she “was told about it”. When, how, by whom – no comment.

    Like

  57. November 13, 2012 9:56 pm

    “Or Gavin Arvizo forgetting all about MJ supposedly walking into a bedroom, stark naked and aroused ..He FORGOT ???? give me a break..Obviously this was a tabloid sensational piece but Sneddon chose to fall for it hook , line and sinker.,…Not because it was believable , but because it suited his purposes”.

    Nannoris, one day the Arvizo case will be taught in law schools as a classical example of a set-up of an innocent person. If anyone among the public still believes that nonsense these people should be checked up for idiocy. I hope that one day the Arvizo case turns into a formal test when applying for a job and a criterion for refusal due to total lack of brains.

    Like

  58. November 13, 2012 9:30 pm

    “VMJ, so sorry to her about your mother’s illness. Taking care of a very ill relative is so hard emotionally and physically.”

    Aldebaran, thank you. It is indeed extremely stressful as a moment of hope is followed by a moment of desperation and is aggravated by a feeling that I have lost a lot of time and did not do things which should have been done much earlier.

    Now I have several hours at my disposal and will read the comments. I see that there are a lot of them!

    Like

  59. November 13, 2012 7:46 pm

    Here is Carrie Fischers take on Evan Chandler. This happened in April shortly after they went to Las Vegas

    “I am fairly certain that I first met Michael in Arnie Klein’s office around the time Billie [Carrie’s daughter] was born, which makes it about eighteen years ago. My friend Bruce Wagner is one of her godfathers, and Arnie is the other. Billie would call Arnie “Godfather Two.”

    When Billie was about six months old, Michael saw some pictures of her in Arnie’s office, called, and left me a message, in that voice of his, with its own dialect. And picking up this message of his was an amazing and disconcerting thing. In a way, it was like getting a communication from Santa Claus, or some other fairy-tale character. Michael’s message was that he wanted pictures of Billie. Now, that was odd. But you know, also—given that all the court case stuff hadn’t happened yet—kind of sweet. It was like he identified with or was drawn to all things innocent. And yet everyone turned that into something perverse. No one could believe that he was that innocent or that his motives were innocent. But I actually did.

    But getting back to the special medical access I mentioned earlier, I had this dentist at the time, a Dr. Evan Chandler, who was a very strange character. He was what would be referred to as the Dentist to the Stars! And as one of the people who would have unnecessary dental work just for the morphine, this man was one of those people who could arrange such a welcome service. He referred his patients to a mobile anesthesiologist who would come into the office to put you out for the dental work. And as if that wasn’t glorious enough, this anesthesiologist could also be easily and financially persuaded to come to your house to administer the morphine for your subsequent luxury pain relief. And I would extend my arms, veins akimbo, and say to this man—“Send me away, but don’t send me all the way.”

    But remember that dentist who sued Michael for molesting his kid?

    Yes, that was my dentist. Evan Chandler, D.D.S. Dentist to the Stars. And this same Dr. Chandler—long before the lawsuit was brought (though not necessarily before it was contemplated)—needed someone to brag to about his son’s burgeoning friendship with Michael Jackson. (This was years before Michael had children of his own.) And so my “dentist” would go on and on about how much his son liked Michael Jackson and, more important, how much Michael Jackson liked his son. And the most disturbing thing I remember him saying was, “You know, my son is very good looking.”

    Now I ask you—what father talks about his child that way? Well, maybe some do but (a) I don’t know them, and (b) they probably aren’t raising an eyebrow and looking suggestive when they say it. Over the years I’ve heard many proud fathers tell me, “My son is great,” or “My kid is adorable,” but this was the only time I’d ever heard this particular boast:

    “My son [unlike most average male offspring] is VERY [unsettling smile, raised eyebrows, maybe even a lewd wink] good-looking [pause for you to reflect and/or puke].”

    It was grotesque! This man was letting me know that he had this valuable thing that he assumed Michael Jackson wanted, and it happened to be his son. But it wasn’t who his son was, it was what he was: “good-looking.”

    So here was Dr. Chandler telling me how Michael was buying his kid computers and taking him to incredible places and sleeping in the same bed and getting him . . . WAIT!

    “Hang on,” I said. “I have to interrupt here. Let’s just go back a tic, okay?”

    “Sure,” Chandler said.

    “They’re sleeping in the same bed?!”

    He blinked. “Well, yeah, but my ex-wife is always there, so it’s okay, and his stepfather and . . . and . . . and . . .”

    Dr. Chandler’s stories became longer than my treatments. The drugs were wearing off before the story. Not that there was enough dope in the world to make these stories palatable. This was one creepy story. Off hand, I’d say the creepiest. And somehow I’d become this freak’s confidante.

    So I told this bizarre tale to my friend, Gavin de Becker, who specializes in, among other things, celebrity weirdness, with a particular expertise in protecting celebrities from stalkers. He’s written four compelling books about fear and security and the like. So I called Gavin and told him about this dentist dumping this ghastly tale of his son and Michael Jackson in my lap, and Gavin told me, “Here’s what you should say to the guy: ‘Let me get this straight. You’re telling me your son is having sleepovers in the same bed as Michael Jackson. Let me put this to you another way and tell me if you think this is okay. Your thirteen-year-old son is sleeping in the same bed as a thirty-something African-American millionaire. Is that okay with you? Or does it need to be Michael Jackson to make this incredibly flawed situation make sense?’ ” I said this to Chandler and, as I dimly recall, we didn’t speak much for a while after that.

    Then one night some months later, Dr. Chandler came up to my house again and told me that he and his wife were going to sue Michael.

    “Why?” I asked.

    “Because,” he explained rationally, “Michael is sleeping in the same bed with my boy.”

    Now, I know for a fact that when this first started happening, the good doctor saw no problem with this odd bunking! Excuse me, he had been creepy enough to have allowed all this to happen, and now he’s suddenly shocked—shocked!—virtually consumed with moral indignation! “Can you believe it? I think Michael may have even put his hand on my child’s privates.” Well, what was this man thinking in the first place? Why did he encourage him to sleep in the same bed as Michael Jackson to begin with?

    He did it because he knew, somewhere, he would eventually be able to say, “Oh, my God! I suddenly realize that this thing between Michael and my son is weird. I’m horrified. My son may have been damaged! And the only thing that can repair this damage is many millions of dollars! Then he’ll be okay! And we’re not going to buy anything for ourselves with that money! It’s all going toward our son being okay!!!” This was around the time that I knew I had to find another dentist. No drug can hide the fact that one’s skin is crawling.

    The thing is, though, I never thought that Michael’s whole thing with kids was sexual. Never. Granted, it was miles from appropriate, but just because it wasn’t normal doesn’t mean that it had to be perverse. Those aren’t the only two choices for what can happen between an adult and an unrelated child spending time together. Even if that adult has had too much plastic surgery and what would appear to be tattooed makeup on his face. And yes, he had an amusement park, a zoo, a movie theater, popcorn, candy, and an elephant. But to draw a line under all that and add it up to the assumption that he fiendishly rubbed his hands together as he assembled this giant super spiderweb to lure and trap kids into it is just bad math.

    I actually don’t think Michael was sexual at all. Incredibly talented, yes. Childlike, for sure. Pathologically kind, absolutely. But how stupid would you have to be to have sex with the little kids you’re endlessly hanging out with? And Michael was not stupid. He might have been a little naïve and definitely richer than most anyone in the whole world, and it was this absolutely fatal combination that made people want to desperately try to figure out how to squeeze some of that money out of his enormous wallet.

    But wait! Check this out! Let’s say your “really good-looking son” started hanging out with this odd-looking famous multi-multimillionaire that could maybe be persuaded to give you twenty-two million dollars if you threatened to tell everyone in the world that he touched your son’s underage, maybe-not- even-fully-grown-yet member. Well, I don’t know what you’d do? But when my dentist was presented with a choice between integrity and twenty-two million dollars, you’ll never guess what he did! That’s right—he went for the cash! But hey, he was only human-ish, right? But really, who could blame him? I mean, besides you and me and anyone else alive who cares about ruining their kid’s life, who else could blame Dr. Chandler for what he did? (I’ll wait while you think.)”

    Like

  60. November 13, 2012 7:37 pm

    And at what part did Jordan know that this was going to ruin his life? I mean he had to know it would ruin Michael’s right? That would have had to be his goal too if he willingly joined forces with his father.
    Here is the other think I think everyone has forgotten when they debate this. Up until Jordan came along no one knew that these kids were sleeping in the same room with Michael. No one even suspected it. Except for one person.

    Like

  61. November 13, 2012 7:19 pm

    Then there is another problem with adding the other boys in the story in the first place. Why do that? Why if your motives were purely for money would you add other potential recipients to that money? Especially if you know your story is all about money.

    Like

  62. November 13, 2012 6:35 pm

    So your take on all of this is that Evan worked alone and Jordan was a completely willing participant of the whole thing. What was his motivation to lie? The money he could get? What about how he felt about Michael? He was close to Michael. Did all that go away because he thought his father would get $20 million dollars? Because if he was a willing participant he would have been just as sick and greedy as his father to do this. That’s alot of hate for a 13 year old. So what changed because if you remember there was a police case coming right up until Septmeber of 1994. Explain how or why Evan Chandler talked to Carrie Fischer the way he did about Jordan and Michael before they even went to Monaco, before they even came to his house. What father on earth would wink and say “you know my son is very good looking”?

    Like

  63. November 13, 2012 10:51 am

    @lyn
    It’s plainly obvious that VG is a pedophile. Hypothetically, if we didn’t know about the NAMBLA and his background – his book alone shows it. Anyone who writes about a situation of molestation and turns it into a sensual romantic story (in his mind) is clearly sick. The fact that he was clearly involved in the poisonous lies during the aftermath is not in dispute. The reason Jordan seemed fine and content about what happened was only due to the fact that nothing happened.

    Evan could have come up with the whole “he liked it” garbage to tie loose ends. The police and many others would have wondered the following:
    1. Why didn’t Jordan say anything?
    2. Why didn’t he show any signs of fear?
    3. Why did he always want to go to the Ranch?
    Lying about participation gives them an alibi it’s that simple.

    What is wrong with the whole thing being just Evan is that no matter what he was he was not a pedophile and the details had to have been written for him or given to him by someone who knew this stuff. No matter how imaginative you are if you don’t have these tendencies your mind just won’t let you create them because they are not normal. In the end, Evan made his son tell vividly perverted and twisted lies. This is just as sick as inventing the information given to the police. We know Evan didn’t believe those things were actually happening to his son. I would never go to the extent of saying he wasn’t a pedophile, but he could have been a molestation victim as well.

    Jordan met other boys too that were friends and family of Michael. Why aren’t they mentioned? This doesn’t alter the fact that these were kids that Michael knew, and could’ve actually talked to him about. Maybe that’s why they stood out in his head and he remembered their names, it’s a strong possibility is it not?

    Like

  64. November 13, 2012 10:30 am

    And there is no more prolific and determined stalker than a pedophile. The one illness (pedophilia) does not succeed without the other illness (stalker).

    Like

  65. November 13, 2012 8:58 am

    Jordan met other boys too that were friends and family of Michael.Why aren’t they mentioned?He met the Cascios, Frank and Eddie. He also met Prince Albert Von Thurn und Taxis. Why not mention him because it seems that meeting the richest boy in the world ( at the time) and Royalty would be something to remember. He was at Neverland quite a bit with Michael at the time yet there is no mention of him. What about Elijah and Levon Jackon they were around him too so why weren’t they mentioned? There is a long list of young kids that were around Michael at the time but they are not mentioned by Jordan just the ones that were more in the public eye and that is because they were the ones that VG could find and follow They were recognizable to him.My take is that he was in fact stalking Michael in an effort to do this. That is another mentallity again that takes some understanding to know how driven they can be.

    Like

  66. November 13, 2012 8:27 am

    Here is something that I would like to point out whether it falls on deaf ears or not and I think kaarin will agree with me. I have worked in a psych hospital and we have sexual offenders in there,most of them for a long time. I don’t think that people realize just how driven they are, how overwhelmed their lives are by their (illness) desire.
    That said I think the whole point of the article was not to prove tht VG was involved because to me it is obvious that he was. It is obvious because of the way he writes that he is a pedophile “supporter’ which in fact is a fiction. There is no such thing as a pedophile supporter there are only fellow pedophiles because who on earth would support them and their cause so willingly and proudly?
    What makes me think that he is one and he was involved is in fact the story when told by Jordan. Like I said it is too detailed, includes others and even somewhat supports the theory that Jordan was not as upset about what happened as he should be. The old “he liked it” thing that is a pedophiles mantra.It is the way they think. It is ingrained in them.
    What is wrong with the whole thing being just Evan is that no matter what he was he was not a pedophile and the details had to have been written for him or given to him by someone who knew this stuff.No matter how imaginative you are if you don’t have these tendencies your mind just won’t let you create them because theyare not normal.
    I don’t care who disagrees with me at this point because my man is Victor Gutierrez. The article doesn’t say that we can prove when he was there but he does because we have proven that he is most likely a pedophile and the people of his own country know it.
    Now knowing just how driven these people can be I have no doubt that he followed Michael around just waiting to make him an unwitting sacrificial lamb to his disgusting cause.

    Like

  67. November 13, 2012 8:18 am

    @ald
    @Were the police giving him information, was he providing it or was he seeking it?

    There were still other questions there that were not answered by the article. Most here have no idea why Victor was there either. It’s assumed that he gave the police names of the boys that they questioned which led some to conclude that he gave Evan or Jordan those names as well. This is constantly repeated as if it is a fact which is where my irritation comes in.

    Let’s start with the LA Times article about VG meeting with the police. The article in itself does not mean anything; let’s not forget that some respectable main stream media establishments turned into tabloids during this case. Besides that, many don’t know how the media and police improper relationships (involving high profile cases) work in California. This process is only about money, the tabloid and main stream industries do not pay unless the information is from a genuine (knowledge of police involvement, police records or court documents) source, the stronger the source the more money they receive. Many will go to the police and tell them anything, just so they can sell their story—VG is no different and he was not the only one. The police continuously follow up on these leads because they have to investigate them. I’m sure that’s why he was there because it’s more reasonable.

    @everyone

    Even if you dismiss the above, it’s still not safe to conclude that Gutierrez gave Evan or Jordan the names because these were boys that Jordan met himself or were famously known. Did it ever occur to any of you that Michael did talk to Jordan about these boys – just not improperly? Is this so far-fetched, honestly?

    Like

  68. November 13, 2012 8:09 am

    @lyn
    From the beginning of our interaction, we never got along and always went back and forth. If you have convinced Helena that I should leave I will wait for word from her not from you. What?!!! I’m sure by now Helena is shaking her head in disappointment reading our comments. My only issue at this point with you is that you somehow think you can tell me what to think. Please, I am telling you to look at the facts and stop speculating. If anything, you are the one that is saying that I should believe something based on the conclusions that you came up with. I also have a problem with the fact that when I disagree with you and return attack for attack, I’m held up as an MJ Fan Nazi.

    @kaarin
    This is not a major grammar issue you can write it either way. The NAMBLA, who talked about Michael’s name being mentioned? I know, the real pedo – VG, as usual the only proof here is his words. Learn to think for yourself and stop following others.

    Like

  69. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 13, 2012 6:50 am

    “Were the police giving him information, was he providing it or was he seeking it? Did he have the interview for certain?”

    Tatum, this is what you wrote in a comment. My comment was to point out that the LAPD could have challenged this article and clarified that the interview did not occur and they had never even heard of VG. But they did not.

    Are you now saying the interview happened or are you still questioning it? Seems like NOW you are at least willing to say he was there.

    (BTW, Is it probable that the police were giving VG info? Why would you even think that? Your anti-VG stance is blinding your thinking. Why would the investigators spend 2 hours giving VG info? And ask him to return the next day for another session?)

    I have to say that I do not see that you are bringing anything to the discussion other than shooting down what other people write. I don’t even know what you think, only that you are disagreeing with just about every comment except the ones you yourself make.

    Like

  70. November 13, 2012 5:49 am

    Another thing is that there was just too much organization behind the 1993 allegations for it to be the sole work of Evan Chandler. The only reason he was successful is because he had help from others.Rothman was a hungry and greedy attorney but the details of Jordan’s “psychiatric interview” had to have been inspired by someone with knowledge from the inside. Someone with an agenda.

    Like

  71. November 13, 2012 5:46 am

    I don´t want to be a petty grammar or spelling police., just someone needs to get off her high horse.
    .

    Like

  72. November 13, 2012 5:41 am

    kaarin
    You are so right. Case in point Thomas O’Carroll for one. He devoted another whole book to their point of view. It was because of him and his book that Helena was able to identify the members of the academic world.

    Like

  73. November 13, 2012 5:27 am

    Tatum,”this is an issue between you and me, not between you and I..
    There was also NAMBLA , to whom Michael was a magnet. Many other NAMBLA members followed Victor Guitirrez footsteps, adorning their names with various academic titles.

    Like

  74. November 13, 2012 4:39 am

    What issue is it that it between us Tatum. My only issue at this point with you is that you somehow think you can tell me what to think.Now because of past experiences I feel the best and only place to engage you is out in the open where everyone can see what you write to me and what I write to you. That is the safest thing to do so that there would be no misunderstanding of what is said. It is unfortunate but it is true.
    And finally once and for all you do not get to decide who writes on this blog. If you have convinced Helena that I should leave I will wait for word from her not from you.

    Like

  75. November 13, 2012 3:08 am

    @lyn

    Helena is not fond of the arguments and fighting, but you on the other hand love to encourage it which is why you need to take it somewhere else. This issue is between you and I so stop trying to bring everyone else into it. I haven’t insulted or laughed at anyone else but you because you are comical. We all have the same access to files and the same proof, I agree, so why are you so delusional with your conclusions? This was never an argument about right and wrong but the difference between fact and fiction. If my comments are so meaningless then why are you still commenting in regards to them? Trust me, I am not the only one that doesn’t buy into the theories. Writing and researching is not your forte, you should have became a comedian.

    Like

  76. November 13, 2012 2:25 am

    Helena, Shelly has found the bankruptcy doc from Gutierrez if you would like them I am sure she would be happy to send them to you.

    Like

  77. November 13, 2012 2:21 am

    @TatumMarie
    it is actually my home as well. You cannot come here, as a guest, to my home, which is shared with Helena. and be insulting.You have been doing that, not just to me but to some of our other readers as well.Some of those readers were in fact technical contributors to the pieces that you are now ridiculing.
    It is not me that first displayed a superior attitude it was in fact you. I think if you do not want to come off as insulting leave the lol’s out of your comments. Everyone is very aware of the meaning of that abbreviation and when you use it it is condescending or at least that is the tone that it takes. I am sure you are well aware that it appears as if you are laughing at someone.
    It is not me that has been insulting or superior. I have my beliefs and you have yours. It is you that somehow thinks that the rest of us are in fact something laughable. If that is the case then why did you even read the article or comment on it?
    You have no different proof than we do and as a matter of fact we do have some that supports what Helena has written,You just don’t accept it. Now why you would continue to comment would be my next question. Nothing you say at this point as you can will change our line of thinking and nothing we say to you will change you. All this will do is create a continuous argument of who is right and who is wrong. There are never winners in that.
    Now Helena worked tirelessly for more than a year on finding information that supported the fact that Evan and Victor Gutierrez were working together. I think you should respect that instead of telling her what she has found is not up to your standards of proof, because your is the only dissenting voice on this blog right now.

    Like

  78. November 13, 2012 1:39 am

    Helena wrote it
    Your right, so next time let her answer it.

    If you don’t want to comment to me then stop commenting. I will however continue to correct you when you are wrong whether you comment back or not is of no consequence to me. So until you stop telling me you are not discussing this with me I am afraid you will have to just put up with me discussing it with you. Like it or not it is not entirely up to you.

    Now in many comments I have tried to resolve this matter which is not me. You want to continue this, but in the same line you refer to me as a trouble maker? We feel the same but it’s more vital that I correct you because you’re the one that’s misleading people. Instead of Evan you’re more like Pearl Jr. You just want people to follow you and agree with your every word no matter how crazy you sound.

    You are not an expert just because you have a computer with internet, lyn. I’ve been looking up information for as long as you have if not longer. Me and VMJ had a disagreement but there is so much you and I disagree on I probably wouldn’t even know where to begin. Come to think of it, don’t you have your own blog? If you want to look stupid we should probably take it there, instead, this is Helena’s article and home.

    Like

  79. November 13, 2012 1:18 am

    @lyn
    It would have never gotten ugly if you didn’t feel you were superior— I’m done with you.

    Like

  80. November 13, 2012 1:16 am

    @ald
    Lol. I live in L.A; I know they’re not a tabloid news organization. Still, the LA Times has only shown that VG went to the police something I barely disputed. The information quoted from the LA Times article does not answer what VG was doing there though. He would not disclose what transpired during those sessions, but he told The Times that he has interviewed for his book some of the same youngsters being sought for questioning by the LAPD. This is what VG told the LA Times and this is what we’ve been going back and forth about for days. It was assumed that he gave the police the names just because he claimed he interviewed the same youngsters. It’s mainly his word being taken as facts and applied to presume more facts. When this happens it can make us go in the path of wrong information.

    Like

  81. November 13, 2012 12:47 am

    I don’t think you get what you have been doing or maybe you do. You have not been disagreeing with me about what is written here but in fact telling me that what is written is wrong. Helena wrote it. I share her opinion completely when it comes to Victor Gutierrez and I will defend her opinion. So do many of the other readers here. So much so that a couple of them went to great lenghts to help her translate and find articles about Victor Gutierrez. This was more like a joint effort from several readers and Helena.
    Then along comes Tatum with a differing opinion. She will not tell us how she knows we are wrong just that we are wrong and she is right. Therefore this joint effort is worthless to her because she does not share our opinion.
    And it isn’t just that we have a different opinion but in fact in my case you think I have no right to my opinion, and have implied in your comments that I am of a lower intellect that you because I have one.
    I am not of a lower intellect than you, I can assure you of that. I have a right to my opinion as do all of the others that were commenting here. I can understand curiosity but that is not what you were displaying here. Especially not to me.
    And while you may have the right to tell me what you will discuss you do not have the right to tell me what to discuss. Neither do you have the right to tell me who I will comment to and who I will not. If you don’t want to comment to me then stop commenting.
    I will however continue to correct you when you are wrong whether you comment back or not is of no consequence to me. So until you stop telling me you are not discussing this with me I am afraid you will have to just put up with me discussing it with you. Like it or not it is not entirely up to you.

    Like

  82. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 13, 2012 12:46 am

    “One of those interviewed was Victor Gutierrez, a Southern California free-lance journalist who has been working on a book about Jackson for several years. Gutierrez spoke to LAPD officers for two hours Thursday and was interviewed again Friday.
    He would not disclose what transpired during those sessions, but he told The Times that he has interviewed for his book some of the same youngsters being sought for questioning by the LAPD.”
    http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-28/news/mn-28760_1_michael-jackson

    Tatum, the LATimes is not a tabloid. This was a BIG CASE with lots of attention, so the police would have been checking the major reports, esp. in their own city, and would have corrected anything that was not true about their investigation and asked for a correction/retraction. They did not. So it is not just VG’s words, it is VG’s words to a reputable reporter that was published in a major, reputable newspaper in LA, and that was not corrected by LAPD.

    Like

  83. November 13, 2012 12:16 am

    @lyn
    I have to read the book myself. We (you and I ) are no longer discussing this.

    Like

  84. November 12, 2012 7:25 pm

    I hope this isn’t in regards to me.

    Did you read it? Because yes it was meant for you.

    Like

  85. November 12, 2012 11:59 am

    I hope this isn’t in regards to me.

    Like

  86. November 12, 2012 11:40 am

    Here is a link to another article written by Helena. There are extensive quotes from the book and other articles but the thing to pay attention to is how what he wrote in the book about Joy coincides with the questions that were asked by Tom Mesereau when Joy was on the stand.

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/for-the-attention-of-fans-of-perettis-film-about-michael-its-main-source-of-information-victor-gutierrez-is-a-suspected-nambla-member/

    Like

  87. November 12, 2012 10:56 am

    @ald
    Tatum, I don’t get why you don’t accept the LA Times article Lynande cited as evidence re VG and his investigation into the case. It was published and the police no doubt read it, so if it was not correct they would have asked for a retraction/ correction. I also don’t get why you don’t accept the Joy Robeson story that is reported in Jermaine’s book, that VG contacted her in summer of 92 and tried to suggest improper sexual contact. Why would Jermaine lie or make this up? Joy is someone who is alive and would certainly have corrected this published account if it wasn’t true.

    I have an issue going on Victors words completely. The LA Times article is only quoting what VG told them similar to how other media outlets quoted his words on the video tape. In the end, that is still his statements. I’m not saying that Jermaine is lying or made the information up. I will read Jermaine’s book and comment about his quotes on Robeson. I would have to know the context surrounding the statement that was made whether it was first or third person etc. Still, this alone is not enough to make me conclude that VG had as much influence as believed here. On the media end he did of course, but this was how the tabloids and interviewers make their money. This is a common process in the industry that did not start with Gutierrez.

    Like

  88. November 12, 2012 10:53 am

    @lyn

    I will not go into the details of what transpired before because like I said our issues have nothing to do with Helena and David. I have thoroughly explained all your notions or lack thereof that you’ve listed thus far and asked for facts on why you feel a certain way, so since you like checking emails and comments go over them again. You’ll also see situations where I was corrected about certain information and said I was wrong, but for some reason you are immune to corrections. In case you’ve overlooked it, myself and others have been discussing this same topic but it has not turned ugly like our discussion. I wonder why that is, they don’t agree with me either. This only results when someone doesn’t agree with YOU, and if you’re hearing that continuously it must be true. If you attack me or insult my intelligence I will do the same.

    I shouldn’t even discuss this with you further because you completely lost me with the Do you even think MJ is innocent comment. What does pointing out that VG is capable of saying anything has to do with Michael’s questionability? If anything, it still proves his innocence.

    Not to mention, I wasn’t even addressing my concerns towards you in the first place. You decided to give me your opinion when I never asked for it. Since you like to get personal because you look foolish, skip over my comment next time and then you don’t have to worry about it.

    Like

  89. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 12, 2012 10:12 am

    Tatum, I don’t get why you don’t accept the LA Times article Lynande cited as evidence re VG and his investigation into the case. It was published and the police no doubt read it, so if it was not correct they would have asked for a retraction/ correction.

    I also don’t get why you don’t accept the Joy Robeson story that is reported in Jermaine’s book, that VG contacted her in summer of 92 and tried to suggest improper sexual contact. Why would Jermaine lie or make this up? Joy is someone who is alive and would certainly have corrected this published account if it wasn’t true.

    Like

  90. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 12, 2012 9:51 am

    Feldman went to Blanca’s house before her deposition. Her deposition was important to the civil suit b/c it was another person making claims of sexual contact with a minor; and an eye-witness with access to MJ’s bedroom for 5 years. Was it a plan of Feldman to have the story go on Hard Copy first to get maximum exposure and maximum pressure on MJ to settle? Or was this something he did not plan? They were certainly desperate to get one other person to testify besides Jordan.

    Who was Jason’s therapist? Interesting that he kept denying anything happened to his mom and to cops so he was sent to a therapist.

    Like

  91. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 12, 2012 9:41 am

    Maybe we should shift the focus as far as the need for hard, undeniably proof (which is very hard to find in this case b/c there are so many factors involved and so many people). In fact, what is true in human nature, and we see it here, is that people will always have differing opinions, points of view, and different memories of what actually happened. Have you ever seen Roshoman, the Kurusawa film where each person tells the story of the same event a different way, each from their own perspective, and so for each person, it is a totally different story. In fact, I wonder if hard, undeniable proof is so available anywhere about anything. Proving a hard, undeniable positive is just as impossible as finding a hard, undeniable negative. Look at all the debates people have about climate change, for example, and a million other things.

    Personally, I think we should not get bogged down with the need for hard, undeniably proof. we need to keep moving. I mean science would never make progress if everything came to a halt until undeniable proof of something was found. For example, the atomic theory was constructed not because people could actually see these tiny particles, but that they theorized they had to be there on the basis of how other particles that they could see were moving and changing.

    Back to the drawing board.

    Maureen Orth writes in her April 03 VF hit-piece: “The sources close to the prosecution I interviewed for this article were all familiar with the book [MJWML] and believed it was an essentially accurate portrayal of Jackson’s relationship with Jordan Chandler.”

    DD says 1/9/95 about VG: “I have never had a doubt about this person, ever.” VG is “one of my best sources on the Michael Jackson story.”

    This is to show how influential he was for the media and the prosecutors in their witch-hunt.

    From my notes:

    VG met with Larry Feldman and Feldman wanted more children to testify. Feldman looked for him through his private investigator Sandra Sutherland. She met with VG.

    VG obviously close to Blanca Francia from the photo where he has his arm around her. Meets McManus through Blanca, maybe others.

    Chandlers fell out with VG b/c he saw MJ-Jordan as a romance, a ‘love story.’
    Both Blanca Francia and Norma Salinas are from El Salvador. Maybe relevant or not. According to mjjr.net, Blanca Francia collaborated with VG on his book.

    Neverland 5 attorney Michael Ring arranges a meeting with Splash News broker Peter Burt; Chacon and McManus sold stories to Star and Inside Edition. VG was present.

    Francia spoke to DD (Hard Copy) before she spoke to the police or Feldman. She could’t remember in 05 when the police came to her house–she said 2 and a half years after she left NL in 91–depending on when she left in 91, it was 93 or 94.

    Feldman needed Blanca b/c he needed another person, not just Jordan, to claim inappropriate sexual behavior with a minor. She was an important player in 93/94 and VG had his arm around her–big buddies.

    Like

  92. November 12, 2012 9:33 am

    @lyn
    I am constantly at this blog because I have a lot of respect and admiration for VMJ and I enjoy HER articles so I’ll apologize to her if she feels offended by my rebuttals, but you – NEVER. This has nothing to do with David or Helena, that rift ended with something that had nothing to do with me. You and I on the other hand, have never liked each other and bumped heads since you starting writing on this blog.

    I don’t care if you respect me or not. And you are also wrong about your role in the start of the rift you forget that I was also an administrator and could read all the emails that you sent. As for bumping heads I wrote for this blog for a full two years before you ever commented so maybe you could tell me what other names you commented under to prove yet another falsehood. Again the administrators can find your first comment and your IP address.

    Because Tatum I believe the words of Mary Fischer and her research before I accept you and your opinion. First of all, Mary Fischer is not the only person that wrote about the 1993 case and I am definitely not the only person who disagrees (Geraldine Hughes) with the sodium amytal theory either. As far as the questions you asked regarding Victors book – you need to ask yourself those questions because you don’t know where he got the information from either, you’re assuming. If you are going to defend your statements by saying “prove he wasn’t involved” than you’ve just opened a door for everyone to say anything. Like I said before, if that’s the case I can claim the marshmallow man was involved, PROVE HE WASN’T. What kind of line of thinking is that? Oh, that’s right you’re not thinking because you feel since you’re an author, you don’t have to correct anything.

    I don’t have to correct this article because I did not write this one and it is an excellent article full of information from a lot of people . And like I said before you still don’t answer the questions you just attack the author when they don’t listen to you. Again just like Desiree

    You come here to cause trouble mostly between the authors of the blog and it’s readers. No, you comment on things that you can’t prove because you’re over speculating, I give the facts with reasonability, then when given something to think about during the debate YOU start attacking. You need to review the comments because in case you’ve forgotten – you started throwing the insults. So go right your article about VG but make sure you have the facts to back it up. Unfortunately, you probably won’t do that because you’re set in your ways about what happened despite things pointing otherwise.

    You still haven’t provided us with any facts actually please list them. And you still haven’t answered where you think he got all those things that I listed. What things point otherwise you haven’t really told us anything. You have only told us where we are wrong.

    You know you remind me of Desiree in a way And you remind me of Evan Chandler in a way as soon as your credibility is questioned you go nuts. Do you even believe that Michael was innocent? Don’t you even dare, we’re done here regardless, I refuse to regress to your ignorance.

    With everything you write you prove my point. You even said the same thing to David about him being like Evan Chandler. You don’t answer a thing you only tell us that we are wrong. And now that someone is finally calling you out on your stuff you don’t like it. Too bad and how much more like Desiree are you going to get? I refuse to regress to your ignorance that is a typical answer of hers, really, she says it to almost everyone unless they agree with her.

    Like

  93. November 12, 2012 8:44 am

    @lyn
    I am constantly at this blog because I have a lot of respect and admiration for VMJ and I enjoy HER articles so I’ll apologize to her if she feels offended by my rebuttals, but you – NEVER. This has nothing to do with David or Helena, that rift ended with something that had nothing to do with me. You and I on the other hand, have never liked each other and bumped heads since you starting writing on this blog.

    Because Tatum I believe the words of Mary Fischer and her research before I accept you and your opinion. First of all, Mary Fischer is not the only person that wrote about the 1993 case and I am definitely not the only person who disagrees (Geraldine Hughes) with the sodium amytal theory either. As far as the questions you asked regarding Victors book – you need to ask yourself those questions because you don’t know where he got the information from either, you’re assuming. If you are going to defend your statements by saying “prove he wasn’t involved” than you’ve just opened a door for everyone to say anything. Like I said before, if that’s the case I can claim the marshmallow man was involved, PROVE HE WASN’T. What kind of line of thinking is that? Oh, that’s right you’re not thinking because you feel since you’re an author, you don’t have to correct anything.

    You come here to cause trouble mostly between the authors of the blog and it’s readers. No, you comment on things that you can’t prove because you’re over speculating, I give the facts with reasonability, then when given something to think about during the debate YOU start attacking. You need to review the comments because in case you’ve forgotten – you started throwing the insults. So go right your article about VG but make sure you have the facts to back it up. Unfortunately, you probably won’t do that because you’re set in your ways about what happened despite things pointing otherwise.

    You know you remind me of Desiree in a way And you remind me of Evan Chandler in a way as soon as your credibility is questioned you go nuts. Do you even believe that Michael was innocent? Don’t you even dare, we’re done here regardless, I refuse to regress to your ignorance.

    Like

  94. November 12, 2012 6:35 am

    Because Tatum I believe the words of Mary Fischer and her research before I accept you and your opinion.
    David was right about you a long time ago. You come here to cause trouble mostly between the authors of the blog and it’s readers. When that is pointed out to you you then accuse us of attacking you. You are right this time,I am.
    You were unfortunately a very large part and cause of the beginning of the rift between David and Helena and you know you were.
    I’m not worried that Helena will tell me to apologize to you because I think she is starting to see you for exactly what you are. You are unfortunately an annoying distraction and that is all. If Helena doesn’t want me to comment here anymore she can tell me and I will just write my own article about VG and his connection with the 1993 case. Oh wait I already have.You should read them.

    Like

  95. November 12, 2012 6:19 am

    JTatum just exactly how long do you think that Evan had to get Jordan to put this together? How long do you think he had before he started making demands on Michael? MJ was at his house one time just one time and he asked him for money.
    One last thing if someone was not following MJ and keeping a close watch on him how was that little part about conditioning added to it? Do you know where that comes from? And when it was in print?
    Why did Ray Chandler refer to him as a sleazebag if there was not a connection between the two?
    Where did VG get all those photos from inside June and Evan’s houses?
    Where did he get that Retainer for Gloria Allred? The letter firing Gloria Allred? The intraoffice memorandum that was being worked on to see if there was enough for Evan to sue separately? Where did he get a copy of Mathis Abrams letter in reply to Rothmans hypothetical question? Where did he get photos of him an Blanca Francia? Orietta Murdock? Jordan in the bathroom when he was waking up? Where did he get all of that?The letters between Rothman and Pellicano? And don’t say he stole them from the house because Ray Chandler offered them as an addition to the book for $4.95 then he would email them to the person that ordered them.
    So were they just loaned to him?
    If he wasn’t there before the allegations how did they know all that stuff? It is because he was and if you haven’t read that book and articles about him how can you say we need to rethink what we are saying?
    You know you remind me of Desiree in a way. You come to this blog every once in a while, start having an opposing opinion, when that opinion is met with facts you don’t even answer to them you just accuse the author of attacking you. Just like her as a matter of fact. Do you even believe that Michael was innocent? I doubt it.
    What is it that you are so certain happened then give me the evidence that you have.

    Like

  96. November 12, 2012 5:58 am

    Shelly because if they did name it and their story was proven false by say photos that proved he wasn’t circumcized that were shown in a court of law they would lose the whole case. Because if he had masturbated MJ as many as ten times like he said in that tape recording he would have known he wasn’t circumcised it is as simple as that. Once you list something you are tied into it. The other stuff couldn’t be proven with phyical evidence.The photos were to gather that evidence.

    Like

  97. shellywebstere permalink
    November 12, 2012 2:58 am

    @lynande,

    I know it’s full legal jargon but why not including it? That part really confuse me.

    Like

  98. November 12, 2012 2:30 am

    @lyn
    Last time I checked, Garcia was not an uncommon name in a partial Hispanic community. He could’ve just made that up or actually meant a boy named Garcia.

    Like

  99. November 12, 2012 2:25 am

    I never agree to disagree with anyone it is a form of concession and I will never conceed. Depending on the topic of discussion, and the individual I can do this easily. It’s not like this is a debate between a hater and a fan. However, since you’ve opened the invitation and are open to reasonability, I will continue to discuss this with you. Let’s use facts (or reason) and stop connecting dots through over speculation.

    How did VG’s book come have references to Jonathan Spence, Jimmy Safechuck, Wade Robson, Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes in it? Now are we speaking of the book that VG CLAIMED he was writing before 93 or are we discussing the actual book MJWML that we know exists?

    Did you know that they were the boys that Jordan named in his original police statement? And tatum then you should know that when all of these boys were interviewed by the police and denied it Jordan changed his statement to include only Mac, Brett and a “local boy named Garcia”. I think he got the name wrong or the police did and he actually said Francia. how about that? According to you, Gutierrez supposedly coached Jordan or Evan on what to say and yet Jordan gets the name wrong? It’s still a stretch and I think you’re seeing what you want to see at this point.

    In other words if Jordan was saying to the police that Michael told him of a relationship with these boys then that would have to be true if you go by your line of thinking. Yes. Does that mean he spoke about a sexual relationship with these boys? Of course not because we know Michael wasn’t that person so on Jordan’s part this is where the twist and misleading comes in.

    Most of the names Jordan gave were either kids that were famously reported to be friends of Michael, boys Michael did know, or boys he had actually met. I’m aware that this also conflicts with the sodium amytal lie; (which is another issue) it took way more collaboration on his part. Jordan and his family were in Michael’s house, they probably watched footage, inquired about pictures etc. Michael could have talked to Jordan about those boys in a normal healthy conversation just like he spoke to Gavin about Dave Dave.

    I am fully aware of what I am saying I think it would be more appropriate for me to ask if you if you do.

    Like

  100. shellywebstere permalink
    November 12, 2012 2:10 am

    ““local boy named Garcia”

    Where did you get that?

    Like

  101. shellywebstere permalink
    November 12, 2012 2:09 am

    ” Where would Evan and Jordan have gotten those names from if not from Gutierrez”

    Jordan knew Brett Barnes.and Robson (not sure of that). The others were in the media except for Spence. he could have known Spence name simply by talking to MJ (not about sex of course). My point is just we don’t know how those names came up.

    Like

  102. November 12, 2012 12:55 am

    And tatum then you should know that when all of these boys were interviewed by the police and denied it Jordan changed his statement to include only Mac, Brett and a “local boy named Garcia”. I think he got the name wrong or the police did and he actually said Francia. how about that?

    Like

  103. November 12, 2012 12:38 am

    Shelly the legal language of the original lawsuit is actually ” including but not limited too” meaning that they could add or disclude any certain part or allegation. Unfortunately legal docs are a language unto themselves just like medical documentation. They are full of legal jargon and phrases that are understood by those in the legal profession but not by laypeople. That is a way to insure that you have to hire a lawyer or look up or know what is a strictly legal phrase and what isn’t.That phrase has a specific legal meaning.
    It isi a disclaimer that is also used in medical documentation. When the phrase is used in say listing the side effects of a certain medication it means that the list includes known side effects. Then they add this as a sort of disclaimer in case someone has a side effect that is not on the list they still have themselves covered for informed consent.
    In the legal case of Jordans claims they add this to include other possible causes for action, just in case something else happened that he did not disclose.
    As for it being the real Dr. Richard Gardner interview what I am saying is that is what was leaked, when it was leaked and that they claimed that it was a transcript of the real interview. I for one have never thought it was but that it was Jordan saying those things. My question was always who did he do this with?

    Like

  104. November 12, 2012 12:23 am

    Tatum first let’s make something perfectly clear. I never agree to disagree with anyone it is a form of concession and I will never conceed.At least not to you.
    Now answer or ask yourself the following: How did VG’s book come to have references to Jonathan Spence, Jimmy Safechuck, Wade Robson, Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes in it? Did you know that they were the boys that Jordan named in his original police statement? Did he get those from Evan? No he did not, Evan got them from him and gave them to Jordan.

    Maybe you don’t know that Jordan named 4 other companion cases when he gave his original statement to the police and DCFS. From the very beginning Jordan used those boys names when he talked to the police. It was not any kind of investigation (by the police) that turned up those names because they were looking for the four other boys from the very beginning because Jordan added them.

    In other words if Jordan was saying to the police that Michael told him of a relationship with these boys then that would have to be true if you go by your line of thinking.. Maybe it is just because you don’t get what you are saying, do you. Where would Evan and Jordan have gotten those names from if not from Gutierrez? It doesn’t mean that any part of the story is true to say that he was following Michael and making this stuff up. It means that he was a man with an agenda and he found Evan and helped him develop this crock of crap story, just like he did the Neverland Five.
    Now there are links that I have left to different article and documents in the comment section here. Go read them first not just the article above then see what you think. All you have to do is click on read all comments and go back to the beginning.

    Like

  105. November 11, 2012 10:58 pm

    Tatum Here is the article from the LA Times

    Sign. I am constantly dissecting certain points and they keep getting repeated again. The article is stating what Gutierrez told them, similar to when Dimond stated there was a tape because he told her it existed. It’s common for journalist to have sources in the police department as well. It’s plainly obvious that Gutierrez is constantly trying to make himself more of an aspect to the 93 case than he actually was. Unauthorized news leaks have bedeviled investigators probing the case since it broke early this week This sounds about right it was quoted from the same article.

    How many people have to tell you he was there before the 1993 allegations before you believe it?

    When I see proof, not from a delusional liar I will believe it. I raised an issue, and you answered it, there is no proof. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

    Like

  106. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 11, 2012 10:48 pm

    Here are some questions asked in court of Ralph Chacon:
    Q. All right. Do you recall speaking to a book
    author named Gutierrez?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And approximately when did you speak to a
    book author named Gutierrez?
    A. I believe that was before we went to Star,
    and — but I don’t remember the — I don’t remember
    the date or the time.
    //

    Q. Okay. That was to fund the lawsuit where
    you sought millions from Michael Jackson, correct?
    A. Well, that was the lawsuit, sir.
    Q. That was the lawsuit you were trying to fund
    by selling stories to tabloids, true?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. No?
    A. I really don’t understand your question.
    Q. Sure, I’ll rephrase.
    You were taking money from tabloids and
    using it to fund costs of your lawsuit against Mr.
    Jackson?
    A. Oh. Yes, sir. I’m sorry.

    The police interview him after the tabloid stories appear.

    David Edwards says the following :

    “If Ralph Chacon had never given him a statement, then how did all of those lovely quotes end up in that book? He is all over the book MJWML, being quoted about everything from enemas and tampons, to dead baby bones found on Neverland!”

    http://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/the-neverland-five-and-their-victor-gutierrez-inspiration/

    Hard Copy May 9 and 10, 1994 Ralph Chacon on. I can’t find a transcript or a youtube video of this.

    Blanca Francia had a lot of info about Michael’s friendships with kids as she had worked as his personal maid for so many years (I believe from 86 to 91); she was an excellent source for lies and misinformation.

    ” Specifically, Ms. Francia observed defendant to spend a great deal of time alone with young boys named Jonathan Spence, Jimmy Safechuck, Wade Robeson and Macaulay Culkin.”
    Here is some of her testimony in 05.

    11 Q. Do you have any idea why the police wanted
    12 to talk to your son at that point in time?
    13 A. No, I don‟t remember. I think when they
    14 first talked to him, they came to the house and
    15 asked me if they could talk to him, but I don‟t
    16 remember when was this.
    17 Q. Do you know who told the police anything
    18 about your son?
    19 A. I think they — someone told me that they
    20 needed to talk to my son, or they need to talk to me
    21 about my son.
    22 Q. Do you know if Larry Feldman, the attorney,
    23 contacted the police about your son?
    24 A. No, I don‟t know.
    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/summary-and-analysis-of-the-lies-of-michael-jacksons-former-maid-blanca-francia/

    She doesn’t recall when the police came to her house –she says 93 or 94. She says she did Hard Copy before her deposition. Can’t find the VG reference in court transcripts at the moment, but I have seen it where she says she met with him before her deposition. She says Evey Tasci (sp?) gave her name to Hard Copy or was the liaison. Since VG was DD’s best source, who was so reliable in her opinion—could he have set up this? Blanca also said in her testimony that Feldman came to her house before the deposition.

    When the police questioned Jason, he denied anything happened, so he was then sent to therapy, and eventually came up with the tickling story.

    – Police also got in contact with Blanca Francia, Jackson’s former maid who had ** sold her story ** to Hard Copy (to now Court TV “reporter” DIANE DIMON) for $20,000. On December 15 1993, Francia told the tabloid show that she had witnessed Jackson showering with young boys and that she had also seen him act inappropriately with her own son. Francia repeated these statements in a sworn deposition for the Chandlers’ civil lawsuit. While under deposition by one of Jackson’s attorneys, however, Francia admitted that she had * exaggerated * details during her Hard Copy interview and that the producers had paid her for her story. http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=71725

    For someone with such a rotten memory of when and where and what happened, Blanca sure caused a lot of trouble.

    Like

  107. shellywebstere permalink
    November 11, 2012 8:18 pm

    Are we sure the Gardner interview is the real one? Because the part where JC had to masturbate MJ is not in the lawsuit either.

    Like

  108. November 11, 2012 2:07 pm

    Here is the link to the Prosecutions brief that says that the Defense was going to call James Newton.

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/051805pltmotexcl352.pdf

    Like

  109. November 11, 2012 1:51 pm

    Tatum
    Here is the article from the LA Times that says that they interviewed Gutierrez and what he told them and the link to the article in the Times.
    Here’s the skinny. Why did the police interview the other boys? Because Jordan included them, they never reported anything.Why, when Jordan saw nothing did he include them and just them from all of Michael’s friends? The only place those other allegations came from was from him and the police did question him for two days. They don’t do that without a reason. The writer of this article was supposed to be called in the 2005 trial but the judge said no.

    Jackson Back on Stage; Inquiry Continues : Investigation: Singer resumes Bangkok concerts after two-day absence. Officials here are now looking into extortion claims.
    August 28, 1993|CHARLES P. WALLACE and JIM NEWTON | TIMES STAFF WRITERS

    Michael Jackson, fighting off allegations of sexual abuse and a case of what his doctor described as severe dehydration, returned to the concert stage Friday, performing a lively two-hour show before a capacity crowd in Bangkok, Thailand.
    Jackson’s appearance was greeted enthusiastically by more than 40,000 fans in Bangkok’s National Stadium, temporarily quelling speculation that he was preparing to abort his world tour amid allegations that he sexually abused one or more young boys. Although rumors continued to circulate that Jackson was preparing to surrender to authorities, his lawyer vehemently denied those reports.

    “There is no plan for him to surrender because there is no reason for him to surrender,” attorney Howard Weitzman said from Los Angeles.
    In Bangkok, Jackson did not address the international furor surrounding the allegations. He spoke directly to the audience only once, saying: “I love you.”
    Meanwhile, police and social workers in Los Angeles continued to press forward with their investigation on two fronts: opening an inquiry into allegations that Jackson was the victim of a $20-million extortion attempt and interviewing young people close to Jackson about whether he made sexual advances toward them.
    Although investigators have the statement of a 13-year-old who says he was molested by Jackson over a period of months, sources say their probe has been hampered by a shortage of physical or medical evidence linking Jackson to sexual molestation. Videotapes seized during the Aug. 21 searches of two homes belonging to Jackson did not produce evidence that would support a criminal filing against the entertainer, says a well-placed police source.
    Thousands of photographs also were seized during those searches. They still are being reviewed, sources said.
    The extortion investigation is proceeding separately, say sources familiar with that inquiry. It grows out of allegations raised by members of Jackson’s camp that the singer was the victim of an extortion attempt and that the sexual abuse charges arose only after that attempt was thwarted.
    In an Aug. 17 report detailing the allegations brought by the 13-year-old alleged sexual abuse victim, a county social worker wrote: “Minor stated he and his father met with Michael Jackson and attorneys for (the boy’s father) and Mr. Jackson and confronted him with allegations in an effort to make a settlement and avoid a court hearing.”
    Film industry sources have said that the boy’s father sought a $20-million movie production and financing deal with Jackson. Although the boy’s father has not commented publicly about that charge or any other aspect of the case, he has told friends that the extortion allegation is untrue.
    Officially, the Los Angeles Police Department was silent about the extortion charge and all other aspects of the case. “I cannot confirm or deny the existence of any investigation,” said Lt. John M. Dunkin, a spokesman for the department.
    Weitzman, however, said he was told that an extortion investigation is under way and that it was opened after he met with police late Thursday. “That’s my understanding, based on our meeting with them,” he said.
    Asked by the Associated Press why Jackson did not report the alleged extortion attempt to police earlier, Weitzman said: “It was our hope that this would all go away. We tried to keep it as much in-house as we could.”

    Meanwhile, authorities continued to reel under the crush of publicity that has accompanied the Jackson investigation. Unauthorized news leaks have bedeviled investigators probing the case since it broke early this week, and their task at controlling information has been made even harder by the willingness of some media outlets to pay for information. (The Times does not pay for information.)
    Police and Children’s Services officials have clamped down on their employees. Some county officials are fearful that the improper release of the report detailing the 13-year-old’s allegations of sexual abuse could subject the county to a lawsuit.
    “There is a fear that the county will now be subject to a lawsuit over the issue of confidentiality in the case,” said one source at the department.
    As investigators continue to probe the accusations that Jackson molested one or more children, sources said they spent Friday canvassing more witnesses, interviewing children close to the entertainer and meeting with parents of possible victims.
    Weitzman, who said he is in daily contact with police, declined to discuss the progress of the probe, except to say that “they are conducting a very thorough investigation.”
    One of those interviewed was Victor Gutierrez, a Southern California free-lance journalist who has been working on a book about Jackson for several years. Gutierrez spoke to LAPD officers for two hours Thursday and was interviewed again Friday.

    He would not disclose what transpired during those sessions, but he told The Times that he has interviewed for his book some of the same youngsters being sought for questioning by the LAPD.
    As Jackson resumed his tour after its two-day suspension, he gave no signs that he was toning down his sexually suggestive act. The Bangkok audience cheered enthusiastically as Jackson thrust his hips suggestively and held his crotch during his most provocative musical numbers.

    At one point, he stroked the upper thigh of a backup singer, and the crowd cheered as he inched up the singer’s leg. There was loud applause when Jackson hugged a young girl brought up from the audience.
    Members of Jackson’s audience defended the entertainer, and three young boys said to be Jackson’s nephews arrived at his hotel Friday, apparently to give him moral support.
    Brian Marcar, the promoter of Jackson’s Thai concerts, said actress Elizabeth Taylor and Jackson’s sister, Janet Jackson, were en route to the Far East to join the singer. They were expected to meet Jackson in Singapore, the site of his next concert, Marcar said.
    While ensconced in Thailand, Jackson and his entourage took over the 16th floor of the Oriental Hotel Bangkok, which many surveys describe as the world’s best.
    The Oriental suite where Jackson stayed costs 55,000 baht ($2,200) a night plus tax and service. The master bedroom is decorated in Caribbean style, with bedposts in the shape of pineapples. The suite has its own kitchen.
    “He has his own cook. We can’t enter the room,” hotel public relations director Supatana Atorn-Phtai said Friday. Jackson’s people even cleaned the room. Supatana said she believed that the hotel was recommended to Jackson by Taylor.
    Jackson was being protected by five bodyguards, who would not allow anyone to get off the elevator on the 16th floor unless they have clearance.
    Outside the hotel, Thailand’s Tourist Police provided security and accompanied Jackson on his jaunts around the city. A policeman drove Jackson’s limousine, and he switched cars each time he ventured out.
    A total of 3,000 policemen and soldiers were used to provide security during the concerts, according to Ponprasert Ganjanarintr of the Tourist Police, a branch of the central investigation bureau.
    Wallace wrote from Bangkok, Newton from Los Angeles. Also contributing to this story were Times staff writers Carla Hall, Sonia Nazario and Amy Wallace.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-28/news/mn-28760_1_michael-jackson

    How many people have to tell you he was there before the 1993 allegations before you believe it?

    Like

  110. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 11, 2012 10:51 am

    “Feldman was just an excellent strategist…”

    Yes, Nannorris, and a totally amoral one, in other words a complete sleaze bag. If he and VG got together, it would have been birds of a feather. That’s why I think they did connect. How did Ray Chandler meet VG?

    Feldman was so corrupt to do that to an innocent man and to use Jordan knowing he was lying about the accusations. He even professed to protect children when he said in court he would never put a child through a criminal trial, trying to act like he cared about kids.

    Once he found out the description did not match, he got Blanca deposed, got Jordan to sign that declaration, leaked everything to the press before the judge could seal it, all in a desperate attempt to get Michael to settle by more bad press and public humiliation. Michael had gone through the strip search and was traumatized. How did it just happen that his lovely sister LaToya in December 1993 announces to the world that she thinks Michael is guilty of child molestation? She stated she had seen the big checks. Did this add to Michael’s stress? of course. Not saying Feldman was involved in that, but the timing helped him and he no doubt saw that he could pile it on.

    Obviously, Feldman as a grown man must have known that Jordan could not possibly have masturbated Michael 10 times and not noticed he was not circumcised, so he knew the allegations were all bogus. He knew. But he didn’t care.

    Thanks, Lynande, for that information. I will check your link. So Feldman crafted the declaration to omit the ‘Jordan masturbates Michael’ stuff since that would not be credible after the strip search. That is so evil. Just like Sneddon changing the dates, arresting Michael before he was charged, and just shifting everything around to match what he wanted to prove, not what was true. Evil upon evil.

    Like

  111. November 11, 2012 10:37 am

    To add to item #1. VG interviewed the major players BEFORE the police did. He was instrumental in identifying sources for the police to use in their investigation. We know this is a fact how?

    Like

  112. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 11, 2012 10:28 am

    To add to item #1. VG interviewed the major players BEFORE the police did. He was instrumental in identifying sources for the police to use in their investigation.

    Like

  113. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 11, 2012 10:21 am

    Reasons that point to VG as being highly involved in the media and court take-down of Michael:
    1. VG has interviewed many of the major players and they have testified to this in court, including Blanca Francia and the Neverland 5
    2. VG has interviewed ex-employees of NL, close family friends of Michael’s whose children were friends of Michael’s, like the Robsons, and Hispanic employees, such as Norma Salinas, and even a judge Hugo Alvarez
    3. VG’s book has many artifacts, like photos, drawings, documents that indicate inside information
    4. VG is acknowledged by DD as her ‘best source’ and one who gave her 5 large file folders of information
    5. VG was contacted by Maureen Orth for her 2003 VF article which rehashed the 1993 allegations in order to set Michael up for the new allegations
    6. VG was hired by NBC for $25,000 a week. This is one of the most convincing arguments to me that he had information that was valuable, credible enough to be worth all that $$$.
    7. VG was hired by Bashir as one of 4 consultants for his ABC programs in 2004
    8. VG is a known homosexual who believes that relationships between men and boys should be legal and socially accepted. This is evident from his interviews, his book, his association with NAMBLA
    9. VG was one of the first to be interviewed by the police in their 1993 investigation and over a 2 day period
    10. Ray Chandler knew VG and acknowledged this publicly.
    11. VG’s book is a porno love affair between a man and a boy, which is the basic script of Jordan’s account, where there is no force, no revulsion, no disgust, just ‘he was my friend and it felt good so whatever.”
    12. Sneddon and his team read VG’s book and probably considered it an accurate account. Their approach to the Arvizo case was essentially the same script (but with alcohol added). The fact that they were allowed to use ‘prior bad acts’ brought up all the old 1993 circumstances and people, including boys mentioned in 93 and in VG’s book.

    It would be excellent to find a VG-Feldman connection.

    Like

  114. November 11, 2012 9:05 am

    @lyn
    In Jermaine Jacksons book he wrote that Joy Robson reported that she spoke to VG in 1992
    I haven’t read Jermaine’s book. I would have to ofcourse, tpo validate this but for now it’s a vague statement. I’ve heard nothing else outside of that. The whole scenario about Gutierrez meeting with the police could have been for anything. Did he reach out to the police or did they seek him out? Were the police giving him information, was he providing it or was he seeking it? Did he have the interview for certain? What journalist wouldn’t want to be involved in that case is the question. The media and tabloid press were talking to anyone and everyone as soon as the story broke.

    What other author was writing a book about MJ and boys that went to the FBI? Can you think of one? I know that there were many who contacted the police about rumors and possible leads. This is how the tabloids get away with printing such lies. Individuals go to the police and tell them what they’ve heard or what their client is going to claim and then it’s documented by the police. This allows liars to do an interview, sell their story to the highest bidder and make money, that’s process. The tabloids and especially main stream media do not pay a huge amount for interviews unless it’s documented by a source they deem credible. That’s how the tabloid gets away with reporting the accusations only.

    Let’s say hypothetically if a journalist is developing a gossip book,or an article, which is done all the time, not necessarily about sexual acts – they can take what was written and apply it to their own ends if there is a scandal.

    During an interview with “La Cuarta”, Gutierrez lied that Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon had contacted him about being a potential witness in the current case against Jackson. However a week later, a member of the District Attorney’s office contacted “La Cuarta” to refute those claims. As usual, Victor makes claims that make him seem more in depth with the case than he actually is.

    Like

  115. nannorris permalink
    November 11, 2012 8:09 am

    I think Feldman , sent JC to Dr Gardner because he was the gold standard, but he didnt care what his conclusions were , because he could use them or not … If they didnt benefit the Chandlers , he had his puppet Katz in the wings…
    If his conclusions helped the Chandlers, then Feldman would have been extremely happy to use his conclusions also……..He didnt..
    So he either never asked Gardner for his conclusions , or they hindered his case ….
    Looking at the Chandler family in Feldmans office screaming and fighting over money , and if I remember Geraldine Highes book, Jordan was perfectly fine , until his father would get upset , then JC would get concerned about his dad………, I am sure he knew this was all BS before he ever called Gardner…
    Anyway…………
    If he used Katz, from the beginning, for the interview with JC and he gave his conclusions, I would think that MJ side could have hired Dr Gardner, themselves, with his gold standard, to , analyze Jordans accusations……And if he thought the kid was lying , which is pretty obvious…..that wouldnt have gone well for them in a civil trial if the guy who was the gold standard , showed up and gave his opinion also for MJ side ……So I think Feldman used Gardner , so his opposition couldnt ..He just knocked Gardner out of play and MJ side couldnt use the leading expert to give opinion against the Chandler kid,., like a conflict of interest , like wealthy people do with lawyers during a divorce..They book a meeting , and then the other side cant use them., even if they dont use them because it is a conflict of interest…….That is just the feeling I get ..I think Feldman was just an excellent strategist…
    Sad thing is that all these things point to MJ innocence and Chandlers guilt..but this would have tied MJ up so they settled …because it seems like a business decision…Once again , someone like Sneddon , who has been a lawyer for over twenty years , should have been able to see right through this , as a lawyer setting up a molestation case, not some poor family who had been victimized..It is so obvious , MJ is the victim….It is just incredible ..Makes me wonder if Sneddon is just a stupid ambitious, bigot or if something else was dangled in front of him to IGNORE all this stuff…..It seems obvious with the Chandlers…… and the Arvizo might have been wearing sandwich signs saying ” we are liars ” …..just incredible…
    ———————–
    On other note , VMJ
    I am sorry your mother isnt well , I know how hard it is caring for someone..You and you family are in my thoughts and prayers..nan…

    Like

  116. November 11, 2012 7:35 am

    Here is a link to the original leaked Psychiatric Interview on Court TV. If you look at the date it was Jan. 10th, 2005, the day after is when they leaked the original Chandler lawsuit, not the settlement but the lawsuit. Four day before on Jan 6th is when they leaked the Linden Affadavit. All this came just prior to Bashir’s second program and the leak of the Grand Jury Transcripts. On page 26 of this is where Jordan says that Michael had him masturbate him more than 10 times. I was wrong about the number of times. No excuses with that statement and the fact that he got the description wrong is there. If he did that 10 times he would have known the difference between a circumsized penis and an intact penis.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20050113102221/http://courttv.com/news/jackson/docs/psychiatric.html?page=1

    Like

  117. November 11, 2012 6:42 am

    And we do know that there was an interview with Dr. Richard Gardner because the tapes of that interview were what was given to Katz by Feldman for him to analyze.Feldman testified to that.
    Why would he need to have those tapes analyzed when the sole purpose of going to Gardner was to have him analyze them?Because he was the nations leading authority on false accusations of molestation so if he had said that he believed Jordan that would be the gold standard at the time.

    Like

  118. November 11, 2012 6:24 am

    @ aldebaranredstar
    Actually Jordan does say that he masturbated MJ in the “Gardner interview” at least two times he says. That interview was in October of 1993. Then after the photos were taken and it was obviously not a match the declaration leaves it out. No self incrimination for the Chandler’s.

    Like

  119. November 11, 2012 6:19 am

    Sneddon searched Schaffels house and his storage unit and his safe deposit box so if there were tapes incriminating Michael he would have gotten them.

    Like

  120. November 11, 2012 6:17 am

    Sorry about that I did mean that there were tapes but there was nothing about boys on the tapes.I think we have all heard them where MJ is talking to him about delievering money to him and calls it French Fries.

    Like

  121. November 11, 2012 6:14 am

    2. Over Speculation: Victor Gutierrez involvement before 1993
    In Jermaine Jacksons book he wrote that Joy Robson reported that she spoke to VG in 1992.

    a. Gutierrez is linked to Evan (Never Proven)
    Yes he is. The maid Norma Salinas was quoted on NBC Dateline.

    b. Gutierrez gave information to the FBI about victims (Never Proven)
    What other author was writing a book about MJ and boys that went to the FBI? Can you think of one?

    c. Gutierrez claimed he was involved prior to ( Never proven and is a liar)
    He was questioned by the police for several hours on two days. Who gave them his name and what were they talking to him about.

    d. A case Victor Gutierrez allegedly developed prior to 1993 ( Never seen)
    Where did you come up with this? We never said he developed a case only that he questioned all those people. There was no case to develop.

    Like

  122. kaarin22 permalink
    November 11, 2012 2:49 am

    Gavin fit Bashir´s motive. Dave Dave would have brought out Michaels deeply felt urge to help children in poverty, with severe illnesses or otherwise dire life circumstances.
    There would not have been the “ohh-p-filia moment.

    Like

  123. Tatum permalink
    November 11, 2012 2:24 am

    @VMJ
    I’m not trying to hint or be insulting by saying that it’s speculation because there are two kinds; reasonable speculation and over speculation. Only regarding Victor Gutierrez and Evan’s statement or suspicion do I believe we are engaging in over speculation. The examples of both kinds are below.

    1. Reasonable Speculation: June and Michael possible relationship
    a. Dave Schwartz and Evan’s conversation ( FACTS)
    b. Her testimony in 2005 about their conversation ( FACTS)
    c. Michael’s charming/gentlemen/flirtatious ways ( FACT)

    June Chandler by herself would not be credible, but her interaction with Mesereau leads us to conclude what certain conversations were about. However, over speculation is the complete opposite. Let’s tackle Victor Gutierrez involvement because the question Evan claims he asked Michael is in the same pattern.

    2. Over Speculation: Victor Gutierrez involvement before 1993
    a. Gutierrez is linked to Evan (Never Proven)
    b. Gutierrez gave information to the FBI about victims (Never Proven)
    c. Gutierrez claimed he was involved prior to ( Never proven and is a liar)
    d. A case Victor Gutierrez allegedly developed prior to 1993 ( Never seen)

    Do you understand the pattern here? His lies are leading us to conclude certain things took place that were neither proven nor corroborated which makes me wonder if it happened at all. Many fans are coming here and quoting what’s being written so we don’t want to spread misinformation whether it’s good or bad because if disapproved it can question our credibility. The haters believe that the strip search matched, we know from statements published by the grand jury, linden affidavit, and the process afterward that it didn’t. How else did we prove that Michael was innocent? By the documented facts, none of us personally know him, so I don’t understand what you mean by all we have are hater sources.

    For the longest time at VindicateMJ, we have been debating each other but as long as we can all agree on the person that Michael was it makes no difference. I do conduct my own research which is why I will raise a question if I come across something incorrect. I am sorry about your mother, I have a sick grandmother( who raised me) that I care for as well, but the attitude however, is completely unnecessary – you can’t get mad at me simply because I don’t agree with you.

    Like

  124. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 11, 2012 12:52 am

    “These people have invested so much in these cases, they will never admit they were looking at the wrong person.. , they are humiliated that they got it wrong, so they will never admit they persecuted an innocent man..”

    Yes, Nannorris, sad but true. Shocking that there are still people out there claiming it was a strong case. Don’t these people have any sense at all?? I am looking at Jordan’s declaration–interesting that he says Michael masturbated him but not that he masturbated Michael. Although he does say Michael masturbated in front of him at least twice. But he didn’t notice he wasn’t circumcised! His declaration is quite vague, with just two or three “highlighted scenes” (Exorcist, Monaco) in the overall assertion that “During our relationship Michael Jackson had sexual contact with me on many occasions.”

    It would be interesting to count all the ‘I don’t knows’ that the accusers came out with when questioned about their accusations. This not only b/c nothing happened but b/c they were no doubt instructed to leave it as vague as possible so their story could not be shot down with facts. If you don’t claim a time and date, your statement is very hard to attack.

    All the so-called witnesses, the accusers, and the parents were complete sleaze bags, nutters, or people looking for a paycheck, and that includes the attorneys Feldman and Rothman. Sneddon is some kind of zealot moron who got his ego massaged by the media whores. The man had no case. People were not using their brains here, that’s for sure. Take Blanca Francia, she could hardly speak or understand English. She needed an interpreter in the trial (and for all her statements). I noticed that Mez would ask her–were they on the sleeping bag or in the sleeping bag. She said they were in the sleeping bag, but two seconds later she said Jason was on the sleeping bag. She had no idea of the difference between on and in (English prepositions of location). How she could be used as a reliable witness is beyond me.

    VMJ, so sorry to her about your mother’s illness. This is a very stressful time so please do take care of yourself. Taking care of a very ill relative is so hard emotionally and physically.

    Like

  125. nannorris permalink
    November 10, 2012 11:36 pm

    aldebaranredstar
    I agree , how would you forget your first encounter , and it is with the most famous ( and one of the richest) people you will ever meet in your life..
    If I were him , I would afraid of cross examination also..
    Small wonder Feldman took this interview to Katz , to be “interpreted”
    Or Gavin Arvizo forgetting all about MJ supposedly walking into a bedroom, stark naked and aroused ..He FORGOT ???? give me a break..It most certainly was burned into Tom Sneddons brain..
    This should have all been very obvious to Sneddon but he cherry picks what he wants to see, ignores or buries exculpatory evidence…..
    He believes the Bashir documentary , but doesnt question , why Bashir didnt call the police or childrens services when he taped MJ and Gavin..He doesnt wonder why he sat on that tape for months and chose to put that kids face and name all over the world…..Everybody screaming for MJ head, but nobody looks at Bashir……Obviously this was a tabloid sensational piece but Sneddon chose to fall for it hook , line and sinker.,…Not because it was believable , but because it suited his purposes..,I wonder what he thought when MJ died and Bashir came out and said something to the effect of “MJ was unusual , but I never saw anything untoward”PFFFT
    Bashir criticizes MJ for bring his children to a zoo in the middle of the day , says he put his children in jeopardy with the onslaught of fans ..( which MJ was told the zoo would be closed )
    and yet they think it is sinister that MJ talks to this cancer pt on the phone and invited he and his family to Neverland , instead of visiting him in the hospital or taking him to the mall of some mall restaurant..Any moron would know ,he couldnt do that with out being mobbed….
    Believes VG book , but with all those search warrants , didnt go looking for a dead babys bones …because that would be ridiculous……Wouldnt it, follow ,that one would consider the entire book ridiculous, or alt least take a look at the author of the book?
    Michael presented too big a prize to an ambitious and imo bigoted prosecutor who wanted to prove he was the last word on everything in that community ..And Feldman and his clients benefited from his sick quest….Talk about it be like taking candy from a baby..!
    This was also probably one of the deciding factors with the settlement ..Because even back then as we can see with the photos not matching, the tape of Evan Chandler , the remarks June Chandler made to the police about” this is Evan,,it has to be about money”..all this went by the wayside for Sneddon….. because MJ was a big fish…….I was recently watching a video of a criminologist who was involved with the Arvizo case and he was still adamant it was a strong case which is utter baloney….These people have invested so much in these cases, they will never admit they were looking at the wrong person.. , they are humiliated that they got it wrong, so they will never admit they persecuted an innocent man..

    Like

  126. November 10, 2012 11:02 pm

    -“As far as I remember Ray Chandler explains that Evan Chandler was so suspicious by then that he decided not to beat about the bush and ask his question directly.”- VMJ
    – “This is what Evan claims through his brother’s (who was not involved) book. Proven liars can give us leads but I do not trust them to give us facts by themselves it has to corroborate with something or someone truthful. I’m only trying to refrain from speculating.” – Tatum

    Tatum, you constantly hint at me involved in some “speculation” here and I am sick and tired of it.

    You call Ray Chandler and Victor Gutierrez liars. I fully agree. But then you say we cannot use these lies for our own ends and cannot make any conclusions on their basis. Here I totally disagree. Michael’s haters do believe these lies, so why can’t we use these lies too and prove Michael’s innocence with their help?

    What’s wrong in using Ray Chandler’s and Victor Gutierrez’s books against the authors themselves? We are only taking their lies to their logical end and analyze the situation the way the authors portray it. And if we manage to prove Michael’s innocence this way I personally don’t give a damn whether these authors lied or not. All I am interested in is the end result – proving Michael’s innocence – at least at a preliminary stage until the whole truth is uncovered.

    Of course our ultimate goal is to learn every true detail of what happened. This is the final destination of the whole journey, but we should be realistic about it. Almost 20 years have passed and most of the documents have long disappeared from the Internet thus making it more and more difficult to know the details.

    But even if we are unable to learn every detail of what happened won’t our goal still be fulfilled if we prove Michael’s innocence? By showing that even the most “convincing” lies which were circulating about Jackson for several decades are totally ineffective and if taken to their conclusive end only prove his innocence? I personally will be happy if we manage to do that. You probably won’t as you shun the haters’ lies like dirt – but no one prevents you from doing your own research on the basis of the documents you find credible (if you manage to find them of course).

    I simply do not understand your approach to the matter. When we refute the lies of the worst Michael’s haters you call it “speculation” on the grounds that “these people are liars” and we “cannot take their leads”. But we do not take their leads – we just take the situation the way they describe it and use it for our ends!

    As to me I have ALWAYS used the worst haters’ sources. This was the principle of the whole work here. Initially the idea was to simply refute those lies, but later I realized that even if we accept the outline of the events described by these authors, we can still prove Michael’s innocence this way.

    In fact we simply have to use these sources because there are no other sources available to us. If we had some true documents this work wouldn’t be as difficult as it is now. But we have none and it is extremely unfair of you to rebuke me for having to use them. Actually ALL we have are haters’ sources ONLY.

    Yes, most of these sources are lies but these the rules of the game we are forced to play. We simply have to work in this environment of lies. And knowing how bad this environment is you still speak of some “documents”? What documents? EVERY paper we have may turn out to be false one day.

    Take, for example, Jordan’s interview with the psychiatrist. I came across a statement where Tom Sneddon’s department said that they could not confirm the veracity of this document. So is it a “document” or is it “not a document”? For haters it is a document and a very damning one at that. For Michael’s supporters it is most probably not. They can get on their high horse and say that they don’t believe it, but I cannot afford such a beautiful stance. My method would be to 1) show where the falsity is and 2) use the lies told by Jordan Chandler there to prove Michael’s innocence.

    For me both ways are good. Proving Michael’s innocence is my ultimate goal, and if I have to accept the haters’ rules of the game I will. If the haters’ worst lies work against these people, let it be.

    Tatum, if you don’t agree with the method, please do your own research. Frankly I have no time, strength and stamina to give you any further explanations. My mother is in so horrible a state that I cannot spare a single minute on useless discussions like the above.

    Like

  127. shellywebstere permalink
    November 10, 2012 10:12 pm

    He has tapes but not about boys.

    Like

  128. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 10, 2012 9:36 pm

    Nannorris, it’s all pretty amazing, although I read somewhere that it was Bashir’s idea for them to hold hands, but you are right, someone should have said NO WAY! Not checking Bashir’s background was another fail. Not to mention the ridiculous contract that Michael signed with Bashir, one that in no way protected him or gave him any rights to edit or approve the final version.

    Here are some of Jordan’s remarks to Dr. Gardener–reminds me of VMG’s classic line about sex with Michael: “all those who “forgot”, did not have it and all those who had it, never forget.”

    ‘And so he continued to do that [give me a peck on the cheek] as well as the hugging and then graduated to kissing me on the lips.
    
And when did that occur as far as you know?
    
I don’t know.

    Was it before the summer?
    
Yeah.
    
Is it correct to say it was June? Would that be reasonable?
    
I don’t know. I really don’t know.
////

    About how many times would you say he masturbated you at Monaco?
    
I don’t know.
    
What were your feelings about it then? [re being masturbated to climax]

    Well, um, I said, this is really weird, like I never said I was ready then. But I said to myself, it feels good so, just, whatever, he’s my friend, so I can’t be —
    
And while he was masturbating you, what was he doing?

    Just that, nothing.
//
    
Is this the very first climax you had in your life?
    
Yeah. Well, wait, during that summer I had a, what’s it called, a wet something?
//
    And so your first orgasm outside of a wet dream was when he masturbated you!

    Right.”

    WOW. How could anyone believe this narration!!! It’s his first conscious climax in his whole life and he can’t remember how many times it happened!!! Not even a guess or an approximation??? According to Adrian Grant, MJ arrived in Monaco on May 9 and left the 13th. The WMA were the 12th and he dined with Prince Albert on the 10th. So he was only in Monaco 3-4 days (depending on arrival and departure times). How could Jordan possibly forget how many times Michael had sex with him???? The first and only live sex of his entire life at age 13 and a half?? With MICHAEL JACKSON!!

    Did Jordan and Gavin take some kind of sex amnesia pill??

    Like

  129. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 10, 2012 9:27 pm

    Here’s some info on Evan as a dentist:

    
“In reality, Evan had a history of professional mishaps whilst working reluctantly in the family profession as a dentist. In 1978 he had his license revoked after he was found guilty of “gross ignorance and/or inefficiency” after he did restoration work for one of his patients on sixteen teeth in one sitting.


    A year before Jackson came into his son’s life, one of his patients sued him for dental negligence after he did restoration work on some of her teeth. Chandler claimed that the woman had signed a consent form in which she’d acknowledged the risks involved. But when Edwin Zinman, her attorney, asked to see the original records, Chandler said they had been stolen from his Jaguar. He provided a duplicate set. Zinman, suspicious, was unable to verify the authenticity of the records.”

    http://number6.hubpages.com/hub/Michael-Jackson-Peter-Pan-or-pervert

    Like

  130. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 10, 2012 9:20 pm

    Lynande, you say the tapes never existed but then you say ABC got hold of them–so did they exist? (where Michael talked about buys, I mean)

    Like

  131. shellywebstere permalink
    November 10, 2012 5:40 pm

    Don’t forget Dieter Weisner.

    http://m.spiegel.de/international/business/a-759033.html#spRedirectedFrom=www

    Like

  132. shellywebstere permalink
    November 10, 2012 5:37 pm

    Don’t forget Dieter Weisner.

    Like

  133. November 10, 2012 4:24 pm

    Here is just one thing that I found out. In the middle of 2004 when Michael’s legal team was up to their eyeballs tryingto prepare for the trial he went to Harvey Levin who was then the Executive Producer of Celebrity Justice and was hawking a sale of tapes of MJ supposedly ” talking about boys”. Those tapes never existed and ABC news got them later in the middle of the civil suit between him and MJ. He also tried to sell them to Diane Dimond. How’s that for a friend?

    Like

  134. November 10, 2012 4:19 pm

    I should correct that, Schaffel was either trying to take it over or take it down and that started in 2001.

    Like

  135. November 10, 2012 4:18 pm

    There were people around Michael in 2003 that were willing to set him up. There were 5 unindicted co- conspirators and of the five three of them were trying to take over an empire. Before Weizner and Konitzer there was Schaffel.Wait I have been working on a Schaffel article fro some time now. As a matter of fact the people that follow the tact that it was Sony, Mattola and the Estate executors are going to get something of a shock.

    Like

  136. nannorris permalink
    November 10, 2012 9:03 am

    As I recall in Junes testimony , she acknowledged that Evan was happy about Jordans friendship with MJ because he thought he would be set or taken care of for life..I think Mesereau asked her “and that meant you also ” or words to that effect and she said no…….Why would any one think they would automatically be set for life , just because you have met Michael Jackson? He must have figured June was angling to be MJ wife..It would seem her pattern is she doesnt drop one meal ticket , until she has the next one lined up…..This was all just about money for both those parents..
    I know in testimony , Ann Gabriel had said she thought there were people inside MJ circle , who were waiting for him to sabotage his own career , so they could reap the benefits…
    That could very well be true , because I cant believe the people around MJ could not see what a slimeball Bashir was..
    You might think that when Bashir suggested Gavin would be better then Dave Dave, a red flag would have gone up .
    No one got a bad feeling when that kid put his head on MJ shoulder ??while holding hands ??.
    Nobody even checked in Bashirs background..??
    you might think that with all the vultures and people trying to take from this guy over the years, particularly after the Chandler fiasco, the people would have been more diligent in looking out for him..
    Fortunately for MJ , it didnt take Geragos long to look into the Arvizo background and access the situation…
    I dont know why Pellicano only spoke to Jordan Chandler without getting video of him denying anything ever happened ..That would have seemed like the smart thing to do… ….

    Like

  137. Rodrigo permalink
    November 10, 2012 6:43 am

    Evan may have asked if Michael was gay, fine. But why, directly when doing it –
    “Are you ****ing my [12 year old] son?”

    Not just asking Michael if he was gay, but also if he was a pe-le as well.
    And that was apparently the first time in meeting Michael.

    Like

  138. November 10, 2012 6:20 am

    documented known suspicions
    This is in reference to testimony when most claimed that they got wind of Evan’s claims.

    As far as I remember Ray Chandler explains that Evan Chandler was so suspicious by then that he decided not to beat about the bush and ask his question directly.

    This is what Evan claims through his brother’s (who was not involved) book. Proven liars can give us leads but I do not trust them to give us facts by themselves it has to corroborate with something or someone truthful. I’m only trying to refrain from speculating. Not to mention, the timeline doesn’t support his statements.

    Why did Evan ask about it? Two reasons for it are money and concern for his son.…. Are you in love with my former wife? Will you marry her?” Why didn’t he ask that question? Even if he wanted money for his Hollywood projects MJ’s future marriage could be much more economically beneficial for Evan.

    We are still ASSUMING this conversation took place.

    First he approached Dr. Klein (asking him if Michael was gay)

    I will briefly entertain this, but at the time the media always reported that Michael was gay so would it really be shocking that Chandler inquired about that, if he did? Evan probably did want June to divorce Schwartz and marry Michael, in the beginning but Michael cut him out. We’re not speculating in saying that Schwartz and Evan had some concerns about June and Michael’s relationship – we know that from the tape.

    Like

  139. November 10, 2012 4:43 am

    It was that taped conversations that got Michael into trouble. It is probably overlooked by alot of people but in California both parties need to be informed of and agree to a taped telephone conversation. It is one of three states where that is the law.

    Like

  140. November 10, 2012 4:40 am

    Bashir wanted Gavin because he knew what he wanted to do. What he told Michael was that Gavin was more recent. Did anyone know that Michael saved Dave Daves life. He attempted suicide and when Michael found out he brought him out to Neverland and gave him work. He credits Michael with saving his life too.

    Like

  141. November 10, 2012 4:36 am

    First we do know exactly when the phone call that was recorded by dave Schwartz was. It was July 7th. Dave Schwartz added the official transcript to his lawsuit against Evan. That is where that transcript came from. He then got custody of Jordan on the 9th. On the 13th Evan brought a custody stipulation to June for her to sign custody of Jordan over to him. The custody agreement also had the stipulation that Jordan was to have no contact with Michael. On the 15th is when Rothman contacts Mathis Abrams about a hypothetical case. He answers them by letter on the 16th of July. Evan showed that letter to Dave and June but Abrams name was whited out. They took it to Pellicano who was already working for Michael not because of the taped phone call but because of a message that Evan left on Junes answering machine. That is the one message and recording that no one has unless it is Pellicano or Bert Fields that has it. He left that message the weekend that they were going to go out to Neverland and instead they turned around and went back because of the threatening message. It was the weekend after they came back from June’s brothers wedding in New York. Pellicano was the one that asked Dave to tape a conversation with Evan and try to get him to make a demand for money or say what it was that he was going to accuse Michael of.

    Like

  142. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 10, 2012 4:10 am

    “Yes Bashir did set him up because he had met Gavin back in the summer when he was first there. Then when it came time to tape something about Michael helping children Michael first suggested Dave Dave. It was Bashir that wanted Gavin.”

    Lynande, this is very, very interesting. Why did Bashir want Gavin? Why did he reject Dave Dave? There is something strange here. Dave Dave would have been SO much better! Do you have any info on why Bashir picked Gavin rather than Dave Dave? He had met Gavin before at NL, someone said.

    Like

  143. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 10, 2012 4:00 am

    Shelley, I went to the Nat’l Enquirer website but their search doesn’t go back that far (1993 is almost 20 years ago). I think the correct title is “Michael’s New Adopted Family.” I agree it would be good to find.

    Like

  144. shellywebstere permalink
    November 10, 2012 1:06 am

    I’d really like to have that National Enquirer article.

    Like

  145. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 9, 2012 11:02 pm

    It’s possible that at first Evan’s initial idea was to get custody of Jordan, using Michael’s improper influence as a wedge. He was behind in child support, so if he got sole custody and if she forgave him the 68k he owed her, it would be financially good for him and no more child support would be due. This is why on July 12 when he gets custody of Jordan for a week (big mistake that Bert Fields went along with this) he has June sign the stipulation that he owes her no more $ and that Jordan will not go on the Dangerous Tour or even see Michael. Hughes initially saw the case as a child custody case only. But Evan then, with VG and Rothman and his own greed, got bolder and went for the really BIG $$.

    Like

  146. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 9, 2012 10:44 pm

    According to Taraborelli (yes, I know, but here’s his take on it), Michael returns from Europe on May 16 and sees the National Enquirer front page article “Michael’s New Adoptive Family” with photos from the attendance at the WMA in Monaco (the awards happened May 12th, Michael was in Monaco from the 9th to the 13th, and then he went to Paris). Taraborelli says Michael attended a birthday party for Nikki on May 22nd, then stays at Evan’s house. This gives us more dates in May to consider.

    T. also says Barry Rothman had been Evan’s patient since 1991 (!!!), and Evan confided his concerns re Michael and Jordan to him. T. says they decided to do a trade–dental work in exchange for legal services. IMO they cook up their extortion efforts in June (according to Geraldine Hughes, 3 to 5 phone calls a day in June–that’s a lot of calls!)) and June is when VG most likely enters the scene, having read about the Chandlers in the tabloids in May. Both Evan and Rothman were severely in debt–Rothman had declared bankruptcy the year before and Evan owed June 68k in support payments.

    The tape recording was made–but we don’t know when exactly. T. says Dave and June played it for Michael and he was really worried, so he then got Pellicano and Fields involved and arranged for June and Dave to play it in Pellicano’s office with Bert Fields present on July 9th. Dave Schwartz filed a lawsuit against Evan in which he alleged that Evan attacked him on July 9th at Evan’s house in Brentwood (Hughes, 136). Evan possibly attacked him b/c he found out here that he had been taped? The tape recording had to be made earlier in order for all these events to happen on July 9th, maybe a week earlier?

    T. says the tape recording included these words: “Jackson is an evil guy. He’s worse than that, and I have the evidence to prove it. It costs me thousands of dollars to get the information I got.” Is there a definitive statement of the total recording?

    T. says that on August 4th when Evan and Michael met with Jordan and Pellicano, Evan read part of Abrams’ letter to Rothman, in which Abrams says a 34 year old man sleeping with a 13 year old boy, when other beds are available, is “perverse and lewd conduct.” This letter was based on the hypothetical scenario that Rothman described to Abrams in a phone call! After the 8/4 meeting, Jordan drew the stick figure drawing that Evan interpreted as a ‘suicide drawing’ and he retained it as ‘evidence’ of J’s state of mind.

    Very Interesting: T. says Michael was dating LMP during the time he was supposedly obsessed with and in love with J.Chandler. Adrian Grant says that LMP was with Michael in Atlanta on May 5th, where they met with ex-president Jimmy Carter, his wife, Ted Turner, Jane Fonda and Emmanuel Lewis.

    Long and short: June is when the whole extortion was planned and took form and where VG most likely got involved in it IMO. In early July there was the tape recording of Evan claiming he is going to ‘massacre’ everyone and MJ’s career will be over, and in mid-July there were the custody events, in August, negotiations for $$ and then the police reports.

    Like

  147. November 9, 2012 1:47 pm

    “In order for Evan to approach Michael like that( Are you f—–g my son) he would have made everyone aware of his suspicions first, most likely in May or early June but the documented known suspicions outbursts start in late June to July.”

    Tatum, the “documented known suspicions” is a very funny thing to say. For the suspicions to be documented first the suspicions should arise, then ripen and only then outburst into the open and be “documented”.

    I am surprised that you do not look into the psychological background of the events at all and at they way the situation was developing. Take for example Ray Chandler’s description of the scene – Evan meets MJ for the first time and immediately asks him “Are you f***g my son?” (I can’t provide the text as I am missing the book). As far as I remember Ray Chandler says that Evan Chandler had become so suspicious by then that he decided not to beat about the bush and ask his question directly.

    So the suspicions were already there! And Evan was just checking up his supposition about MJ and his son. The goal was to take MJ unawares and see his reaction in the hope that he would give himself away.

    Why did Evan ask about it? Two reasons for it – money and concern for his son. He was really concerned about his son’s well-being and if he made sure that his suspicions were justified, he could feel ‘safer’ in demanding money from MJ. Which reason was the primary one is not that important here – what is important is the fact that he asked that question at all.

    And this fact is very interesting. Judging by what was covered in the press at the time (that MJ was traveling with his “new family” June Chandler and her children, with not a single suspicion about “boys” yet), it was much more logical for Evan to ask “Are you in love with my former wife? Will you marry her?”

    Even if he wanted money for his Hollywood projects MJ’s future marriage could be much more economically beneficial for Evan. He could have become Michael’s relative and could have exerted pressure on MJ through his son with a stream of money coming on a steady basis for the rest of his life.

    But no, he didn’t ask about Michael’s matrimonial plans – instead he asked about his son. So he was worried about him? Yes, he was. But why? Who told him that there were reasons for concern here? No one had even thought in that direction yet – nothing was reported in the press, not a single suspicion was yet voiced, however for some inexplicable reason Evan was in very much fuss over a “molestation” issue. First he approached Dr. Klein (asking him if Michael was gay), then he asked MJ directly – even at the risk of a huge scandal and severing all relations with MJ forever after, and finally he drugged Michael when he was in his house and again asked him if he was gay while Michael was in a half-conscious state.

    Why all these questions? What made Evan so terribly suspicious even though no one yet questioned Michael’s relations with children? Who sparked off all those thoughts? Now that we know that there was a person who was spreading rumors about Michael at exactly the same time wouldn’t it be logical to connect the two dots and name the person who could plant all those ideas into Evan’s head? This person spoke about his activity himself, so why should we doubt his word – especially if everything else is fitting into the picture?

    You know the name, don’t you?

    Like

  148. November 9, 2012 3:58 am

    We need to make a more precise timeline for spring 1993, but even from what we already know Evan Chandler invited Michael to his home for a test. By the time Evan invited MJ to his home someone (and it could be only Victor Gutierrez) had already planted heavy suspicion into his head. How do we know it? Ray Chandler wrote in his book that Evan asked Michael: “Are you f—–g my son?”

    I don’t necessarily agree with this portion because not only is it Evan’s story but he could have easily wanted to hang out with Michael – like everyone else. We know he had an ulterior motive regarding the screenplay and finding an investor as well, there didn’t necessarily have to be any sexual suspicions prior to.

    According to Evan he told Michael that he can’t break up the family or something along those means on the tape. In order for Evan to approach Michael like that( Are you f—–g my son) he would have made everyone aware of his suspicions first, most likely in May or early June but the documented known suspicions outbursts start in late June to July. Through the majority of the taped phone conversation Schwartz doesn’t even know what Evan is speaking of.

    The taped conversation reminded me of my sister’s ex-husband. Anyone who flips like Evan clearly has issues and is perverted on their own. My sisters ex is not around his kids and every guy who comes into my sister’s life, he’s accused of touching the girls or doing something evil to them. Smh.

    In short all those who “forgot” did not have it, and all those who had it never forget it Flat out:)

    Like

  149. November 9, 2012 2:09 am

    “The police are now investigating the possibility that Savile was a child killer. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4629105/peter-sutcliffe-claims-jimmy-savile-is-innocent.html

    Rodrigo, so a serial murderer Peter Sutcliffe “personally vouches for his mate”? This recommendation from a man who murdered and mutilated 13 women is priceless – he simply couldn’t do a better disservice to his mate. I can’t help recalling a proverb: “Tell me who your friend is and I’ll tell you who you are”.

    It also reminds me of the book about MJ written by a convicted pedophile Thomas O’Carroll and those “professors” who recommended his book for “family reading”. Over here I am tempted to change the proverb into: “Tell us whom you recommend and we will tell you who you are”.

    Normal people realize that if you listen to a murderer you will learn nothing else but the views of a monster on the “value” of human life (which costs nothing to him of course). Normal people also realize that if you listen to a pedophile you will learn nothing else but his own views on the art of corrupting children.

    In both cases the people described by the criminals are totally separate entities from those who speak about them. In fact Michael Jackson is no less different here than those poor mutilated women or the ruined children corrupted by “innocent’ Savile – all of them are nothing but victims here.

    Like

  150. November 9, 2012 1:26 am

    “He told La Cuarta the sheriff’s dept. contacted him in 05 in case he would be a witness, but apparently (?) a week later the sheriff’s dept. contacted La Cuarta to deny it. This is all murky b/c how would the sheriff know re a Chilean newspaper report?”

    Easily. La Cuarta simply contacted the sheriff’s department to verify Gutierrez’s story and they did not confirm it. Gutierrez lies, brags and fantasizes a lot and sensible people sometimes check up on him. His signature mark is bragging about “how important” he is. This is the motif of most of Gutierrez’s lies.

    But all his bragging only embarrasses the authorities in the US. Sneddon, for example, was very careful never to mention Victor Gutierrez. He was always exceptionally vague about him. Even in that newspaper article I’ve read (but cannot find now) Sneddon did not mention his name – he just said that they were familiar with “this book” as all officers in his department studied it.

    Like

  151. November 9, 2012 1:09 am

    “Who would forget Michael having sex with you???”

    A totally irrefutable argument which needs to be turned into a banner of pro-Michael forces.

    Jordan, Gavin and also the extremely forgetful Jason Francia are all here in one package. In short all those who “forgot”, did not have it and all those who had it, never forget (see Lisa Marie Presley’s example).

    Like

  152. November 9, 2012 12:35 am

    “I lost electricity for 4 days due to hurricane Sandy, so during that time I re-read Geraldine Hughes book by flashlight. ” – aldebaranredstar

    It is amazing what MJ’s supporters are capable of. Inquisitiveness is a great driving force and it helps in so many ways!

    “From her account this is the timeline: In May 93, Evan was friendly with Michael, who stayed at his house sometimes, but started making monetary demands/suggestions, such as build an addition, build a house, sponsor a screenwriting deal, sponsor a movie, etc. In June Evan sees June at a school function and tells her he is suspicious about Michael molesting Jordan, which she denies (71).”

    Aldebaran, as far as I know Michael stayed in Evan’s home only on two weekends (I always forget the dates, but think it was the second half of May). We need to make a more precise timeline for spring 1993, but even the little we know makes me think that Evan Chandler invited Michael to his home for a test. The test was needed because by then someone (and it could be only Victor Gutierrez) had already planted heavy suspicion into Evan’s head.

    How do we know that the notable scene of MJ sleeping in Jordan’s room and Evan opening the door, etc. was actually a test?

    Ray Chandler wrote in his book that Evan asked Michael: “Are you f—–g my son?” the first time he met him. Evan is described as having to brace himself to ask this question, but this is not the point – the point is that Evan must have already been totally mad with suspicion if he blurted out that question the first time he met Michael. Questions like that are not asked out of the blue – no, they are asked only if a person is dying of suspicion and wants to know the truth no matter what and therefore puts all politeness aside.

    But if Evan had been driven to this boiling point it means that by the moment Evan met Michael these ideas had been circulating in his head for a very long time.

    Where could he get them? From his former wife June? Absolutely not. On the contrary it was Evan who shared his suspicions with June after a school function and she shrugged them off. From Jordan? But Jordan did not confide in his father – at least at that stage. Evan said he even had to tape Jordan’s telephone conversations to learn what he talked to Michael for so long. So who else could it be?

    Only Gutierrez.

    Given that Gutierrez was making rounds of all parents around Michael Jackson he simply could not skip Evan Chandler. And he met him well before Evan’s getting acquainted with Michael sometime in May. So we will be safe to assume that the latest Gutierrez met Evan Chandler was beginning of May (when Michael, June Chandler and her two children were in Monaco). I repeat – this is the latest of it, though it could have taken place much earlier.

    “In June, Hughes says that Evan hired Rothman and was ‘constantly’ talking to him on the phone 3 to 5 times a day in confidential, closed-door calls (71-72)”

    This corresponds very well with the above supposition. So Evan hired Rothman already in June? That was quick. So he met MJ latest in May, asked that crazy question of his, received a No answer from the astonished Michael – he said he didn’t even use the word (not to mention doing it to a child), then he invited MJ to his home, arranged a “test” for him by making him sleep in Jordan’s room, and drugging him with some medicine prior to that. He practically placed Michael beside Jordan in order to see what would happen. To arrange a test they added a bunk bed to the two storey bed where Jordan and his junior brother Nikki were sleeping.

    This two-storey bed also makes me wonder. Usually small children sleep on the bottom (for fear of falling down) while bigger children sleep on the top. And “after Jackson” the Chandlers did indeed adhere to this usual scheme as this picture in VG’s book shows it (please pay attention to Gutierrez’s note):

    So Gutierrez says that “now Nikki sleeps on the bottom and Jordan on the top of the bed” and this means that three years before, when Nikki was five years old he slept on the top… What an unusual arrangement – parents never do it, they are always concerned about the safety of a smaller child… And the fact that Gutierrez finds it necessary to explain that previously Nikki slept on the top and Jordan on the bottom is also very unusual – all these unnecessary explanations take place when people overdo things, when they know that an explanation is needed or otherwise questions will arise.

    What I mean is that all these small details look like part of a plan. Or part of a script – where all details are supposed to fit each other but in reality misfit when you come to think about them. The same effect takes place when you start analyzing films (for ex. “how could X know Y if they never met before?”). But in films it is okay – everyone knows that it is a fiction story and all these illogical things are pardoned if the story is interesting to watch.

    But the story about Jordan is supposed to be “true”. So why then is it so full of small details which do not fit?

    Like

  153. November 8, 2012 7:21 am

    The whole of that clip can be seen on Larry Nimmers You Tube Channel. In it he is also saying how Michael is so wonderful with his own children it almost makes him weep. It also has the part that shows Bashir’s true colors when he is telling Michael that he will introduce him to Kofi Anan of the United Nations so Michael can talk to him about starting a World Childrens Day. He was slick and slimy and he knew what he was going to do before he even got the interview.

    Like

  154. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 8, 2012 1:59 am

    Yes, Kaarin, it shows he is totally lacking in humanity. And in this clip, Michael asks Bashir to interview Elizabeth Taylor, and Bashir says yes, he will. Did you see Elizabeth anywhere in LWMJ??? No!!! LIAR! He wouldn’t interview E. Taylor b/c she would have spoiled his take-down of Michael.

    Like

  155. November 8, 2012 1:37 am

    Guys, thank you for going on with the work while I am away. There was a crisis in my family with not a single moment to spare. If everything is more or less okay I’ll try to look up tomorrow all the links you’ve provided in the comments. Now too tired, sorry.

    Like

  156. November 7, 2012 11:29 pm

    I have seen a bit of the clip you Aldebaranredstar are talking about. It was hidden behind another videoclip in 2011.It shows that Bashir is totally lacking in humanity.It was shot from the side.Unfortunately I cannot get uo videos on my computer at this time. In that clip Michael had just taken a sip from his waterbottle when Bashir launches an aggressive verbal attack.

    Like

  157. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 7, 2012 10:05 pm

    Well, Lynande, look no more!! Yes, I know how that is when you can’t find it but you know it’s there.

    I saw this unreleased footage from LWMJ when they were on break. Bashir is so arrogant and nasty to Michael–shouting, telling him not to drink water from the bottle, telling him Liz Taylor is going to die soon (!), and offering to write Michael something to read at Maurice Gibbs’ funeral. As if Michael did not know how to write, and so beautifully. It is so clear what a horrible human he is and how he has NO respect for Michael. It shows what a bastard he is–his true colors. I am amazed Michael tolerated this. Bashir even says “I’m doing my best’–and ‘I’m trying to give you a big beep’ not sure if he says beep or what, but the idea is I am trying to help you, what a liar.

    Like

  158. November 7, 2012 7:28 am

    @ aldebaranredstar
    That was the article I was looking for for the last five days lol.

    Like

  159. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 6, 2012 9:54 pm

    According to this link, it was J. David Shapiro, a co-screenwriter for Robin Hood: Men in Tights, who was Evan’s patient, and the one who arranged for Evan to pitch his movie idea to Mel Brooks. According to this, Brooks says the idea came from Evan, and Evan said it was Jordan’s originally, but that he and Shapiro wrote the screenplay. He said they had a Screen Writers Guild dispute with Evan over this, so they put Evan’s name in the credits as a co-screenwriter as a result.

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ocwtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MqEFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4723,1772293&dq=evan+ch


    Yes, Rodrigo, the stories that circulated around NL are truly bizarre–a baby’s skeleton being one of the most bizarre. It really was exactly like the Salem Witch trials where the accusers went mad with bizarre accusations and the court listened to them and took their words seriously, and people who were upstanding citizens all their lives were put to death as witches on something called ‘spectral evidence.’ This was ‘evidence’ that came to these ‘possessed’ girls in dreams and visions (hallucinations, real or imagined). Unbelievable that this hysteria, which happened in 1692-93, would have happened again in 1993-2005 and ongoing!! Makes you wonder who was really ‘wacko’–and who was completely sane.

    Like

  160. November 6, 2012 5:42 pm

    @ Tatum

    Jordan’s contribution to the movie Men In Tights mentioned in June’s 2005 testimony and also in Ray’s book. June said on the stand that Evan promised Jordan $5,000 for his contribution that he never paid.

    Here it is from ATG:

    “You re a terrible father! You’re just using him for his writing talents.” June accused Evan of reneging on his promise to give Jordie five thousand dollars from the sale of Robin Hood. She announced that she was now managing their son’s career and if Evan wanted to collaborate with him again he would have to sign a contract with her.
    What are you talking about?” Evan said. “Jordie didn’t write one word of that screenplay and you know it. He doesn’t know the first thing about it.” The only contribution Jordie had made was the original suggestion that it be a comedy and occasionally he reviewied the script to see if it made him laugh. “I’m not going to give a thirteen-year-old five thousand dollars to spend at will,” Evan continued. “The money’s in the bank. He knows it and you know it. Please, June, let’s not argue about this. It’s stupid.”

    And this is from June’s testimony:

    5 Q. Do you remember complaining that Evan,

    6 Jordan’s father, had promised him money for helping

    7 him write the screenplay?

    8 A. Yes.

    9 Q. And you complained that Evan had not paid

    10 Jordan the money he owed him, true?

    11 A. I didn’t complain. It was a statement.

    12 Q. Well, you asked him to pay him the money,

    13 right?

    14 A. No, I did not.

    15 Q. You didn’t tell him he owed your son $5,000?

    16 A. It was a discussion.

    17 Q. Okay. Did you want him to pay him that

    18 money?

    19 A. It would have been a nice thing, yes.

    20 Q. He didn’t do it, did he?

    21 A. No, he did not.

    Like

  161. November 6, 2012 8:03 am

    Here is a link to one of the court documents form the 2005 trial. It will put to rest the story of the photos found at Neverland. It is a Redacted Motion and starting on page 66 there is an attached Motion for Thomas Mesereau to make a Statement. Also attached to this are the two stories in question.Tom Mesereau was denied the request to make a statement. In the statement it says that there are no photos and the prosecution knows there is no photos and they confirm it.
    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/091704pltpropred1538.pdf

    Like

  162. Rodrigo permalink
    November 6, 2012 6:51 am

    I’m thinking back to that that ridiculous story in Gutierrez’s book that a gardener found a baby’s skeleton at Neverland…oh, Victor, what an imagination you have there.

    Like

  163. Rodrigo permalink
    November 6, 2012 6:48 am

    The police are now investigating the possibility that Savile was a child killer.

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4629105/peter-sutcliffe-claims-jimmy-savile-is-innocent.html

    Like

  164. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 5, 2012 10:04 pm

    Just to dd that VG is a liar (as Tatum points out and as we know). So who knows if his story about Ricky Martin’s photo is true? He told La Cuarta the sheriff’s dept. contacted him in 05 in case he would be a witness, but apparently (?) a week later the sheriff’s dept. contacted La Cuarta to deny it. This is all murky b/c how would the sheriff know re a Chilean newspaper report?

    Like

  165. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 5, 2012 9:58 pm

    VMJ, Here is the link to the info on VG paying street boys 10,000 pesos. It’s included in this discussion.

    http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/122843-Can-somebody-help-me-with-Spanish-translation-Re-Victor-Gutierrez?highlight=Victor+Gutierrez

    Here is another post from the previous link I gave.

    “Remember weeks ago when Ricky Martin admitted being gay? Well, that week this Gutierrez guy was on TV saying he “knew” about that for sooo long ago. He said when he was shown pictures of the inside of Neverland by the LA police (when they searching the ranch), he was “the one” to recognize a picture of a very young Ricky Martin in Neverland (of the times Ricky was at boy band “Menudo”). And he implied that was, you know… because Michael was interested in young boys because he was a p**** ”

    PCR mjjc (VG and Latoya discussion, p. 4)

    Like

  166. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 5, 2012 9:04 pm

    http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/92068-LaToya-with-one-of-MJ-s-biggest-haters-Victor-Gutierrez-O/page4?highlight=victor+gutierrez

    Hi, VMJ, Here is a link to a discussion on mjjc website of VG and his interview with Latoya. There is a Chilean fan there named PCR who talks about how VG ridicules Michael’s fans.

    I am still looking for the 10,000 pesos incident.

    Like

  167. shellywebstere permalink
    November 5, 2012 6:27 pm

    I made à mystake Guillermo is a director, his brother Benicio is an actor and was in Usuel Suspects. By the way, the Devil pas released on video in September 2002 in the US.

    Like

  168. shellywebstere permalink
    November 5, 2012 6:16 pm

    The thing you need to know about the Devil’s backbone is it pas produced by Pedro Almodovar, who is probably the most famous spanish director and directed by Cuillère Del Toro who is probably one of the most famous mexican actors. It’s à really good movie and pas rated 12 when it was released in France.

    Like

  169. November 5, 2012 5:37 pm

    Interesting Lynande, I never doubted Bashir´s guilt.- A bit about TV and antennas.I don´t know how things were in CA 2004 or 2004.I know that during the cold war Estonians were able to see American programs via Helsinki broadcasts. It took just a little knowhow to adjust the antenna and there you had it all.Now I don´nt know about satellite antennas, a lot of immigrants have them and can easily reveive programs from afar.Do Spanish programs from South America reach California? Or do you need a satellite disk? Remember V.G. was a salesman of those at some point in time.

    Like

  170. November 5, 2012 10:18 am

    By the way Bashir is fully aware of what he did to Michael. I can’t tell you how I know but he is aware of what he did he just justifies it with ” I meant no harm”. Don’t worry Martin some higher power will deal with you and what harm you did.

    Like

  171. November 5, 2012 10:12 am

    Yes Bashir did set him up because he had met Gavin back in the summer when he was first there. Then when it came time to tape something about Michael helping children Michael first suggested Dave Dave. It was Bashir that wanted Gavin.

    Like

  172. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 5, 2012 8:17 am

    Nannorris, the similarities could have come from VG’s book (maybe in Spanish) that they had a copy of. It could also have come from VG directly if he was around in LA then. Feldman would have a copy of everything from 1993 in his files, including VG’s manuscript that he said he gave the police before the 1993 civil suit, or even his published book (1996 published in Chile). Feldman was no doubt hoping for some more millions if Michael had been found guilty in the criminal case.Or it could even have come from Sneddon. I read that Sneddon’s entire team had read VG’s book.

    Yes, you are right that the similarities are striking between the narratives, down to the scary movies.Then there is the bathing together scenario used by Blanca Francia and in VG’s book, where taking a bath together in Monaco is when the sexual stuff started.

    I wish Bashir had been forced to testify about how he set Michael up to bring Gavin there, sit together, hold hands, etc. Michael hadn’t seen Gavin in a long time (a year or more) before that interview, right? Bashir set him up.

    Like

  173. November 5, 2012 6:56 am

    Apparently Jordan helped a lot with the screenplay and June felt it was wrong of Evan to not give Jordan any money or credit for it. I can’t remember if he gave him a little something or nothing but June was upset about it. This was brought out in the trial transcripts in 2005 or it could have been in Geraldine’s book of court documents. I’m sure this was discussed in an accurate source I just can’t remember which one. My memory is blurring I need to brush up on my research. Lol.

    Like

  174. nannorris permalink
    November 5, 2012 6:53 am

    It is interesting that someone mention VG and the Arvizos….I was watching a show and I didnt put the link up here because it was not very positive regarding MJ ,..It is a criminal behavior person that the prosecutors had contacted from the FBI saying how the Arvizo kid knew things that were very similar to the Chandler thing ., and he would have had no way of knowing these things.and so he was guilty etc…
    I assumed he was talking about the smoking gun stuff but i wonder if it had something to do with the Exorcist movie and the Spanish movie that was mentioned by the Arviso kids..
    Really interesting that in the extremely limited time that they were able to spend anywhere near MJ…that they would come up with that story on their own..How would they pick that movie out of the air??
    Maybe that story was fed to them by VG, as he did try and get in with the hispanic help and stuff….

    Like

  175. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 5, 2012 3:53 am

    Hi,Tatum, I agree– those lucky, lucky, lucky girls!!!!!

    Thanks for the video, it was very interesting! I did not know that Mel Brooks was a PATIENT of Evan!!! Sooooo–did he use sodium amytal on HIM? to get the movie deal going? You never know. (half kidding here). I just wonder how much input Jordan really had as he was not given credit. What do you think? Maybe he came up with the idea but not the script? I agree with this reporter that Evan was bitten by the Hollywood bug. No doubt he was there at the opening, red carpet stuff, eating it all up. He wanted more and Michael was the means to an end. That was the negotiation with Pellicano, over how many screenplays Evan wanted. Michael and Jordan were just pawns to get what he wanted. Just a disgusting person and heartless dad on top of it.

    Like

  176. November 5, 2012 1:18 am

    Like

  177. November 5, 2012 1:15 am

    The whole Gavin “I can’t remember when it happened” is so much BS. Who would forget Michael having sex with you???

    Lol. You wouldn’t forget anything Michael did in your presence let alone that. Lisa Marie ( and others we don’t know about) —– you lucky lucky girls.

    Like

  178. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 4, 2012 11:38 pm

    Here is the info listed in the LATimes review of Robin Hood: Men in Tights:

    A 20th Century Fox presentation of a Brooksfilm production in association with Gaumont. Director Mel Brooks. Producer Mel Brooks. Executive producer Peter Schindler. Screenplay by Brooks & Evan Chandler & J. David Shapiro. Cinematographer Michael D. O’Shea. Editor Stephen E. Rivkin. Costumes Dodie Shepard. Music Hummie Mann. Production design Roy Forge Smith. Art director Stephen Myles Berger. Set designers Bruce Robert Hill and Cate Bangs. Set decorator Ronald R. Reiss. Running time: 1 hour, 54 minutes.

    Interesting that Jordan is not listed, although it was said he helped Evan (?).

    Re Rothman disbarred, it is on Michaeljacksonvindication2, the current posting. T. Mez is doing the cross on Feldman, and he talks about the 93 case and Feldman’s involvement, and he tells Feldman that Rothman is disbarred. So happy about that. It is towards the end of the post.

    Re the VG Spanish version. Thanks, Lynande, I would really like to see that version. Actually I have never read either book, just excerpts of the English version. Maybe we could get Marcelo to send us one, although he did not respond so far to my last email, so I am not sure what’s up. But there should be someone who can get it for us. I will check out your link.Very interesting about the scary movie, not only b/c it is in Spanish, but also b/c Jordan said Michael showed him the Exorcist and he was scared and that started them sleeping in the same bed, so it they were copying the 93 scenario. The whole Gavin “I can’t remember when it happened” is so much BS. Who would forget Michael having sex with you???

    Yes, the heritage card was played for sure.

    Like

  179. November 4, 2012 8:43 pm

    Here is link to the article that talks about the extra chapter and Ricky Martin.
    The reason that I think the Arvizo family had a copy of the Spanish edition is because little known facts about what they were saying about Michael were in additional interviews conducted by the police after Michael was arrested. In one of the after arrest interviews Star Arvizo says that Michael showed them a scary movie called ” The Devil’s Backbone”. The reason that is significant is because it is a Spanish language horror film about a boy that becomes posessed by spirits in the place where he lives.
    Not a lot of Americans know about that film unless they commonly watch Spanish language films and nobody played her Hispanic heritiage more than Janet Arvizo did.
    Gutierrez always wrote like anyone with a Hispanic heritage would agree with him. Just like he thought Margaret Maldonado would just go along with him when he said that she had a tape. He expected anyone with that heritiage to go along with his story. He played the Spanish heritiage card.

    http://worldofwonder.net/archives/2005/03/02/michael_jackson_was_my_amante/

    Like

  180. November 4, 2012 8:04 pm

    Also there is something important that not everyone knows about the book that VG wrote. Everyone knows that there is a Spanish version and an English version. Well what not everyone knows is that the Spanish version of the book has an additional chapter. Some say that chapter contained information about Ricky Martin and other things. I have always wanted the Spanish version because I think in that extra chapter is also more important information. Why I say that is because I firmly believe that the Arvizo’s used that book as a template for their accusations. It is just too uncanny that their story says almost the same thing with the Addition of the drinking. It is just too coincidental is all I’m saying. The SPanish version is no longer available to purchase on Amazon and I was wondering if someone in Chile could get us a copy.

    Like

  181. November 4, 2012 7:17 pm

    I once had an article about the movie “Robin Hood Men In Tights” where they are discussing screen credit for Evan and it sounds a little like he was trying to get more credit than he deserved. In order to appease him Brooks also gave him production credit but it was still being worked out at the time of it’s release. I will try to find it again.

    Like

  182. November 4, 2012 6:20 pm

    By the time Evan finished filing the lawsuit through Jordan by Feldman, he was actually asking for 30 million. From what I remember he may have actually received between 2 and 2.5 million which is not even a quarter of what he actually wanted.

    Was Rothman disbarred, really? I know I found his website some time ago, but that doesn’t mean anything. He has “Michael Jackson molestation case” listed as clients which should have been listed as the Michael Jackson extortion case instead.

    Like

  183. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 4, 2012 8:34 am

    Hi, Tatum–Thanks for the sympathy–it was an ordeal but an interesting experience. There were actually some benefits but no fun being without heat, hot water, and so on.

    I checked the Robin Hood:Men in Tights release. There was a review in the LATimes on July 28, 93. Evan was psyched up to the max by that experience as co-screenwriter, and wanted more, so he pushed for the 4 screenplays at 5 Million each=20 million. Later he dropped it to 3 screenplays= 15 million (according to Hughes). Even though the settlement was for approximately that amount, it was not accessible to Evan, only for Jordan, and via a judge, so he did not end up getting what he wanted. Maybe that’s why he and Jordan fought later on–no more screenplays.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1993-07-28/entertainment/ca-17556_1_mel-brooks

    Evan wanted the $ for more success in the movie/screenplay world. As he said in the taped conversation, Jordan was ‘irrelevant.’ He needed a lever to pry the $ out of Michael. So with Rothman and the scheming between them in June, they planned to use the molestation allegations as blackmail. (Evan, like Janet A., was unstable and even certifiable. He hit Dave Schwartz in his home and in Feldman’s office; later hit Jordan; and maybe even abuse in the past of June or Jordan.) In developing the molestation story, they needed to describe sexual incidents (ones that did not happen at Evan’s house of course but in Monaco and at hotels) and find other ‘victims.’ They also needed a media stooge/conduit. Enter VG. It would be interesting to find out the Feldman -VG contacts.

    VMJ, the mjjcommunity site seems to be down, so I can’t get the VG link now.

    Just read that Barry Rothman was later disbarred. So happy about that. Karma rules. Wish the same would happen to Feldman.

    Like

  184. November 4, 2012 7:27 am

    I lost electricity for 4 days due to hurricane Sandy, so during that time I re-read Geraldine Hughes book by flashlight.

    That sucks that you lost power, I’m sorry. I am in the NY and got caught in a storm but that was the extent of my experience with Hurricane Sandy.

    there is no way VG would not have been noticed if he came and went, so maybe he got involved somewhere between June and early August, before Jordan went to see Abrams on Aug. 17th (if we are correct in our assumptions that he is the behind-the-scenes guy with a lot of info feeding into this case, both in terms of the molestation story Jordan tells and the media reports).:-\

    Like

  185. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 4, 2012 4:10 am

    I lost electricity for 4 days due to hurricane Sandy, so during that time I re-read Geraldine Hughes book by flashlight. From her account this is the timeline:

    In May 93, Evan was friendly with Michael, who stayed at his house sometimes, but started making monetary demands/suggestions, such as build an addition, build a house, sponsor a screenwriting deal, sponsor a movie, etc. Michael withdrew from Evan maybe b/c of these plans to get him to invest in Evan’s schemes?

    In June, Hughes says that Evan hired Rothman and was ‘constantly’ talking to him on the phone 3 to 5 times a day in confidential, closed-door calls (71-72). Rothman was an entertainment lawyer but had recently taken a child custody case where the mother had accused the dad of child molestation as part of her custody suit. Rothman had declared bankruptcy the year before after owing almost $1 million and still received creditor’s calls. In June Evan sees June at a school function and tells her he is suspicious about Michael molesting Jordan, which she denies (71). Maybe all these phone calls between Evan and Rothman were when they developed “the plan’ that Evan referred to in the call to Dave Schwartz in July?

    In July things heat up a lot. Hughes says the Schwartz phone call that was taped was ‘before July 9”–so by then the plan had been set up so that Evan claimed would be ‘a massacre’ and Michael’s ‘career would be over’ if he said the word. This has to mean child molestation allegations b/c what else would end Michael’s career?

    In this time, Michael hired Pellicano (through Bert Fields), who interviewed Jordan, Lilly, and other boys. On July 9th, Evan attacks Dave Schwartz at Evan’s house (136). In this month the ‘Robin Hood: Men In Tights’ movie with Mel Brooks is completed or released (not sure which). July 12 Evan gets custody of Jordan by tricking June (and Bert Fields) into thinking he will return him 7/18. 7/16 Jordan has the tooth removed. 7/15 Mantis Abrams sends letter to Rothman about reasonable suspicion of sex abuse on a hypothetical case, which will be used to extort Michael (62). 7/27 Rothman send letter to Evan about how to report sex abuse by means of third-party disclosure (83).

    August is when it all explodes. The negotiations about dollar amounts start Aug. 4 and continue until 8/13, with Pellicano visiting Rothman’s office with offers and counter offers. On 8/17, Jordan goes to see Dr. Abrams, after June obtained a court order after an Ex Parte Hearing demanding Jordan be returned to her. Hughes saw Jordan alone in Rothman’s office before he went to see Abrams–a dress rehearsal? (45). (Feldman is hired somewhere around here as a civil lawyer to file the civil suit.) Abrams sends a letter to Child and Family Services, as he is legally required to report the allegations of abuse. The police then start the searches of NL and Century City condo. 8/23 it is leaked to the media. Michael performs the first Bangkok concert 8/24.

    Given that the media went wild and staked out the Chandler-Schwartz homes once the story broke, there is no way VG would not have been noticed if he came and went, so maybe he got involved somewhere between June and early August, before Jordan went to see Abrams on Aug. 17th (if we are correct in our assumptions that he is the behind-the-scenes guy with a lot of info feeding into this case, both in terms of the molestation story Jordan tells and the media reports). Certainly he can be seen as involved outright when Blanca Francia says in 05 trial testimony that he contacted her in 93 before her deposition.

    VMJ, the info about the Chilean VG activities, I got from mjjcommunity. I searched VG and found a discussion of some news articles that another person translated. I will look for the link.

    Like

  186. October 31, 2012 7:02 pm

    “The site is connected with World of Wonder Productions, the production company that wanted to make a film of Gutierrez book. The author of this “article” seems to be somehow attracted to Gutierrez book and young boys and seems to know Gutierrez’ preferences.”- Susanne

    Yes, the last sentence from this ‘article’ is mentioned in the post too and it is very taletelling: “Give Jordie a big old sloppy kiss from me if you see him!”. Of course they know about Gutierrez much more since they cooperated with him in making a film, but on the other hand there is so much perversion and dirt in the WoW site that you never know whose perversion it is – the author’s or Gutierrez’s. But it gives us a good idea what kind of a film they wanted to make about Michael Jackson, doesn’t it?

    By they way the publishing house where Gutierrez self-published his book in the US in 1997 is also rather specific. It is called Alamo Square Distributors and the subjects covered by the publisher are a mix of religiosity, gay sex and boys:

    “Aspectos religiosos, Biblical teaching, Biography, Boys, Children, Christianity, Cristianismo, Enseñanza bíblica, Etica sexual, Gay teenagers, Gay wit and humor, Gays ̓ writings, Homosexualidad, Homosexualidad en la Biblia, Homosexuality, Homosexuality in the Bible”

    http://openlibrary.org/publishers/Alamo_Square_Distributors

    Like

  187. October 31, 2012 12:44 pm

    I found this by accident: http://worldofwonder.net/2009/08/11/Happy_Birthday_Victor_Gutierrez/
    The site is connected with World of Wonder Productions, the production company that wanted to make a film of Gutierrez book.
    On the left top you see a lubicrous picture of McCauley Culkin. The author of this “article” seems to be somehow attracted to Gutierrez book and young boys and seems to know Gutierrez’ preferences. See his last sentence!
    If you go the comment section, see the last comment of the “author” JSJ: Victor began his investigations for this book in the late eighties …. he still trumps Diane.
    This site seems to be connected to the gay scene and it gives me the feeling that there is some “knowledge” within this scene about Gutierrez and how to categorize him.

    Like

  188. October 31, 2012 10:34 am

    “VG no doubt was well paid by Court TV for being DD’s source, and when he went with the videotape story, I am sure he got a big payoff. If B. Francia got $20,000 for her shower story, VG got way more for his.”

    Aldebaran, this was very insightful of you. I always forget about the greed. Of couse Gutierrez turned hate and lies about Michael into a profession, generating money for him!

    VG, like many media people, used Michael as a way to make themselves rich and famous. However, VG also is a pedo, and has been connected to that in Chile as well. In a recent case, he gave street boys who attended a luxurious party 10,000 pesos, a lot of money for street boys. There are scandals about him in Chile as well.

    Aldebaran, I am very much interested in that 10,000 pesos story. Since I cannot read Spanish could you provide the details, please? In what article is it?

    Like

  189. October 31, 2012 10:28 am

    I assume he came here on a visa that he got as part of the 1984 Olympics coverage as a photographer. Whether this was a tourist visa (6 months) or another kind of visa for work purposes) I don’t know, but there is no doubt he was and is NOT a citizen of USA, and so he was probably here illegally at some point when his visa ran out (although he may have gotten it renewed if he really was working for a Latino paper). Lots of people are here illegally and get away with it.

    His story is that he worked on collecting ‘evidence’ about Michael as a pedo, tried to get the police unit on Sexually Exploited Children interested in his ‘manuscript’ and they were not. He then had to cool his heels and sold satellite dishes for a while (GQ article). Then he saw photos in the tabloids of Jordan Chandler with Michael and that restarted his involvement. There was a National Enquirer story “Michael’s New Adopted Family” he might have seen, or photos of the Monaco WMA trip.” – aldebaranredstar

    EXACTLY!

    Like

  190. October 31, 2012 10:15 am

    “According to his account, he was in touch with LAPD, DEA, FBI as a reporter covering the Latino population in LA and when he decided to focus on the newly formed “Sexually Exploited Child Unit,” he got the list of famous pedos, on which Michael’s name appeared. From there he started his investigation (hiring a P.I.), probably, as Lynande says, going with the boys he saw Michael with in public and the help at NL, but when he showed the police his report, they were not interested, until Jordan Chandler appeared with his story. The NAMBLA story adds a new dimension as to why he focused on Michael, one that VG does not seem to be promoting on Chilean TV, and he no doubt did not push that story to his media pals.”

    Aldebaran, you’ve left a lot of interesting comment which I would like to use in a special post. In the meantime let me stress (for anyone who may have missed it) that the above is the official Gutierrez story with which he approached the parents of boys around Michael Jackson.

    He could not be working for all those agencies for a simple reason that he was most probably an illegal immigrant in the US. He came as a photographer for the Olympic Games and stayed in the US as he implied that he did not want to return – the USA lured him with its opportunities and back in Chile there was Pinochet at the time. How and why he stayed is another matter which also needs looking into, but it is clear that having all those immigrant issues on his hands he could not be simultaneously “working for LAPD, SEA and FBI”.

    He probably did cover the issies connected with the Latino population in LA (through his knowledge of Spanish) and was possibly an informant for the police, but informants are someone totally different. They are not “special agents” – very often they are criminals themselves, only they are “useful” criminals who tell on all the others and that is why the police close their eyes on their deeds.

    And he surely had a NAMBLA agenda before he came to the US. Interesting that he never mentions this organization to his native Chileans. If he did his countrymen would probably be the first to connect the dots.

    Like

  191. October 31, 2012 9:51 am

    “By the time 1993 came around no one remembered Jimmy from the Bad tour or Jonathan from 1984. So how would Evan have gotten their names? He had to have gotten them from Gutierrez and no one else”.

    Lynande, the same with the police. They spotted those boys and no one else, which again points in the direction of Gutierrez and his involvement in the case. I think you are right about those 5 boys. The police didn’t look into Michael’s friendship with Dave Dave or Ryan White for example and “by coincidence” they were never mentioned by Gutierrez either.

    Now we need to put everything together and back it up with information from the sources available to us.

    Like

  192. lynande51 permalink
    October 31, 2012 5:07 am

    Oh and I also think that the way he knew about Wade and was able to find him and the others was because he had an informant from inside Michael’s house. Blanca Francia. The reason the Cascio boys never came into it is because they didn’t visity the ranch until she was gone and they lived in New Jersey not California.

    Like

  193. lynande51 permalink
    October 31, 2012 5:01 am

    Helena it has always been that the other “4” of the companion cases were never produced by anyone other than Jordan/Evan. That was part of what he said. Ther were Brett, Mac, Wade and Jimmy Safechuck. You can tell that from the Gardner interview. These boys never corroborated those stories and in fact within days Brett and Wade were on TV saying nothing had happened. They said it then, they went on the witness stand in 2005 and said it and they still stand by it today. Gutierrez talked to Joy in 1992. he talked the Jimmy Safechuck and Jonathan Spence who got mad at thim when he insinuated that Michael bought him a car. Very ,very few fans and MJ advocates even know the origin of Jonathan Spence and that was that he went to school with one of the 3T’s, Michael’s nephews. He was a family friend and that is how Michael knew him.
    I don’t think that Gutierrez ever talked to Marie Barnes otherwise he would have been under arrest from the minute he opened his mouth. She was a little different and more emotional than Joy and would have let him know exactly what she thought of him.That is why you have Gutierrez tryingto discredit her in his book when he says she stole everything. Of course he put those words into Adrian McManus’ mouth which is how he usually does it.
    But back to the when he arrived. You know he had no problem finding these people when he wanted . Jonathan Spence was not a public figure by the time he came to the US so he had to go hunting for him. Same with Jimmy Safechuck. he had to go looking for him and for his father Wayne Safechuck to talk to them. By the time 1993 came around no one remembered Jimmy from the Bad tour or Jonathan from 1984. So how would Evan have gotten their names? He had to have gotten them from Gutierrez and no one else. And since the names actually went into the original narrative to the Police Jordan was given those names quite a while before he gave them to the police. So did he just show up right after the Monaco trip or was he there before that and was the one that put the ugly suspicion in Evan Chandler’s head?

    Like

  194. October 31, 2012 2:49 am

    A headache it was.

    Like

  195. October 31, 2012 2:45 am

    Michael was also drugged , in Evan´s house.And by the same doctor too.I cannot find the post for this anymore.For a toothache and he became obtunded and was put to bed.

    Like

  196. October 30, 2012 11:03 pm

    Sorry that it took me so long to read various comments concerning Gutierrez. I need to say a couple of things in this connection.

    First of all, the discussion went from the subject of whether Gutierrez could or could not met Evan Chandler before the 1993 allegations to the subject of Sodium amytal. These are two separate matters and let us differentiate between them.

    1) I think that the Sodium amytal point will become fully clear at a later stage when other circumstances are uncovered. Sodium amytal could have been used to plant false ideas, pictures, images, etc. into Jordan’s mind, as it was simply in line with Evan Chandler’s nature – he was dying to know the “truth” and could easily subject his son to this procedure and not just once, but several times. However sodium amytal doesn’t explain why Jordan later said to some witnesses that he had lied. On the other hand it could possibly wear off with time, especially if Jordan underwent some treatment (under hypnosis for example) which recovered his earlier, true memories.

    One more point is that we do not know how sodium amytal works on different people. For example, not all people are equally susceptible to hypnosis – there are big variations here.

    Another side to this matter is that it was a great pretext for Evan Chandler to tell the public how and at what particular moment he learned about that “molestation issue”. Later when they found that sodium amytal is actually no truth serum and can’t be relied on, they could use the story for a different and very convenient purpose. As the testimony given under sodium amytal is not considered legally valid or acceptable it helped them to get Jordan out of testifying in a criminal trial. In this connection it is important to remember that Evan Chandler insisted on the sodium amytal story himself.

    Lynande was right when she said:

    I think they originally thought the world would see the SA as a truth serum and that is what prompted Jordan to tell the truth. Unfortunately for them within months of the settlement came the conclusion to the Holly Ramona case in which it was found that a therapist using SA on Holly produced false memories of her being abused by her father. After that the Chandler’s could no longer use it as a truth serum story and instead used it to get out of testifying.

    Since there are so many variants here I think it is safe to assume that the use of sodium amytal was a possibility but we will have to wait for more information to surface to see the picture more clearly.

    2) The second question is whether Gutierrez knew Evan Chandler before the 1993 accusations. The fact that he met him later is proven by the documents (photos, etc.) which he got from Evan’s home and published in his book, so the question may concern only the time when they met – before or after the allegations went public.

    I haven’t got a single doubt that they met before that. Even if we disregard everything else, the simple answer is that he would not be able to resist such a chance. He met all of them and why he should make an exception for Chandler is absolutely illogical.

    Tatum disagrees. Frankly, I didn’t really understand what she is trying to say by all her strange questions, but in the best case she probably means the following – Gutierrez is a liar, he didn’t meet any of them, and therefore he didn’t meet Evan Chandler either. In her opinion Gutierrez’s files were non-existent though Diane Dimond mentioned them in her CNN interview. So Dimond is also a liar (which is mostly true) and the files were never there (which may be true or wrong).

    She asks me whether I have seen the files. No, I have never seen them. But on the other hand we have not seen many of the documents which were mentioned by the press but nevertheless we know for sure that they do exist and sometimes we even know what they say.

    The fact that Dimond is a liar does not prove that she is lying in this particular case. Of course we can assume that Diane Dimond always lies and dismiss everything she says, but here we have a problem that the general public does not agree with us and believes at least some of her ideas.

    So even in case Dimond lies in this particular case we still need to look into her story and show that even if she lies, it still proves Michael’s innocence.

    How do we do it?

    We assume (same as Michael’s haters) that she and Gutierrez tell the truth and try to find discrepancies or something else in their stories that they will show that Michael was still innocent of what he was accused of.

    In short, if haters’ lies help to prove Michael’s innocence, it is okay too.

    Now back to Diane Dimond’s five files. She alleges that she received them from some “source” who was investigating Michael Jackson and by the time the allegations broke out in 1993 he had collected vast information about five boys around Michael Jackson. One of them was Jordan Chandler as it was to him that Michael Jackson allegedly spoke about the “juvenile hall”. Later on the idea of the “juvenile hall” was repeated by Jordan in his interview with Dr. Gardner.

    She speaks of the certain narrative by the boy and that he tells his story to his father. All this is recorded in the documents collected by then and this means that the person who provided those documents met those people, wrote everything down, made a pile of documents “this thick” and only then Dimond studied them “for a long time” some time in August before the allegations were made public. This means that this person (presumably Gutierrez, if there is any other candidate please name him) met the Chandlers prior to the allegations going public.

    If we assume that he did not meet them then it means that he invented the whole story, but then a question arises why Jordan’s public allegations later coincided with his inventions.

    Mind you that there is a third variant – that he invented the most part of it, and worked with his false stories on the highly suspicious father of the boy, who could believe any crap said about MJ, and later on these sick inventions found their way into the boy’s account either through his voluntary cooperation with the schemers or via false ideas planted into his memory.

    Whatever it is the fact is – if we believe Diane Dimond’s own story it proves that Gutierrez met the Chandlers much earlier than we could ever expect.

    Now the only thing that remains to be proven is how big and pathological liar Gutierrez was. For some reason some people still need it to be proven.

    * * *
    As a supplement to this note here is an excerpt from Diane Dimond’s interview on CNN, August 26, 1993:

    TILLOTSON: The police in Los Angeles have said they have gone in and looked into two pieces of property owned by Michael Jackson. What were the decisions involved in your show on going to air with this?

    DIMOND: Well, I’ll tell you, Mary, I was in a unique situation because Hard Copy is the only- I think I’m the only reporter, I think I can safely say that, to have seen the official documents, the official allegations against Michael Jackson. I got lucky, I’ll be honest with you. A source came to me, said, ‘I want you to see something.’ I met him at a location and looked at it, and it was a stack that thick of documents about the Michael Jackson case. We ran with it on Tuesday because I had it in front of me. I studied these documents for a long, long time, I corroborated as much as I possibly could, and I, too – like Leslie, I’ve covered a lot of child abuse stories back in New Jersey, the Kelly Michaels case, several of them – and I read the narrative of this child and it was familiar, the same terminology was used. This boy said that when he finally, in June, told the superstar that ‘I don’t want to see you anymore’ – they were in Monaco at the time – Jackson threatened him and said, ‘Well, you know, if you tell, you’re going to go to juvenile hall.’ That’s sort of a typical abuser thing to do.

    Again, I want to stress, I don’t know if the documents I saw, if the narrative of this boy is true. But again, like Leslie says, I think we have a responsibility to report what we- what we know, especially about role models, and especially when it involves children. We told you on Tuesday night on Hard Copy that there were other cases involved, and last night I was able to go with- there are four other what they call corroborating- no, they call them companion cases. The L.A. Times went with it this morning. But we’re not talking about one 13-year-old boy, gee, are his parents having a custody fight. We’re talking about five separate case files.

    TILLOTSON: May I ask this, too? Since Jackson’s spokespeople maintain in their defense – in his defense – that this is all part of an extortion plot, did you see anything in the documents that you’ve read through that would substantiate that counterargument?

    DIMOND: Mm-hmm, I did. I did, to be honest with you. But I never saw anything like the $20-million figure this so-called security expert from the Jacksons is talking about. In the documents that I saw, the boy tells his father, his real father – the family is separated – what happens. The father, according to these documents, goes to the Jackson people, threatens to file a civil suit, and there was, according to the documents, a ‘cash settlement discussed.’ Nothing was given, I don’t know who-

    TILLOTSON: And that doesn’t mean the father initiated it?

    DIMOND: Right. Right. I didn’t get any indication that money-

    TILLOTSON: Who did, do you know?

    DIMOND: -I didn’t get any indication that any money changed hands.

    TILLOTSON: You’re suggesting here that it was someone representing Michael Jackson who initiated, not extortion, but a payoff to keep him quiet.

    DIMOND: No, I can’t really say that, Mary.

    TILLOTSON: All right.

    DIMOND: I guess that would be a better story, but no, I- from the documents I read, the police documents, I can’t tell you. A cash settlement was discussed. Who brought it up, who initiated it, I just don’t know yet.

    http://www.tabloidbaby.com/Book/Companion/cnn.htm

    Like

  197. October 30, 2012 8:34 pm

    That show ended in 2010.They had plans for further plans.Thats all.

    Like

  198. October 30, 2012 8:16 pm

    The other, the 4 brothers left from the Jackson 5 try or tried to sue Michael´s Estate to finance their worldwide interests, trying to recreate the Jackson 5 or 4. It is ridiculous. They base their claim on “Michael had made a promise for a tour”, and now it is only 4 of them left, going on 60 y and playing their childhood songs.The Jackson Dynasty Show(s).

    Like

  199. October 30, 2012 7:23 pm

    “Though there are some points that I’m not in line with him (for ex. regarding the estate), he is definitely a very sincere person who takes on a lot to get the truth out about the trial. His tour through Europe is very exhausting. I truly wish him more support than he actually receives.”

    Susanne, thank you for the update. I support William Wagener’s efforts to seek justice for Michael and believe him very much , though he, like all other people, can make mistakes. This is understandable in all this mess which in my opinion is created intentionally around the Estate. Someone doesn’t want Michael’s debts to be repaid and repeatedly sings the same old and false tune about the Estate and especially Branca “making a fortune” now that MJ is dead.

    Everyone, including William Wagener should ask themselves a question. They are not happy with the Estate “generating a fortune”, so will they be happier if the Estate were unsuccessful in their efforts? Would they like to see Michael’s children penniless and homeless as the only other alternative to non-paying the debts is selling everything which the Jacksons still have – shares, houses, cars, furniture, etc?

    Does anyone really believe the bogus story that anyone who works tirelessly to repay a person’s debt first needs to kill this person? Never in my life have I heard of more absurdity. Wouldn’t it be much more logical to assume that if someone wanted to get rid of Michael they would drive him into a bankruptcy and then get all his belongings at a highly undervalued price when things are sold at half the price just to recover at least some debts?

    William Wagener shouldn’t be talking to people like the one in the video below – I found it by chance when looking for details about Pellicano. This person insinuates that Branca and Weitzman were involved in setting up Pellicano in 1993. Branca returned to Michael in 1993 (I don’t know exactly in what month) and Howard Wietzman is indeed an attorney for the Estate now, but it means nothing. The fact that Johnnie Cochran was friends with Larry Feldman and he represented Cochran ever after seems to me much more meaningful in this respect.

    Branca is an entertainment lawyer/manager and was most probably brought in to handle the situation with the Dangerous tour disruption and Marcel Avram’s suit against Michael. And Howard Weitzman was in the 1993 criminal case against Michael from the very start of it in August 1993. Bert Fields was fired by Weitzman due to the blunder we know of and Fields’ investigator Pellicano left on his own, and the matter was handled by Johnnie Cochran since then. For some reason the person William Wagener is talking to here does not say a single word about it.

    The story is bogus and the only grain of truth here is that Pellicano always believed in Michael’s innocence. And that he was probably set up – but not in 1993, but in 2002 when he was first arrested and then in 2006 when he was jailed for 15 years for wiretapping.

    William Wagener is unable to go into every small detail of the Michael Jackson case himself and is too trusting of some MJ’s fans who tell him “stories”. I would really prefer him to focus on Tom Sneddon and the 2003 case only as the general American public seems not to know the first thing about that case. And there is practically no chance that anyone else – except him – will make a truthful documentary about it.

    This is why I support him very much though we adhere to completely different views in respect of the estate.

    Like

  200. October 30, 2012 6:02 pm

    Helena, this is off-topic, but since you mentioned William Wagener a few comments ago:
    Yes, I met William on Sunday. He planned to visit my MJ friend who runs the German MJJIFF website: http://mjjinnocentforever-deutsch.jimdo.com/ , and since she lives not so far away from me they invited me to come over.
    Due to some time problems he arrived much later than planned and then he had to do a long phone call, so I hadn’t a chance to talk much to him that night. But when I had to leave in the midst of his phone conversation, he interrupted it to say good-bye to me and to suggest to chat with me on the phone the other day. I gave him my phone number, and he indeed called me the next day and we talked for more than an hour. It was very kind of him to take the time to do that.
    Though there are some points that I’m not in line with him (for ex. regarding the estate), he is definitely a very sincere person who takes on a lot to get the truth out about the trial. His tour through Europe is very exhausting.
    I truly wish him more support than he actually receives.

    Like

  201. October 30, 2012 4:38 pm

    “This is a clip of Mr Pellicano lawyer talking about prosecutors over reaching in cases and how he thought Pellicano got a more severe sentence because it was high profile… Somewhere on here” – Nannoris

    Yes, something is on here. Mr. Rey speaks about Pellicano at the very beginning of the tape: 4:30 – 9:30.

    But I was checking and rechecking information and found that Pellicano was first arrested on November 21, 2002 (and not on the eve of the Neverland raid by Sneddon as I previously thought). This is a necessary correction which should be made to my earlier comment.

    Pellicano was arrested twice – first in 2002 and convicted to 30 months in prison for illegal possession of some explosives (!) and then in 2006 when he was jailed to 15 years for wiretapping. I must be a complete fool of course, but to me the first charge looks much more serious than the second, and following Mr. Rey’s words 15 years for wiretapping is so long that it is even outrageous.

    What surprises me is the comparison of Pellicano’s case with that of Conrad Murray. Murray got only 4 years for being so “negligent” that he killed a human being and his sentence is to be cut in half, while Pellicano got 15 years for wire-tapping and no one is going to cut his sentence by a single month. Also all those billionaires who ordered this wiretapping got away with it as he was the only one indicted.

    The fact that all these Pellicano’s arrests revolved around Michael Jackson’s 2003 case – before and after it – also make me wonder. However this requires a serious research and should be left for some other time. What is top important for us is that Pellicano always called Michael innocent. Whether he himself was guilty of those things or not, is irrelevant to us – what is relevant is that he was an expert in his field, and if he said that MJ was innocent (even after all that wire-tapping) then we can really believe his word. He probably even possesses some tapes fully exonerating Michael in the year 1993.

    And please remember what the Daily Beast chart said: Pellicano found damning information about the accuser’s family (not about MJ).

    Like

  202. October 30, 2012 3:49 pm

    Oh I see, the story has be all ot nothing with you.
    Not really, I just don’t trust liars and would rather have proof.

    It is their timeline of when Evan found out from Jordan throws everything off for you.
    It’s Evan’s story that makes me distrust it. I get what you are saying about the sodium amytal, but the drug wouldn’t work in the way many claim in this case. Raymond Chandler is another liar, but it did take more of collaboration on Jordan’s part which would not be due to the drug.

    They just used the SA to make Jordan more compliant that’s all.
    Now that makes more sense and is something that we can get away with saying but the false memory idea is not. I will later write a more detailed rebuttal later, but right now I have to work. Talk to you guys later.

    Like

  203. lynande51 permalink
    October 30, 2012 2:28 pm

    Oh and of course there is not one doubt in my mind that it was Sodium Amytal that they gave Michael when he was at his house.Whether it was for a headache or not they gave it to him first which is what alerted Michael to the problem.

    Like

  204. lynande51 permalink
    October 30, 2012 2:22 pm

    Tatum it was their plan all along to send him to Dr. Abrams. That is why Rothman called him with a hypothetical situation and he answered. They got that letter from him on the very day that Jordan “had his tooth pulled”. The hypothetical went out to him two days before that July 14th. Then there is a month where nothing is said and Evan is still trying to get Michael to come alone to a meeting with him. When he does meet with him all he does is give him the letter from Mathis Abrams.That was August 4th, there are still 11 more days before Jordan goes to see Abrams.
    They just used the SA to make Jordan more compliant that’s all. The other thing that tells me it’s true is when Evan says that he was never told the details. Why add that to any part of a police investigation unless there was going to be a question as to how all the details got there in the first place.

    Like

  205. lynande51 permalink
    October 30, 2012 2:03 pm

    In order to believe the sodium amytal we have to buy the notion that Jordan did in fact make sexual allegations under the drugs influence or that Evan was telling the truth in administering it

    Oh I see, the story has be all ot nothing with you.I know you aren’t getting the point of the Sodium Amytal. First let me reitterate that Jordan didn’t actually make any allegation until August 17th to Dr. Abrams. It is their timeline of when Evan found out from Jordan throws everything off for you. Well let me tell you that there is a real possibility that he did nothing of the sort. If you read Ray Chandler’s rebuttal tothe GQ piece he addresses the SA question and his reasoning is how did Jordan get all the details about the rooms they were in right.
    Do I think he made allegations while under the influence, no I don’t. I think that is when the allegations were put there. That is something altogether different and I don’t think from seeing those pictures of Jordan that it was done to him only once. I think it was administered to him on more than one occasion.
    Don’t you think that in a couple of years Jordan was able to figure out that it never happened and what his father did. Why do you think he went for emmancipation and stayed not with Evan but with Nathalie. He found out what his father had done to him.

    Like

  206. October 30, 2012 12:07 pm

    @lyn
    According to Evan, he drugged Jordan and Jordan started confessing to the molestation which we know is most likely a lie. In order to believe the sodium amytal we have to buy the notion that Jordan did in fact make sexual allegations under the drugs influence or that Evan was telling the truth in administering it. The application of sodium amytal couldn’t have had too much of an impact since Jordan told individuals later that it never happened.

    It doesn’t completely wipe Geraldine’s story off the map but Evan never alleged anything under penalty of perjury which was brought out by her. If Evan hadn’t mentioned the drug, where it matters, why conclude it was administered – let alone induced false memories? Like you pointed out, Evan had Jordan in his care for weeks. Children do whatever their parents tell them to especially when they are manipulated and alienated; which is what June alleged in the court documents, Evan wouldn’t have had to drug him.

    Its Mary Fischer’s take that while given the drug a false memory was implanted but sodium amytal doesn’t work that way either. The sexual acts in the other cases discussed were not as detailed and results in more of a blurred memory. These victims believed that there testimony actually took place. Jordan was too graphic with timing and too detailed so to blame his lies on sodium amytal is not likely because apparently he knew it was lies.

    And you are wrong when you say that he told numerous others as well. He told Gardener, the police occasionally, DCFS, and his civil lawyer, possibly a civil trial resulting in numerous – but several would have been a better word.
    As for tone and attack I just have to say that it is good to see that you have not changed and glad to see you back. Likewise. Even though, disagreeing with someone is not attacking them.

    Like

  207. October 30, 2012 4:26 am

    wrote & like.There is a show:Misfits,British,got an BAFTA award,really I don´t know what that is,but said to be the best in it´s genre`.Saw 1 episode today & liked it. It is about a group of convicts doing their community service at a garbage dump and the relationships among them.One is a young homosexual who has the hots for a straight guy & makes this statement:”it´s so much easier to be mean & degrading to someone than admitting you love them, ” I would change “love” for “lust”.

    Like

  208. lynande51 permalink
    October 30, 2012 4:17 am

    And you are wrong when you say that he told numerous others as well. He told the story to Mathis Abrams, DCFS and the Police simultaneously, his attorney and the DA who had Debra Linden in the room with him.That is not that many. You are overlooking his interview with Gardner where he has to keep things in a certain order. Yes that is falsely implanted memory.
    Then there is his statement that Tom Mesereau relates where he denied it to friends years later. Well we don’t know the conversation because he could have simple said his fahter made him lie when he used that drug on him.

    Like

  209. October 30, 2012 4:13 am

    Why would Dr. Torbinger have signed a paper loke that? for the fun of it?

    Like

  210. lynande51 permalink
    October 30, 2012 4:08 am

    And once again Joy spoke to Bill Bray in 1992. Even Gutierrez said so in his book when he relates a conversation he had with Larry Feldman. So he talked to all of the boys that he says he does in the book but even in his book he says that they deny it but of course he adds his spin to it. He was stalking Michael and looking for someone that would agree with him and he found Evan Chandler.

    Like

  211. lynande51 permalink
    October 30, 2012 4:03 am

    @ Tatum yes I believe that he gave Jordan Sodium Amytal. I believe it because I know how the drug works on the brain and how the memory works.You seem to think that it isn’t possible because for some reason in your mind Geraldine Hughes recollection of the events she witnessed somehow cantradicts this and yet in reality it doesn’t.
    Memory is like a series of snapshots it is not a video. There can be great detail in what the person remembers when it is influenced by Sodium Amyta because what happens with the suggestion is that it is implanted ON an existing memory. Everything is there as it should be with new and additional information that was placed there while the person is on the SA.
    I know you don’t believe it. For some reason you just refuse to accept it.
    There are also photos of Jordan in a bathroom without his shirt on and he looks drugged. You and everyone else are mistaken if you think Evan just had one opprtunity to use that drug because he had a full week prior to the tooth extraction and more than a month after it to work on Jordan both with and without SA. Even in their book they admit that Evan lied to Jordan for over an hour when he woke out of the anesthesia about having the room bugged and knowing what was going on. Do you honestly think that would not have an effect on someone coming out of SA. As for Geraldine Hughes I think she saw Jordan being a clam young man because in spite of being fed this information he did not feel the information because it was falsely planted memory. As a matter of fact his reaction that she saw was actually how he would act if he had been given SA and had the memory implanted.
    As for tone and attack I just have to say that it is good to see that you have not changed and glad to see you back.

    Like

  212. October 30, 2012 3:29 am

    Tatum, why , do you, believe Victor Guitirrezrote the book MJWML?

    Like

  213. October 30, 2012 2:11 am

    @vmj
    In theory Gutierrez could contact Evan afterwards and write his book on the basis of the information given to him later. But one point contradicts it – how could Jordan’s name and story be part of those files which were presented to Diane Dimond even before the allegations? I don’t know what you’re talking about- have you seen those files?

    @ald
    Tatum, can you PROVE that VG was NOT investigating Michael before 1993? Without this proof, you still argue he was not involved? I think the marsh mellow man was involved, can you prove he wasn’t? That line of thinking is ridiculous. If you can’t prove his involvement, why believe it? That’s the way it works in the courts, the same courts that vindicating Michael.

    @lyn
    Let’s take this piece by piece. So you believe that Evan used sodium amytal to implant the false memories of molestation in Jordan’s mind? Thus, allowing Jordan to tell the psychiatrist and numerous others of molestation. Yes or No please.

    Like

  214. lynande51 permalink
    October 30, 2012 1:56 am

    Here is the settlement agreement link. It is in paragraph 7 and 11 d that states that he can no longer accuse them of wrongdoing in regards to him. I also have a link to an article that says that Michael publicly withdraws the claim of extortion. Like I said he had to do that because Larry Feldman said that it was Jordan that they accused of extortion and it forced Pellicano to swear out a declaration tht it was Evan that they accused of extortion.

    Like

  215. lynande51 permalink
    October 30, 2012 1:37 am

    Actually the part where Michael has to publicly withdraw the charges is right in the settlement agreement. Let me see if I can find it and point it out to you.

    Like

  216. lynande51 permalink
    October 30, 2012 1:33 am

    In his book Jermaine fixes the date that Joy Robson reported to Bill Bray that she spoke with Victor Gutierrez as the summer of 1992.

    Like

  217. October 30, 2012 12:58 am

    Good luck to William Wagener!!

    Oh yes, good luck to William Wagener!

    Susanne has sent us a photo from Germany:

    Here is a petition in support of William Wagener’s affidavit against Tom Sneddon:

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/662/053/218/support-of-affidavit-concerning-criminal-conduct-of-tom-sneddon-2005-michael-jackson-trial/

    Like

  218. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 30, 2012 12:38 am

    “he projected his own views and feelings onto every piece of information he handled and interpreted everything he heard and saw in a totally specific light typical of someone who is gravely sick himself.”

    VMJ, this is so exactly spot on, thank you!! and the police and the media lapped it up, to their everlasting shame.The police were so aggressive and coercive in their questioning. They had bought VG’s lies and needed proof so they used all kinds of manipulations and lies, similar to what the tabloids did to their ‘sources.” This explains why Corey Feldman had to repeat ‘nothing happened’ for an hour! I wonder how the ‘evidence’ of Michael’s penis was constructed? When Pellicano questioned Jordan, he said he never saw Michael naked, except once Michael lifted his shirt and Jordan saw ‘blotches.’

    There is so much evil and darkness here. It reminds me a lot of the Salem witch trials, which broke the power of the Puritan theocracy in USA, leading to the separation of church and state in the Constitution. I wish this whole story of Michael would lead to new restraints on the press and the prosecutors.

    Good luck to William Wagener!!

    Like

  219. October 30, 2012 12:36 am

    “Helena through your reader Shelly I have the Neverland Five Appeal Decision. Here it is” – Lynande

    Thank you very much! My big thanks to Shelly, it is a great find!

    The document is impressive. I wish Thomas Mesereau could read some quotes from it at the 2005 trial. What scum of the earth these people are!

    So Adrian McManus most probably had other sketches besides the one of Elvis.
    She and others spoke to Gutierrez.
    A “so-called journalist” in application to Gutierrez sounds nice.
    The attorney forbade McManus to answer questions about Gutierrez which points to his usual presence in the story.
    He put his nose into this business too.
    He is mentioned twice here.
    They sold a story about Michael’s marriage though they knew nothing – MJ was living in his wife’s house and didn’t stay in Neverland.
    McManus herself said she didn’t know anything.
    And McManus was so obstructionist that even the judge exclaimed he could not hear it any longer.
    Instead McManus preferred to sing her stories to Gutierrez (judging by his book).
    And she had the cheek to end the deposition by saying “Enough is enough. Time to go home”?
    As far as I remember Michael Jackson was deposed for three days in Mexico 7 hours each day – over his own songs. And this was during his Dangerous tour. He also had to perform.

    I wonder what the media would have said if Michael Jackson behaved that way at his deposition? In Mexico or anywhere else? If he did not answer 78 questions and they stood up and said “Enough is enough. Time to go home”?
    There would have been a hurracaine of resentment, a sea of ridicule and an uproar about the weirdest of all freaks.

    And McManus is treated like a respectable lady.
    Though besides all that she also stole money from the two children who were placed in her care.

    I think I need to invite Shelly back to the blog in reply to this generous gift (if she promises not to speak in support of AEG of course).

    Like

  220. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 30, 2012 12:10 am

    Tatum, can you PROVE that VG was NOT investigating Michael before 1993? Without this proof, you still argue he was not involved?This does not make sense to me.

    I hope proof that he was involved will be found–for example, Joy Robeson’s account needs to have a date fixed to it. Sometimes probability has an necessary place. This is also scientific–for example, the theory of the structure of the atom. You construct a theory that fits the evidence at hand, that explains the results seen. The probability is great that VG was involved before 93– this is strongly verified by the evidence.

    In the meantime, why don’t you wait and see and at least have an open mind, since you have no proof against his involvement??

    Like

  221. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 29, 2012 11:51 pm

    “Somewhere on here , I thought I read that VG said he came here as a photographer and decided to stay in the states..Unless, I am remembering it wrong..But if that was the case , why didnt he become a photographer instead of a supposed journalist..? and how do you free lance and get to stay in the states if you arent a citizen and somebody isnt sponsoring you?I wonder if his assignment all along was to come her to look for dirt on MJ before he even went arrived in LA or any Nambla meeting he attended in the states,,,I would think he would have to do something with immigration and give them a specific reason he was staying on, but I could be wrong….”

    Nannorris, I assume he came here on a visa that he got as part of the 1984 Olympics coverage as a photographer. Whether this was a tourist visa (6 months) or another kind of visa for work purposes) I don’t know, but there is no doubt he was and is NOT a citizen of USA, and so he was probably here illegally at some point when his visa ran out (although he may have gotten it renewed if he really was working for a Latino paper). Lots of people are here illegally and get away with it.

    His story is that he worked on collecting ‘evidence’ about Michael as a pedo, tried to get the police unit on Sexually Exploited Children interested in his ‘manuscript’ and they were not. He then had to cool his heels and sold satellite dishes for a while (GQ article). Then he saw photos in the tabloids of Jordan Chandler with Michael and that restarted his involvement. There was a National Enquirer story “Michael’s New Adopted Family” he might have seen, or photos of the Monaco WMA trip.

    In order to get pedophilia accepted as ‘normal’, it has to be portrayed in a way that the public will most likely be sympathetic to– namely, as a consensual love relationship. This is more palatable than talking about the darker sides of pedo land, as in the real situations of Sandusky, Saville, Gary Glitter, etc and the real suffering of the victims, who are still upset and angry years later. In the case of Jordan, it was watered down into Michael’s supposed grooming, persuading, crying, and saying this is ‘normal’ between ‘friends.’ The idea that Jordan, who supposedly was pretty independent, would go along and just accept this as ‘normal’ is amazing. Also, like Gavin, Jordan claimed to be naive and did not even know the name ‘wet dream’ at age 13! So being so naive (LOL), he did not even know this was not normal to have sex with an older man, and did not tell his parents or anyone til he got sodium amytal.

    What can never be overlooked is greed–the search for money, on the part of the extortionists, the lawyers, the media, the ones who sold their stories, DD, Bashir, etc., and even VG, although he had his pedo agenda as well. VG no doubt was well paid by Court TV for being DD’s source, and when he went with the videotape story, I am sure he got a big payoff. If B. Francia got $20,000 for her shower story, VG got way more for his. VG did not need to lie about investigating Michael before 1993, there was no financial incentive b/c it did not affect the price he would get from the media–what affected the price was what he had to say about specific people and events.

    VG, like many media people, used Michael as a way to make themselves rich and famous. However, VG also is a pedo, and has been connected to that in Chile as well. In a recent case, he gave street boys who attended a luxurious party 10,000 pesos, a lot of money for street boys. There are scandals about him in Chile as well.

    Yes, he may have come to USA with some kind of intro to NAMBLA, maybe he knew a few well connected members in LA?

    Lynande, what I read is that the police closed their investigation into the extortion filing on Jan. 24, 94, stating that they would not press charges b/c there was not enough evidence, Michael had filed too late, etc, and the settlement was announced the next day. It was another reason to settle from Michael’s point of view. I also read that he was so upset physically and emotionally that Liz Taylor and LMP were working with his legal team, meeting frequently, and they decided that Michael was in no condition to face a long trial. He was not eating, lost weight, stressed to the max.

    So VG found out about the new boy Jordan and that added to the list he already had (he said the P.I. gave him 36 boys to check originally), and then he went to work. I want to check Geraldine Hughes book again. Something happened between May 93 and July 93 to get Evan fired up. In the tape he states “Michael’s career will be over”, “He will not sell another record.” That has to mean the allegation of molestation–what else could end his career? And sadly, although it happened slowly over time and involved the whole mess resurfacing in 03-05, it did end his career and his life.

    Like

  222. lynande51 permalink
    October 29, 2012 11:35 pm

    Most of what Geraldine Huges witnessed did not include Jordan. Most of what she saw, did and overheard were about Evan. Jordan was not always there. What she wants people to know is that this was planned and Rothman and Chandler were together in it.

    Like

  223. lynande51 permalink
    October 29, 2012 11:19 pm

    @ Tatum Maybe you could explain why it is that you think that the Sodium Amytal part disregards Gerladine Huges account of what she witnessed.
    You still don’t understand that the two events are not mutually exclusive because of how Sodium Amytal works on the brain.

    Like

  224. October 29, 2012 11:07 pm

    “Once again, we are guessing and that’s a huge issue for me. You are forcing him into the picture when there are no hard facts placing him there.” – Tatum

    In theory Gutierrez could contact Evan afterwards and write his book on the basis of the information given to him later.

    But one point contradicts it – how could Jordan’s name and story be part of those files which were presented to Diane Dimond even before the allegations ?

    Like

  225. October 29, 2012 10:47 pm

    “I think in order for him to get as close as he did to these people he told them he was either an agent or sent by the FBI or some other investigative unit to ask questions about Michael and children. Do I think he was? No I think he portrayed himself as one but in fact was an informant or agent for NAMBLA.”

    Lynande, an FBI agent or police agent Gutierrez surely wasn’t. I spent the whole day looking for information how to become an FBI or special agent in the US (I hope none of our authorities check up my computer!). It turned out that it is very difficult – it is a federal level and a highly competitive job. Lots of requirements, good education, intellectual, physical tests, etc.

    And Gutierrez himself said that when he presented his findings to the police they thought him to be a “nobody” – so there can be no doubt that he was indeed a nobody who only bragged about his “secret agent status”. And there is no doubt either that he portrayed himself that way to the people he talked to.

    Like

  226. October 29, 2012 10:37 pm

    @lyn
    Most of what Tobiner did in his practice was illegal but that doesn’t alter the fact that the document doesn’t prove he administered sodium amytal. You don’t have to be a nurse to know that Sodium amytal is not the only anesthetic in the world, and that’s concluding if the document is authentic in the first place. As a media designer, I can definitely tell you that it is very simple to put someone’s signature on the document.

    At this point I would like to say that Mary Fischer also saw that and questioned Mark Torbiner about it. His cryptic reply was in fact ” if I gave it I gave it for dental purposes”. This is not a confession, it’s a disclaimer – he gave out many drugs, illegally. The only way the Sodium amytal theory works is if you completely disregard Geraldine Hughes account of events. Sodium amytal was Evan’s lie on how he found out about the allegations. Mary Fischer got it wrong; she dwelled on information that was given to her by an unreliable source.

    As for Victor considering what he is why would he not be able to help Evan with the details of any statement. Once again, we are guessing and that’s a huge issue for me. You are forcing him into the picture when there are no hard facts placing him there.

    Like

  227. October 29, 2012 10:09 pm

    Here is the example of a tiny truth from Gutierrez in combination with lies, misinterpretation and a repetition of his false mantras about boys:

    “what seemed peculiar to Adrian was that Jackson had both a bible as well as toys of black magic and occult objects in his room. “It seemed contradictory to me that he had Christian and Satanic objects at the same time,” said Adrian. “The boys would get frightened when they played with those things. Out of pure fright, they would finish the game and all of them would sleep in Jackson’s bed.” Perhaps this had been his objective.”

    The tiny truth is that Michael had the bible in his room, but all that “satanism” was like this:

    Has any of you ever heard Sneddon speak about Satanic objects in Michael’s room? Or have I simply missed something?

    Like

  228. October 29, 2012 9:24 pm

    “It is absolutely correct that in the lie is an element of the truth.” To find it first you have to dissect the lie and the small portions of the truth are in there.” – lynande 51

    Yes, lies are much easier to swallow when they are mixed with the truth – this way they look credible. It is a well-known method used by tabloids. A source criticizing media explains how it works (I am not giving a link as it has to do with politics, but the points about lies are universal). Gutierrez uses all of these:

    repeating a lie

    George Orwell along with many infamous propagandists have said that if you repeat a lie frequently enough, people will take it to be true.

    telling the truth

    If the media selectively tells the truth on points where an ideological agenda or sponsorship is not at risk, that opportunity can be used to tell the truth and gain viewer confidence. It is critically important to occasionally tell the truth in order to maintain credibility or legitimacy.

    lies as truth

    Run a story or headline that you know isn’t true to support your point of view. In a subtler form, mis translate or misquote to suit.

    the big lie technique

    Tell a lie so large that no one will question the authenticity because of the size of the lie. This is a time tested, proven propaganda technique and used by the most infamous of media controllers and propagandists.

    Here is the example of a big lie in Gutierrez’s presentation, or rather a story implying a big lie. He tries so hard that the result is even funny:

    They were used to covering up for Jackson. Once the gardener found a small skeleton buried at Jackson’s ranch, and showed it to Kassim Abdul. “It looked like a baby,” commented Abdul. “There were small bones. But nobody at the ranch could tell whether it was a baby or whether it was a small dog, as someone suggested. “My superiors told me that it was just a dog and I shouldn’t say anything to the authorities. They said that I shouldn’t even mention it again to the other employees.” Nobody has spoken of it again, nor reported it to the authorities,” said Abdul.

    Like

  229. lynande51 permalink
    October 29, 2012 6:49 pm

    And by the way Helena is absolutely correct that in the lie is an element of the truth. To find it first you have to dissect the lie and the small portions of the truth are in there.

    Like

  230. lynande51 permalink
    October 29, 2012 6:26 pm

    I agree with Helena 100%. First of all there is alot more “documentation” out there in the court systems that would tell us much more about Victor Gutierrez.
    I think in order for him to get as close as he did to these people he told them he was either and agent or sent by the FBI or some other investigative unit to ask questions about Michael and children.
    Do I think he was? No I think he portrayed himself as one but in fact was an informant or agent for NAMBLA. I don’t think doubt that one bit. Reporters can go undercover as well unless they work for a specific publication then they must identify themselves as reporters.
    I think too many pepople dismiss him and underestimate him and they forget a very important fact. He was working on the asumption that there would be a criminal trial.
    My information about Brett and Wade comes from Jermaine’s book. He was the one that said that Joy Robson contacted Bill Bray and told him about talking to Gutierrez in the summer of 1992 one full year before Jordan.I believe Jermaine because I think Michae’s security team was aware of him and in an attempt to protect him the hired Pellicano and Bert Fields. Whether Michael was fully aware of what was going on is another story because his staff often did not keep him completely aware of all the threats that he got and Michael couldn’t have taken the number of them that he did get.

    Like

  231. October 29, 2012 2:59 pm

    “we don’t have to agree as long as we don’t attack each other.”

    Tatum, I am not attacking – I am explaining the method. And it is a purely scientific method used in subjects like history, for example (reconstruction of a text by its pieces or reconstruction of the events through comparing various souces). When the result was obtained by a scientific method you cannot just say “I don’t agree with it”. Researchers often disagree with each other, but then they should present their own findings and prove them.

    “Maybe, but it is far-fetched to conclude that he is lying about the statements he made in discussion? How do we make the distinction between his lies and his truth?’

    You amaze me. If you are talking about the false video tape, it is absolutely not far-fetched to think that Gutierrez was lying – his lies were proven in court, the tape was non-existent. If you are doubting his statement that he “investigated” MJ for a long time, we have no reason to doubt his words, because we have two facts to prove them – the police summoned him among the first witnesses and talked to him for several hours on two days. We also have Dimond’s “testimony” about the way she received the files collected for a long period of time too. Could she lie? Theoretically she could, but I do not see any motive for it.

    People lie for a reason. And if there is no reason (motive) and especially if they do only harm to themselves by their stories, this is a sign of some truth in their words. Gutierrez did not know that he would harm himself by disclosing that he followed MJ before 1993, and therefore didn’t see reason to keep this information to himself. On the contrary he wanted everyone to know about it – “he was the first to out the “criminal”. No one has yet refuted the fact that he worked against MJ before 1993, by the way.

    He also harmed himself greatly by talking about his attendance of the NAMBLA conference, so there is every reason to believe that this is truth, only told by accident. He was sure that he would get away with all those explanations and that no one will pay attention (and no one did for so many years). Over here he was either reckless and too sure of himself or completely mad and psychotic.

    Both variants are possible, and both will suit me all right, because in the first variant Diane Dimond relied on information of a pedophile and his fantasies, and in the second variant she relied on information of a complete madman and his hallucinations.

    You say it is impossible to tell lies from the truth. But how do you do it in everyday life?

    “It’s not my version of things its about what’s documented”.

    What exactly is documented? Please make it clearer.

    Like

  232. lynande51 permalink
    October 29, 2012 2:44 pm

    The unspeakable tragedy in Michael’s life was that Sneddon believed these people because he was so consumed with being right. Why didn’t he search for this information in the court of appeals before he put these people on the stand to once again slander Michael.
    This is what way too many people don’t get about Gutierrez being found guilty in civil court of slander. HE is the one that is guilty of slander. It does not matter if it was a tape he was talking about or in a book no matter what medium he used HE was the one slandering Michael.The individual story doesn’t matter because by law and by logic one can assume that when Victor Gutierrez talks or writes about Michael it is a lie even if he puts them in the mouths of other people.
    And his book is how you know that he was part and parcel of the story that Evan had Jordan tell and that is how you know it was a lie.How do we know that? Because he did it several times until he had to leave the country. Blanca Francia can be attributed to him, each one of the Neverland Five can be attributed to him and so it is not a reach at all to believe that the Chandler’s can be attributed to him.

    Like

  233. lynande51 permalink
    October 29, 2012 2:11 pm

    Here is the important part about Victor and what the Appeals court says about him just so it is up front.

    Pursuant to the Court’s order, Appellant McManus’ continued deposition occurred on Monday, June 24, 1996 at 10:00 am in Santa Barbara. Before that date Respondents learned about other tabloid media contacts by the Appellants. Appellant McManus (as well as Appellants Abdool, Bagnall and Chacon) had extensive conversations with Victor Gutierrez, a so-called journalist Who intended to self-publish a book full of “gossip” about Michael Jackson. Mr. Gutierrez’s book, which was published in Spanish before the McManus *9 deposition, was replete with verbatim quotes attributed to the Appellants. Appellant McManus, herself, is quoted on the dust jacket of the book. (AA, 469)
    Appellants’ counsel, Mr. Ring and Mr. Francis, obstructed the deposition and attempted to limit the questioning to two questions: (1) Did McManus have any contact with Peter Burt; and (2) How did McManus obtain the one sketch that was already discovered?

    Like

  234. lynande51 permalink
    October 29, 2012 2:05 pm

    Oh and even Jordan’s statements say that he was put to sleep and had a tooth pulled. I think they originally thought the world would see the SA as a truth serum and that is what prompted Jordan to tell the truth.
    Unfortunately for them within months of the settlement came the conclusion to the Holly Ramona case in which it was found that a therapist using SA on Holly produced false memories of her being abused by her father. After that the Chandler’s could no longer use it as a truth serum story and instead used it to get out of testifying.

    Like

  235. lynande51 permalink
    October 29, 2012 2:00 pm

    APPELLATE SANCTIONS ARE WARRANTED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE APPEAL IS TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY WITHOUT MERIT AND IS PROSECUTED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HARASSMENT AND DELAY AND IS, THEREFORE, FRIVOLOUS.

    I think that is my favorite part of that whole document. The Neverland Five were even sanctioned by the Appeals Court for the reasons stated right there. You don’t get much more proof than that that they lied.

    Like

  236. lynande51 permalink
    October 29, 2012 1:53 pm

    @ tatum
    A Doctor like Mark Torbiner would never have put the name of the drug on the Consent for Administration of Anesthesia on that form. In case it has escaped you what he was doing was in fact illegal.
    What it has on the consent is IV solution. Since I am a nurse of several years experience I can tell you that 1. You don’t need consent for IV solution because they are all replacement fluids meaning things like Normal Saline and Lacated RIngers and D5W and others. They are all just fluid. 2. That in order to give something like Sodium Amytal you must also run an IV fluid. 3. Toradal would not put Jordan to sleep and would not require a consent because it is an NSAID like Aleve.
    At this point I would like to say that Mary Fischer also saw that and questioned Mark Torbiner about it. His cryptic reply was in fact ” if I gave it I gave it for dental purposes”. Now what is it about the Sodium Amytal that you find so difficult to accept.
    As for Victor considering what he is why would he not be able to help Evan with the details of any statement. And the only thing they have offered as a detailed description of their account is in fact Jordan’s Gardner interview.

    Like

  237. lynande51 permalink
    October 29, 2012 1:28 pm

    Helena through your reader Shelly I have the Neverland Five Appeal Decision. Here it is

    Kassim ABDOOL, Ralph Chacon, Adrian McManus, Melanie Bagnall, Sandi Domz, Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Assoc., and Law Offices of Barber & Gray Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Michael J. JACKSON, James Van Norman, Tony Coleman, Marcus Johnson, Bill Bray, Bettye Bailey, and Andrew Merritt Defendants and Respondents.
    1997 WL 33801664
    Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6, California.
    Appellate Brief

    1997 WL 33801664 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.) (Appellate Brief)
    Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6, California.
    Kassim ABDOOL, Ralph Chacon, Adrian McManus, Melanie Bagnall, Sandi Domz, Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Assoc., and Law Offices of Barber & Gray Plaintiffs and Appellants,
    v.
    Michael J. JACKSON, James Van Norman, Tony Coleman, Marcus Johnson, Bill Bray, Bettye Bailey, and Andrew Merritt Defendants and Respondents.
    No. B104055.
    April 7, 1997.
    Santa Barbara Superior Court No. SM 89344
    Consolidated with SBSC No. SM 91416
    On Appeal from the Santa Barbara County Superior Court The Honorable Zel Canter, Judge Presiding
    Respondents’ Brief

    Katten Muchin & Zavi, Steve Cochran (Bar No. 105541), 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400, Los Angeles, California 90067-6042, (310) 788-4400.

    Sanger & Swysen, Robert M. Sanger (Bar No. 58214), Deborah J. Bishop (Bar No. 176201), Charles E. Tillage (Bar No.177983), 233 E. Carrillo St., Ste. C, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, (805) 962-4887, Attorneys for Respondents.

    *i Table of Contents

    Table of Contents … i

    Table of Authorities … iii

    Statement of the Case … 1

    The Standard of Review on Appeal … 2

    Appealability … 2

    Statement of Facts … 3

    I. The Sanctions for Failure to Produce Documents … 3

    II. The Sanctions for the Deposition of Adrian McManus … 7

    A. The Court Reopened the McManus Deposition … 7

    B. The Morning Session … 9

    C. The Afternoon Session … 11

    D. The Hearing … 12

    Argument … 13

    III. The Sanctions Order Entered on May 24, 1996, For $2,000 is not Appealable … 13

    IV. Appellants were Properly sanctioned $2,000 for Lying About Evidence and for the Failure to Produce ubpoenaed Documents … 15

    A. The Subpoenas were Properly Issued … 15

    B. Even if the Subpoenas Were Defective, Appellants Were Sanctioned for Lying to the Court and Counsel About the Existence of Documents … 17

    V. Sanctions for The McManus Deposition Were Just and Proper … 18

    A. The Waste of Time and Money Caused by Appellants’ Tactics in the Morning Session … 20

    B. The Impropriety of Appellants in the Afternoon Session … 21

    C. Appellants and/or Their Counsel Should Bear the Expense for Time lost, This Motion and Further Depositions of McManus … 21

    *ii D. The Trial Court’s Award of $8,970.50 Sanctions is Amply Supported by the Record … 22

    VI. Appellate Sanctions are Warranted on the Grounds That The Appeal is Totally and Completely Without Merit and is Prosecuted Solely for the Purpose of harassment and Delay is, Therefore, Frivolous … 24

    A. An Appeal is Frivolous When the Appeal Lacks Merit … 24

    B. An Appeal is Frivolous if Prosecuted For An Improper Notice … 24

    C. Sanctions Are Warranted Under the Facts of this Case … 25

    Conclusion … 25
    *iii Table of Authorities

    Case Law

    Alliance Bank v. Murray (1984) 161 Cal.App. 3d 1 [207 Cal.Rptr. 233] … 2, 23

    Ballard v. Taylor (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1736 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 384 … 3

    Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256 [24 Cal.Rptr.2d 501] … 20

    Hedley v. Rechti (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1553 [16 Cal.Rptr.2d 151] … 2, 23

    In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637 [183 Cal.Rptr. 508] … 23, 24

    Rail-Transport Employees v. Union Pacific Motor Freight (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 469 [54 Cal.Rptr. 713] … 3, 14

    Ruvalcaba v. Government Employees Ins. Co. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1579 [272 Cal.Rptr. 541] … 17

    Scherrer v. Plaza Marina Coml. Corp. (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 520 [94 Cal.Rptr. 857] … 2

    Zimmerman v. Drexel, Burnham & Lambert, Inc. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 153 [252 Cal.Rptr. 115] … 23, 24

    Statutes

    California Code of Civil Procedure 904.1 … 7, 13, 14

    California Code of Civil Procedure 907 … 24

    California Code of Civil Procedure 1985.3(a)(1) … 15, 16

    California Rule of Court 10(c) … 1

    California Rule of Court 5.1(i)(1) … 1, 2

    California Rule of Court 5.1 (i)(2) … 1, 2

    California Rule of Court 5.1 (j) … 7

    California Rule of Court 13 … 1, 2

    California RuLe of Court 15 … 1, 2

    California Rule of Court 26(a) … 24
    *1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
    Appellants are the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs’ lawyers in the trial court below. Respondents are the Defendants and Respondent Michael Jackson is also a Cross-Complainant below.
    This appeal is apparently taken from two orders imposing monetary sanctions on Appellants (Appellants’ Opening Brief, hereinafter A.O.B., ¶1) although. Appellants have not filed or presented the orders to this Court[FN1]:
    FN1. Appellants have failed to comply with numerous California Rules of Court, including 10(c), 5.1(i)(1) and (2), 13 and 15. They have also made blatant misrepresentations to this Court. These matters are the subject of the Omnibus Motion for Dismissal of Appeal filed concurrently herewith.
    1. An order of May 24, 1996, imposing sanctions in the amount of $2,000 against Appellants for lying about the existence of, and failing to produce documents pursuant to, a subpoena, compliance with which had been ordered on March 25, 1996;
    2. An order of July 23, 1996, imposing sanctions in the amount of $8,970.50, plus additional court reporter fees and costs in an amount to be established, for “obstructionist” tactics during the court ordered re-opened deposition of Adrian McManus[FN2].
    FN2. Thereafter, prior to trial and during trial, Appellants were sanctioned several additional times for lying to the court, perjury by each of the Appellants, collusion by their lawyers, destruction and spoliation of evidence, failure to make discovery and for violation of court orders.
    There are three additional appeals presently pending, B105480, B106880, B108051 and one recently filed that has not been assigned a number as of this writing. In addition, the jury returned a verdict on March 16, 1997, for Respondents. We respecfully ask this court to take judicial notice of said matters.
    A Notice of Appeal was filed on July 23, 1996, and a Notice to Proceed under California Rule of Court 5.1 was filed on August 2, 1996. (Appellants’ Appendix, hereinafter “AA,” 651 and 654)

    *2 THE STANDARD OF REVIEW ON APPEAL

    The standard of review of sanction orders is whether or not there has been an abuse of discretion. ( Hedley v. Ruchti (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1553, 1601 [16 Cal.Rptr.2d 151].) The Appellant has the burden of showing that the lower court abused its discretion. ( Alliance Bank v. Murray (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 1, 10 [207 Cal.Rptr. 233]; citing Scherrer v. Plaza Marina Coml. Corp. (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 520, 524 [94 Cal.Rptr. 857].) In reviewing discovery sanctions, the appellate court will reverse only when it is shown that the trial court’s decision was “ ‘arbitrary, capricious or whimsical…’ ” ( Hedley v. Ruchti, supra, at 1601; quoting Alliance Bank v. Murray, supra, at 10.)

    APPEALABILITY

    Appellants appeal from two separate sanctions orders. The first discovery sanctions order in the amount of $2,000.00 was issued from the bench on May 24, 1996. (Reporter’s Transcript, hereinafter “R.T.,”, 92.) This first order was based on Appellants’ lying about and failure to comply with the trial court’s orders compelling Appellants’ counsel to produce documents pursuant to the subpoenas duces tecum served on Appellants Barber and Gray and Ring. (AA, Vol. I, 186-195; Vol. I, 270, ¶ 2) The order was entered on May 24, 1996[FN3] and payment was stayed until July 12, 1996. (AA, Vol. III, 585-586.) This order is non *3 appealable under Code of Civil Procedure § 904.1(a)(12) since it is for less than $5,000. Rail-Transport Employees Assoc. v. Union Pacific Motor Freight, (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 469 [54 Cal.Rptr. 713] (under § 904.1(a)(12) only discovery sanctions orders in excess of $5,000 are appealable); Ballard v. Taylor, (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1736 [25 Cal.Rptr. 384] (prior to amendment of § 904.1, all discovery sanctions were non-appealable).
    FN3. Appellants have failed to comply with California Rules of Court 5.1, 13 and 15 and have not submitted a copy of this order. They have also omitted from the Reporter’s Transcript any reference to the actual findings and orders of the trial court. The context of the Reporter’s Transcript submitted makes it clear that the actual orders were made before the transcribed portion begins. (See, R.T. 83-94)
    The second discovery sanctions order is in the amount of $8,970.50 which was issued from the bench on July 23, 1996. (R.T., 180-185.) That sanction order does come within the exception to the code. The appeal from the $2,000 sanction order should be dismissed and sanctions should be assessed against appellants for their frivolous appeal of that order.

    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    I. THE SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS.
    On January 30, 1996, the Respondents in this case learned that the Star Magazine had published in its February 6, 1996 issue an article entitled “Michael Jackson’s Bizarre Marriage: What Really Went On Behind Closed Doors” based on an interview of the five Appellants in this case and featuring their pictures. (AA, 211.)
    Respondents immediately brought the Star article to the attention of the Court on January 31, 1996, at a hearing on Respondents’ motion to compel deposition of Kassim Abdool and Timothy McManus. (AA, 211.) The Court indicated that discovery about the Star article and media contacts was a permissible area of discovery. (AA, 211.)
    On February 7, 1996, the tabloid television magazine “Inside Edition” featured an interview of Sandi Domz covering the same *4 matters as the Star Article. (AA, 211-212.) Sandi Domz was interviewed at the Santa Barbara Courthouse and at her counsel’s office. (AA, 222.)
    Respondents conducted discovery relating to the Star article and any other media contacts as soon as practicable. They utilized all available means of discovery out of an abundance of caution. However, Appellants stonewalled every effort to obtain discovery in this area. (AA, 212.)
    On February 9, 1996, Respondent Michael Jackson propounded a Demand for Production of Documents on Melanie Bagnall, Ralph Chacon, Kassim Abdool, Adrian McManus and Sandi Domz asking for the production of certain publications. Respondent Jackson also propounded special interrogatories covering the same subject matter, on each individual Appellants. Appellants served their response to the Requests for Production of Documents on March 4, 1996, and their Responses to the Special Interrogatories on March 14, 1996. These responses contained only objections. In addition to boiler plate objections, Appellants objected on the ground that
    “… it calls for the production, identification and/or disclosure of any documents after the date set for the discovery cut-off in this action.” (AA, 202-203,)
    It was revealed during depositions that counsel for Appellants were directly involved in setting up the interview for the Star article and Inside Edition. (AA, 239.) Therefore, on February 15, 1996, Respondents served two subpoenas for the Production of Business Records on the Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Associates and on the Law Offices of Barber & Gray, respectively. (AA, 186-195.) Said subpoenas ordered the two law offices to produce a *5 series of documents pertaining either to the Star article, the Inside Edition interview or any other media contact. The documents requested were to be produced on March 1, 1996, to the deposition officer, the U.S. Photocopy Service. (AA, 186, 191.)
    On or about March 2, 1996, the day after that designated for the production of the subpoenaed records, the Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Associates and the Law Offices of Barber & Gray mailed to the deposition officer, but not on Respondents, two pleadings entitled “Objections of Custodian of Records of Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Associates” and “Objections of Custodian of Records of Law Offices of Barber & Gray”. (AA, 242-247) The envelopes containing the papers were postmarked March 2, 1996 and the papers were received by U.S. Photocopy Service on March 4, 1996. (AA, 244, 247). The two law offices objected to the subpoenas on the ground that they were defective for failure to check the boxes under item 1 and for failure to comply with the consumer notice requirements.
    Meanwhile, Respondents attempted to elicit information about the Star Articld, the Inside Edition segment and any other contact with the media during the depositions of Kassim Abdool, Melanie Bagnall and Sandi Domz. (AA, 212.) Respondents encountered an extraordinary amount of resistance on the part of the deponents. (AA, 212.) The testimony of the Appellants was interrupted by countless conferences between Appellants’ counsel and Appellants. (AA, 212.) In addition, all of the Appellants deposed claimed they could not recall any specifics. (AA, 214-241.)
    On March 13, 1996, Appellants filed a “brief” regarding the subpoenas duces tecum. (AA, 175-200.) Respondents filed their *6 opposition on March 25, 1996. (AA, 201-267.) On March 25, 1996, the Court heard argument and ordered that Appellants’ counsel comply with the subpoenas issued to them relating to transactions with the news and entertainment media and further ordered that all materials be hand delivered by March 29, 1996. (AA, 270.) The documents delivered pursuant to the order were obviously incomplete. (AA, 27-273.)
    Appellants continued to deny that there were any other documents. Appellants faxed two letters claiming that all documents in their possession had been produced. (AA, 280-282.) On April 5, 1996, Respondents made a further ex parte application for compelling compliance with the subpoenas duces tecum, and sought $1,500 in sanctions. (AA, 268-276.) Appellant Ring even filed a declaration under penalty of perjury that all documents had been produced. (AA, 277-279.)
    By May 17, 1996, Respondents had obtained concrete evidence that Appellants had lied about possessing additional documents. On that day, Respondents filed a supplemental declaration in support of the motion to compel compliance by Appellants’ counsel with the subpoenas duces tecum. (AA, 283-344.) The supplemental declaration disclosed evidence that Appellants’ counsel had withheld numerous documents concerning correspondence with members of the tabloid media. (AA, 283-286.) Included in these withheld documents was at least one sketch of Elvis Presley by Michael Jackson, which Appellants Adrian McManus had stolen from Mr. Jackson. (AA, 287.) The motion to compel included a request for $5,000 in sanctions for attorney’s fees on the motion to compel. (AA, 286.)
    *7 On May 24, 1996, the Court heard Respondents’ motion to compel. (R.T., 83-92.)[FN4] The Court granted the motion and awarded $2,000 in sanctions, which were stayed until July 12, 1996. (R.T., 92.)
    FN4. Again, however, Appellants omitted the portion of the transcript during which the trial court made its findings and rulings on Respondents’ motion. Since it was granted, the record before this Court can only leave the conclusion that the trial court made adverse findings, that is that Appellants lied and perjured themselves when denying that they had any additional documents.
    Respondents have sought leave of this Court under California Rule of Court 5.1(j) for the preparation of additional transcripts which will bear this assumption out.
    II. THE SANCTIONS FOR THE DEPOSITION OF ADRIAN MCMANUS.
    A. THE COURT REOPENED THE MCMANUS DEPOSITION
    At the May 24, 1996 hearing, the Court also re-opened discovery .to permit Respondents to take the deposition of Adrian McManus. (R.T., 89.; AA 345-381.) Respondents’ motion to reopen pertained to two areas: (1) discovery of materials stolen from Respondents by Appellants; and (2) contacts with the tabloid media. These two areas were opened up because Respondents had caught Appellants lying about a particular sketch and a particular contact with one tabloid media broker. It was not the intention of themotion or the trial court to limit the questioning to the precise purloined sketch and one conversation which Respondents already knew about and which formed the basis for further inquiry.
    The necessity to reopen McManus’ deposition became apparent during the deposition of tabloid media broker Gary Morgan. Mr. Morgan revealed that Ms. McManus provided him with an original (stolen) sketch of Elvis Presley, drawn by Mr. Jackson, which appeared in a tabloid magazine. (AA, 320) In addition, Mr. Morgan *8 testified that the February 6, 1996 Star tabloid magazine article contains quotes from McManus that were not obtained by him. (AA, 364) Peter Burt wrote the February 6, 1996 article and based upon Morgan’s testimony, spoke directly with McManus or completely made up certain quotes attributed to McManus in the article. (AA, 371) In any case, the need to question both Appellant McManus and Burt became evident.
    Respondents filed a motion with the Court for permission to depose McManus and Burt. (AA, 345-387) No opposition was submitted by the Appellants. The Court granted the motion during the day-long session on May 24, 1996. (R.T., 89.)
    Appellants’ counsel asked the Court to order that Respondents not be allowed to examine McManus about “everything under the sun.” The Court stated that the deposition would be limited and defense counsel agreed. (R.T., 89.) Although the Court did not specify the limitations of McManus’ further deposition, a review of the hearing transcript and Respondents’ moving papers indicates that the trial court meant to restrict examination to discovery previously thwarted by appellants’ lies and deception including documents not turned over and contacts with the tabloid media.
    Pursuant to the Court’s order, Appellant McManus’ continued deposition occurred on Monday, June 24, 1996 at 10:00 am in Santa Barbara. Before that date Respondents learned about other tabloid media contacts by the Appellants. Appellant McManus (as well as Appellants Abdool, Bagnall and Chacon) had extensive conversations with Victor Gutierrez, a so-called journalist Who intended to self-publish a book full of “gossip” about Michael Jackson. Mr. Gutierrez’s book, which was published in Spanish before the McManus *9 deposition, was replete with verbatim quotes attributed to the Appellants. Appellant McManus, herself, is quoted on the dust jacket of the book. (AA, 469)
    Appellants’ counsel, Mr. Ring and Mr. Francis, obstructed the deposition and attempted to limit the questioning to two questions: (1) Did McManus have any contact with Peter Burt; and (2) How did McManus obtain the one sketch that was already discovered?
    B. THE MORNING SESSION
    Kelly Francis represented McManus during the morning session of her deposition on June 24, 1997. He began the morning session by claiming that the deposition was limited to two issues: (1) the Elvis Presley sketch, and (2) her contacts with Peter Burt. To no avail, Respondents attempted several times to meet and confer with Mr. Francis to resolve the dispute. (AA, 419.)
    Appellant McManus refused upon instruction of counsel to answer approximately 78 questions during the morning session of her deposition. McManus testified that she had no contact with Peter Burt. (AA, 419-420.) Mr. Francis then effectively shut down the questioning, refusing to allow questions regarding her denial of contact with Peter Burt, her recollection of other quotes and of the existence of the Morgan-interview transcript, that her counsel claimed he destroyed. Several times, Mr. Francis stated that the Peter Burt issue was over, and if Respondents wanted to question Ms. McManus about the sketch, to go ahead. Tellingly, this is what happened when defense counsel attempted to question McManus about the stolen sketch:
    “Q. BY MR. COCHRAN: Where is the sketch you took from the ranch?
    *10 MR. FRANCIS: Are you referring to the sketch given to Mr. Morgan? Is that what you are referring to?
    MR. COCHRAN: If there are others, I want to know about them, too.
    MR. FRANCIS: I don’t know. Which one are you referring to when you say “the sketch”?
    MR. COCHRAN: How many sketches do you have?
    MR. FRANCIS: What was your question?
    MR. SANGER: Mr. Francis, you are incredibly obstructionist here. You just told us that this was — you told us that this was limited to finding out about the sketch. Mr. Cochran just asked about the sketch. Would you like us to go back to Judge Canter and ask him to tell us what sketch we are talking about?
    MR. FRANCIS: Do you know which sketch they’re talking about?
    MR. COCHRAN: Sure she does, man. She was in court that day.
    Q. You know what sketch we’re talking about, right?
    MR. FRANCIS: The sketch purportedly of Elvis, purportedly drawn by Mr. Jackson? Yes or no?
    Q. BY MR. COCHRAN: Do you know what sketch we’re talking about?
    A. The sketch I found in the trash.
    Q. Is that the only sketch there is?
    A. That’s what I found in the trash.
    Q. Do you have any other sketches?
    MR. FRANCIS: Objection; exceeds the scope of permissible discovery as allowed by the Court. Instruct the witness not to answer.” (AA, 427.)
    *11 Shortly before noon, Mr. Francis asked to break for lunch early. (AA, 437)
    C. THE AFTERNOON SESSION
    During the afternoon session, Appellant Ring appeared for the deposition. Mr. Francis did not return for the remainder of the deposition. Appellant Ring said at first that he was altering Mr. Francis’ position in the morning session, and that McManus could respond to some of the 78 questions she previously refused to answer. Mr. Ring stated that Respondents could ask McManus about statements she made in all of the articles that Gary Morgan had produced. Respondents then requested that Appellants pay for an expedited transcript of the morning session and to continue the deposition to that Wednesday, so that all of those questions could be asked again. Appellant Ring refused.
    Despite the purported offer to cooperate, Appellant Ring instructed Appellant McManus to refuse to answer at least sixteen more questions including questions about Appellants’ contacts with Victor Gutierrez of which Respondents had just learned.[FN5] Then, after being prompted by Appellant Ring, McManus ended the deposition early (before 4:00 pm) stating that “Enough’s enough. Time to go home,” and “I’m tired and I’m hungry. I want to go home. My back hurts, too.” (AA, 469.)[FN6]
    FN5. Most of these questions included the circumstances surrounding her interviews with Gary Morgan; whether she thought about the confidentiality agreement when she submitted to interviews by Gary Morgan; some questions regarding her contacts and other Appellants’ contacts with Victor Gutierrez and, any discussions with her lawyer/agent about selling her story. (See: e.g., AA, 449-50, 455-457, 463, 465.)
    FN6. For approximately twenty minutes after the questioning of McManus, counsel attempted to meet and confer regarding the issues raised during this deposition and with regard to continuing McManus’ deposition. Mr. Ring stated that he stood by Mr. Francis’ position in the morning session, would not agree to pay for the cost of an expedited transcript from the morning session and would not agree to continue McManus’ deposition to dates that were acceptable to Respondents. Thus, Mr. Ring and his client, McManus shut down her deposition without resolving the issues.
    *12 D. THE HEARING
    On July 12, 1996, the parties appeared in court to discuss the conduct of the McManus deposition, among other issues. The Court viewed a videotape of two brief portions of the deposition (quoted above).[FN7] After viewing the first segment, the Court exclaimed in exasperation, “I don’t need to hear any more. Done.” (R.T., 99.) The Court viewed the second clip, and stated, “I’ve heard enough. This is — I’m going to tell you now this is clearly obstructionist. I don’t even want to hear argument. I’m going to impose sanctions on you. (R.T., 99-100.)
    FN7. The videotape is the subject of respondents’ concurrent motion to augment the record pursuant to California Rule of Court 12(a) and case law.
    The Court directed respondents to submit a cost bill to support an award of sanctions, including attorneys’ fees. (R.T., 100.) The cost bill was filed July 19, 1996, seeking $11,482 in fees and costs related to the McManus deposition. (AA, Vol. III, 589-594.)
    On July 23, 1996, the Court held a hearing on the amount of sanctions. Appellants’ counsel, Michael Ring, apologized to the Court for the conduct of his associate, Mr. Francis, at the McManus deposition, stating “He’s got a lot to learn.” (R.T., 145-146, 152-153.) Even though Appellant Ring did not accept responsibility or and blamed Mr. Francis, the trial court accepted Mr. Ring’s *13 statement as an apology. (R.T., 158-159.) At the conclusion of the argument, the Court stated:
    “I believe, from what I saw on the video and from what I’ve heard in argument, and what little I have read of the exhibits that have been set before me, that it was — Mr. Kelly Francis is just going to have to learn. If it’s at your expense, it’s at your expense. This isn’t the first time that he’s blocked the proceedings and caused a great deal of commotion.” (R.T., 180.)
    The Court addressed each element of fees and costs in the cost bill, refused to award some of the requested costs, and ultimately awarded sanction in the amount of $8,970.50. (R.T., 180-185.)

    ARGUMENT

    III. THE SANCTIONS ORDER ENTERED ON MAY 24, 1996 FOR $2,000 IS NOT APPEALABLE.
    Appellants were ordered to pay $2,000 in sanctions by the Honorable Zel Canter on May 24, 1996. (R.T., 83-92) They seek to appeal this as well as the $8,970.50 sanctions order which was entered on July 23, 1996 for different obstructionist conduct.
    Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1(a)(12):
    “An appeal may be taken from a Superior Court in the following case: … (12) from an order directing payment of monetary sanctions by a party or an attorney for a party if the amount exceeds five thousand dollars ($5,000).”
    In Rail-Transport Employees Association v. Union Pacific Motor Freight[FN8] (1996)46 Cal.App.4th 469, 473 [54 Cal.Rptr.2d 713, 716] the court analyzed the legislative history of California Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1 and concluded that appeals from *14 sanctions orders for less than five thousand dollars may only be taken upon the conclusion of the case as part of an appeal on the merits of the action or by way of extraordinary writ. The Court stated: “That is, the vast majority of discovery sanctions will not reach the $5,000 threshold and therefore are unappealable. However, those cases involving misuse of the discovery process which result in sanctions exceeding $5,000 are reviewable by direct appeal.” Id. at 475. Thus, only sanctions orders for $5,000 or more may be taken by way of direct appeal.
    FN8. Appellants cite this case and misrepresent to this Court the proposition for which it stands. (A.O.B., Page 2).
    The appeal from the sanctions order of $2,000 entered by the Honorable Zel Canter on May 24, 1996, must be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1(a)(12)and well settled case law.
    IV. APPELLANTS WERE PROPERLY SANCTIONED $2,000 FOR LYING ABOUT EVIDENCE AND FOR THE FAILURE TO PRODUCE SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS.
    A. THE SUBPOENAS WERE PROPERLY ISSUED
    In their subpoenas, Respondents sought the production of records relating to an article in the tabloid magazine The Star, to an interview by the tabloid television magazine Inside Edition and possibly contacts with other publications and media for the sale of information regarding Michael Jackson. These subpoenas were served because Respondents discovered on January 31, 1996 and thereafter that the Appellants sold information about Michael J. Jackson to at least The Star and Inside Edition and possibly other media organizations. The subpoenas sought records specifically from the Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Associates and Barber & Gray because some of the Appellants revealed during their depositions that counsel for Appellants were directly involved in setting up *15 the interviews for the Star article and Inside Edition in an attempt to raise funds for the litigation. (AA, 473.)
    Special procedures are required for the production of personal records of a consumer to protect the consumer’s right to privacy by giving him or her the opportunity to move to quash the subpoena before the production of the records. (Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3(e)). However, before the special procedures apply to a particular case, the records sought must be “personal records” within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1983.5(a)(1). The records requested here were not personal records within that definition.
    Personal records means records pertaining to a “consumer” maintained by an individual listed in 1985.3(a)(1). Attorneys are listed, however, in the present case, the Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Associates and of Barber & Gray were not acting as attorneys for the Appellants but as a party to the transaction and/or business agent for the Appellants. The lawyers were parties to the transaction and received money to cover expenses related to this litigation that they would otherwise have had to cover themselves.
    It also appears that Appellants’ counsel were acting as business agent for the Appellants to obtain on their behalf the lucrative interviews we know of and possibly others. Business agents and parties to a transaction are not covered by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1985.3(a)(1). Records belonging to a lawyer who makes a media contract to his own benefit are not attorney/client and therefore not personal to the erstwhile clients. Since the records sought were not attorney/client *16 records, no notice to consumer was necessary and the subpoenas were not defective.
    In addition, the Consumer Notice would have required an idle act since the attorneys were presently representing these clients in the very action in which the subpoenas were issued. In fact, the need for the subpoenas at all was occasioned by the bad faith failure to make discovery by Appellants and their counsel at that time.
    Further, in the event that the trial court found that a notice to consumer was necessary in this case, Respondents requested that the court exercise its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1985.3(h) and either waive the notice requirement altogether or shorten the time for reservice of the deposition subpoenas.
    “Upon good cause shown and provided that the rights of witnesses and consumers are preserved, a subpoenaing party shall be entitled to obtain an order shortening time for service of subpoena duces tecum or waiving the requirements of subdivision (b) where due diligence by the subpoenaing party has been shown.”
    B. EVEN IF THE SUBPOENA WERE DEFECTIVE, APPELLANTS WERE SANCTIONED FOR LYING TO THE COURT AND COUNSEL ABOUT THE iEXISTENCE OF THE DOCUMENTS
    The Court ultimately did order production of the documents pursuant to the subpoenas, as it was permitted to do by law and under its discretion. Appellants were properly sanctioned for failing to comply with that order. See, Ruvalcaba v. Government Employees Ins. Co., (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1579, 1583 [272 Cal.Rptr. 541] (court has authority to impose monetary sanctions if party *17 disobeys a court order to respond to a request for production of documents).
    Even if the trial court erred in ruling that Appellants Ring, Barber and Francis were obligated to comply with the subpoenas due to the lack of a consumer notice, it is no defense to the $2,000 sanctions imposed. Appellants have no right to lie and commit perjury in resistance to a direct court order whether or not that court order is technically correct.
    Here, the $2,000 sanctions were imposed after Appellants maintained through correspondence, including letters containing “Rambo” type language, and a declaration under penalty of perjury that they had provided Respondents with copies of all documents required by the subpoena (Respondents’ Appendix, passim; AA, 277-282)[FN9]. Appellants now cite the same self-serving perjurious documents in their Opening Brief to mislead this Court. Appellants fail to apprize this Court of the fact that the trial court found those very statements to be false and perjurious and fail to include or cite to the record wherein the court made such findings. Appellants also continue to make those same self-serving assertions in their brief despite the fact that it was well known by the time of the filing of the brief that they had been caught at withholding the Michael Jackson sketches and notes and the nineteen page single-spaced transcripts by the media broker and handwritten notes by Appellants thereon.
    FN9. A Respondents’ Appendix was necessary because Appellants intentionally omitted key Exhibits from Respondents’ moving papers in Appellants’ Appendix.
    V. SANCTIONS FOR THE MCMANUS’S DEPOSITION WERE JUST AND PROPER
    *18 Respondents requested that McManus’ deposition be reopened because she had talked of people.from the tabloid press. She had made reckless statements about Michael Jackson’s personal life and about the Neverland Valley Ranch, according to the press. She either did or did not have a copy of a transcript of what she told one tabloid media broker (Gary Morgan). She either did or did not have items which she took from the Ranch. Respondents were allowed to find out about all of it. That is what the Court ordered.
    However, at the re-opened deposition of Ms. McManus, her counsel, Mr. Francis, would not even allow Respondents to ask McManus about her denial of contacts with Peter Burt. Mr. Francis simply cut off the questioning after McManus denied speaking with Burt.[FN10] Likewise, Appellant Ring arbitrarily limited examination on probative matters. However, Appellant Ring and Appellant McManus simply shut down the deposition. This total refusal to proceed is what caused Respondents to ask the court for an order compelling her to continue.
    FN10. McManus’ denial created a discrepancy between McManus’ testimony and Mr. Morgan’s, and made her recollection of the other quotes, and the transcript (which Appellants’ counsel threw away) all relevant. Mr. Burt’s attorney did not corroborate McManus’ denial of contact with Mr. Burt. Instead, he invoked the shield law and attempted to prevent Respondents’ from taking Mr. Burt’s deposition. (AA, 476-492.)
    At the May 24, 1996 hearing, the Court ruled that it was necessary to continue the deposition of McManus because statements she made to the media were relevant, at the very least to show Appellants’ bias, prejudice and motives to bring this lawsuit, per Evidence Code § 780. (R.T., 1-94) Respondents also wished to depose McManus to discover any violations of the protective order. *19 The Court did not restrict the deposition to two basic areas, i.e., whether McManus had contact with Burt, and whether she stole the sketch of Elvis Presley. According to the Appellants’ interpretation of the Court’s order, the Respondents would have to seek relief from the Court to question McManus about every media contact discovered between the hearing of the application and McManus’ deposition. This is not what the Court intended.
    The Court intended this deposition to cover all of McManus’ relevant media contacts. These contacts include her conversations with Mr. Morgan and Mr. Burt; others of whom Respondents have recently learned; and any others whom Respondents do not know about yet. The Court indicated that it was concerned about the effect these media contacts will have on Respondents’ ability to have a fair trial, i.e., the effect on the jury pool. The Court said repeatedly that the Appellants’ media contacts were relevant. Thus, Respondents were entitled to follow up on these contacts through discovery in order to have a fair trial.
    Appellants misquote the law. Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256 [24 Cal.Rptr. 501] does stand for the proposition that “discovery sanctions under the discovery statute are reasonable if they include costs incurred in preparing a motion and attending the hearing, but that further sanctions are unreasonable.”. (A.O.B. 18) In fact, the court in Ghanooni holds that an amount levied as a pure punitive measure is improper but that (under Code of Civil Procedure 2023) “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by *20 anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Emphasis added.) That is all the trial court did here. The reasonable expenses included attorneys fees and wasted time at multiple deposition sessions which would have concluded long ago had the Appellants and their counsel just told the truth.
    A. The Waste of Time and Money Caused by Appellants’ Tactics in the Morning Session
    Respondents arranged for the court reporter, a videographer, and at least one of the Respondents traveled from Los Angeles to attend this deposition. Mr. Cochran traveled from Los Angeles to take this deposition.
    Mr. Francis’ tactic of unilaterally limiting the scope of the deposition, and instructing his client not to answer 78 questions, resulted in an enormous waste of time and money and violates the letter and spirit of the Discovery Act.
    B. The Impropriety of Appellants’ Position During the Afternoon Session
    Appellant Ring started the afternoon session by stating that Appellant could answer some of the questions from the morning session, but could not identify specific questions. Since Mr. Francis was not present in the afternoon, he could not assist with this endeavor. Nor would Mr. Ring agree to pay for an expedited transcript of the morning session so that the questions McManus asked in the morning could be asked again. Instead, he arbitrarily limited examination, then ended the deposition early, before 4:00 pm.
    *21 C. Appellants’ And/or Their Counsel Should Bear the Expense for Time Lost, this Motion and Further Deposition Sessions of Ms. Mcmanus
    Appellants and their counsel were properly held to pay the price for their obstructionist tactics. Appellants and their counsel will properly be held to bear the cost of the court reporter, the videographer, the original transcript for the wasted day of deposition on May 24, 1996, as well as for all additional sessions of Appellant McManus’ deposition now required as a result of her improper refusal to answer nearly one hundred questions. (R.T., 134, 194) Appellants also were properly held to bear a portion of Respondents’ costs of coming to seek relief. Respondents gave notice during the deposition that such sanctions would be sought. (AA, 482.)
    The Court carefully considered the costs to Respondents as a result of the obstructionist tactics and awarded an appropriate amount of sanctions. Appellants cannot be heard to complain — in direct contradiction to the record — that the sanctions were punitive. On the contrary, each and every element of the sanctions award was reviewed and considered by the court: $428.50 for the videographer (R.T., 180-181, AA 590); $1,570.50 for the court reporter’s expedited transcript (R.T., 181, AA 590); $3,282.50 for attorney’s fees attending the deposition (R.T., 181-182, AA 590); $2,340 for reviewing the deposition (R.T., 183-184, AA 590); $1,000 for attending the hearing (R.T., 184, AA 590); $140 service fee (R.T., 185, AA 591); $14 filing fee (R.T., 185, AA 590); $195 for preparing cost bill (R.T., 185, AA 591). On several of these *22 elements e.g. reviewing deposition and preparing the cost bill, the Court taxed costs and refused to award the requested amounts.
    Appellants were sanctioned for the direct costs of their obstructionist behavior. The Court was well within its discretion to award such costs as sanctions.
    D. The Trial Court’s Award of the $8,790.50 Sanctions Is Amply Supported by the Record
    Appellants argue that the trial court’s sanction order was a penalty for their “obstructionist” conduct and acts as a “windfall” for Respondents. (App. Brf., p. 19.) The sanctions were for “obstructionist” behavior, which is just what sanctions are designed to deter. However, the amount was based soley on the cost to Respondent of havin to deal with that behavior. (RT, 95-192.) There was no “windfall,” in fact, to the contrary, Appellants’ behavior cost Respondents considerably more that they were awarded. (AA, 589-594.)
    Trial court discovery sanctions will be upheld on appeal when the facts support the ruling. ( Zimmerman v. Drexel, Burnham & Lambert, Inc. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 153, 159 [252 Cal.Rptr. 115].) And the discovery sanction orders will only be disturbed on appeal when they are arrived at from “arbitrary, capricious, and whimisical action.” ( Hedley v. Ruchti, supra, at 1601 [16 Cal.Rptr.2d 151]; quoting Alliance Bank v. Murray, supra, at 10 [207 Cal.Rptr. 233]) Here, Judge Canter’s order imposing sanctions was arrived at after a careful review of the discovery abuses, is amply supported by the record, and was correct under any standard of review.
    *23 IV. APPELLATE SANCTIONS ARE WARRANTED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE APPEAL IS TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY WITHOUT MERIT AND IS PROSECUTED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HARASSMENT AND DELAY AND IS, THEREFORE, FRIVOLOUS.
    A. An Appeal Is Frivolous When The Appeal Lacks Merit
    An appeal lacks merit when the appeal is viewed by any reasonable attorney as totally and completely lacking merit. (In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 650, [183 Cal.Rptr. 508].) Appellants’ appeal from the $2,000.00 and $8,970.50 sanction orders is totally and completely without merit. The entire appela is prepared in a haphazard fashion, the Rules have not been followed, there is deliberate deception on the part of Appellants on this Court, and the sanctions were more than deserved in the first place.
    B. An Appeal Is Frivolous If Prosecuted For An Improper Motive
    An improper motive is found when the Appellants are seeking to harass the Respondents or delay the effect of an adverse judgment. ( In re Marriage of Flaherty, supra, at 650.) Appellants’ motive is to delay the day of reckoning.
    C. Sanctions Are Warranted Under the Facts of This Case
    Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 907 and California Rule of Court 26(a), the appellate court can and should order sanctions against the Appellants for filing such a blatantly frivolous appeal. Appellate courts have found it quite appropriate to impose appellate sanctions where counsel is frivolous in *24 appealing trial court sanctions. ( Zimmerman v. Drexel, Burnharm & Lambert, Inc. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 153, [252 Cal.Rptr. 115].)
    Kassim ABDOOL, Ralph Chacon, Adrian McManus, Melanie Bagnall, Sandi Domz, Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Assoc., and Law Offices of Barber & Gray Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Michael J. JACKSON, James Van Norman, Tony Coleman, Marcus Johnson, Bill Bray, Bettye Bailey, and Andrew Merritt Defendants and Respondents.
    1997 WL 33801664 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.) (Appellate Brief)

    END OF DOCUMENT

    Like

  238. October 29, 2012 11:57 am

    @vmj
    It’s still depending on words as far as Gutierrez’s involvement. I wasn’t questioning the site by writing this, there are many other things I didn’t agree with here in the past. That’s the great part about having different views; we don’t have to agree as long as we don’t attack each other.

    Why did Gutierrez tell Dimond about the molestation tape? What do you by WHY? Because he is a liar – this is why. But does it mean that a liar always tell lies? No, a liar sometimes says the truth.

    Maybe, but it is far-fetched to conclude that he is lying about the statements he made in discussion? How do we make the distinction between his lies and his truth, when it can be corroborated right? Can Victor’s side of the story be? Nope.

    One of the details I am talking of is Diane Dimond’s CNN interview. She said she was approached by a man with information that was gathered against MJ well before the first allegations were made. To collect information (for some 5 cases too) one needs to have done a lot of work.

    It’s statements like these that I have a problem with because we don’t know if they are true nor do we have the documents to prove it. The two of them together said all kinds of things.

    If you want to think that way even despite this “small” detail it is your choice. Stick to your version of the events while we will go further.

    It’s not my version of things its about what’s documented.

    Like

  239. October 29, 2012 11:30 am

    @lyn
    I’m aware of the contents in that book, I‘ll probably gag if I have to open it again. And if you don’t want to talk about Sodium Amytal what do you think Evan gave Jordan that day in his office because there is an Informed Consent for Anesthetic that was signed by Evan on that day in July of 1993. The documentation scan does not prove that sodium amytal had been used. Even if so, we are not speaking of one inconsistency being implanted, but graphic details of molestation in many different interviews. As far as the leaked DCFS file, the details are still there despite being in narrative form. There are many tabloid scans in the FBI files. Even if Victor was mentioned it doesn’t mean anything.

    Like

  240. October 29, 2012 11:26 am

    “In order to conclude something we have to have some kind of proof.”

    Tatum, there is not a single statement in this blog which is not supported by facts. I expected you to be a better opinion of us. There is not a single scrap of speculation here, and whenever some projections are made, I state it directly, saying that this is hypothesis only.

    However Victor Gutierrez’s case is not a hypothesis. Every stage of research concerning him is documented, only the facts about him are spread over the whole blog and this is where the difficulty is.

    Our biggest problem is that not everyone is following everything that has been said here. A lot of information is in the comments, and if you missed it, you missed the necessary link. The same questions are asked again and again, and you have to return to facts covered long ago. Then new people come, ask the same questions, and it starts all over again. It is really frustrating.

    I must say that readers here are also expected to do their share of work and study the materials presented here. This blog is not for entertainemt or mere reflections about MJ, it is for HARD WORK for all of us done for the sake of Michael’s good name.

    Now you are asking questions which even baffle me. Why did Gutierrez tell Dimond about the molestation tape? What do you mean by that? Because he is a liar – this is why. But does it mean that a liar always tell lies? No, a liar sometimes says the truth. In fact presenting the truth in a distorted way is the most skillful form of lies.

    If someone is a liar does it mean that he does not make mistakes? No, he does make mistakes and this is where our chance is. This chance is in the nature of lies in general – a liar will get so entangled in his own lies that one thing will start contradicting another and this is how we know that it is a lie.

    What I am trying to say that is very easy to brush off someone as a complete liar and say that nothing of what he says is true. If this is your approach to the matter, it is okay, no one will ask of you more – however if you stop at that you will never know the truth.

    We here are setting ourselves a much more difficult task – we want to know the truth hidden behind those lies, and this requires really fine work and extreme attention to every minute detail. The devil hides in the detail, and when we find this detail it gives us a chance. And once you collect a handful of details you connect the dots and start seeing at least the outline of the truth. This is a very encouraging stage because now you know where to look and do further digging.

    And it is absolutely not the same as sitting and fantasizing who may be standing behind all that – maybe Illuminati, international conspiracy, etc.

    One of the details I am talking of is what Diane Dimond said in her CNN interview on August 26, 1993. She said she had been approached by a “source” with information that was gathered against MJ well before the first allegations were made. To collect information (for some 5 cases too) one needs to have done a lot of work. This is an answer to your statement that “no one suspected or did anything against Michael before 1993”.

    If you want to think that way even despite this “small” detail it is your choice. Stick to your version of the events while we will go further. I realize very well that not everyone will make it to the end.

    Here is a link to that Diane Dimond’s interview where she speaks of “five separate cases”.
    http://www.tabloidbaby.com/Book/Companion/cnn.htm

    Like

  241. lynande51 permalink
    October 29, 2012 9:05 am

    Tatum maybe you missed something but it is not that Jordan was influenced by Gutierrez but that Evan was and his script for Jordan was written by Gutierrez.Why because Gutierrez is also mentioned in the FBI files. He was questioned by police probably about leaking the DCFS report, which by the way is not in Jordan’s words. It is in a narrative just like all the statments made to police and DCFS in the 2003 case.That is the way it appears in all police investigations in a narrative form by the investigating officer.

    Like

  242. lynande51 permalink
    October 29, 2012 8:57 am

    Tatum there is much more about the book that he wrote than you know obviously. In it he says that he met with these parents and he lists them by name. He says how he talked to Jonathan Spence, Jimmy Safechuck, and Joy Robson, He never spoke to Marie Barnes or Kit Culkin and that is why he tries so hard in his book to discredit them saying that Mrs Barnes was a thief and Kit Culkin and his wife were too busy smoking pot to notice what was happening. He has the names right for all of the detectives and private investigator.
    .And if you don’t want to talk about Sodium Amytal what do you think Evan gave Jordan that day in his office because there is a Informed Consent for Anesthetic that was signed by Evan on that day in July of 1993.The signature is clearly that of Evan Chandler when compared to his signature on the Setttlement. It says on it that the possible side effects include but are not limited to fetal demise and death. Those are not side effects of Toradol and you would not need a signed consent for anesthesia for Toradol because it is not Anestheisa.
    Too many people don’t understand what Sodium Amytal does so let me see if I can make it clear.
    They did a test using Sodium Amytal and it’s influence on the memory. They had their subjects watch a video of a woman with dark hair robbing a store. Then under the influence of Sodium Amytal they told the subect that she had blonde hair. When asked later all of the suubjects swore the woman had blonde hair however each one of them said that it was weird because they actually saw dark hair when they said blonde.It is like a form of hypnotism.
    The fact that Jordan knew his father made him lie and using Sodium Amytal are not mutally exclusive, you can have them both. Just because Jordan says that does not mean they did not use it. He might, in fact mean that he made him lie by using Sodium Amytal which would make perfect sense because he could know it was wrong but he just had the images planted on his already existing memory.

    Like

  243. October 29, 2012 7:50 am

    @ald
    Dr. Gardener’s interview with Jordan is on the site, I believe. This where I got the quotes re ‘it felt good’ and Michael told me sex between friends was normal, etc.
    Exactly, Jordan had to elaborate on what he told Gardener when DCFS was contacted. All the graphic details were leaked in that report. We don’t even know why the police met with Gutierrez or what was discussed. It’s all speculation based on the word of a liar. Is that really plausible?

    So you think that Gutierrez put the thoughts of molestation into Jordan’s mind? You don’t think that a father who eventually tried to kill his son in later years couldn’t have done that?

    @lyn
    If you listen to Evan in the tape he says that he has “people in certain places”. That is plural, more than one so he is not just talking about Rothman.
    I’m not disputing that portion, it’s a possibility but the whole idea that Gutierrez invented the allegations is purely speculation. Don’t even get me started on the sodium amytal, that’s another topic that we always disagree on. Lol

    Like

  244. lynande51 permalink
    October 29, 2012 7:42 am

    One last thing. Bert Fields filed that answer to Feldman’s lawsuit and asked for a continuance. The defendent must enter a reply and I believe that the court gives them a certain amount of time to do it.Once that is done the parties in the action are then allowed discovery. That is when they got the hearing date set for the postponement of the civil trial. Then Feldman filed his reply to their answer to the action and a hearing date was set for that. I don’t think it was an odd stroke of luck that somehow Feldman’s motion was set for the day before Fields motion.Seems to me like someonedid him a favor because they should be heard together. The Fields motion should have gone first because it is the natural order but then nothing about that case was on the up and up.

    Like

  245. lynande51 permalink
    October 29, 2012 7:29 am

    Oh I forgot to add that the reason the extortion charge was dropped is because it was negotiated into the settlement agreement. Go read it and it will say that Michael Jackson will publicly withdraw the charge of extortion. That was probably added to the settlement because Larry Feldman said in court that they accused JORDAN not EVAN of extortion when they said that.His reasoning was that it was Jordan making the accusation not Evan so of course then it would have had to be him that was extorting Michael.
    That had to be added to the settlement because if it wasn’t Jordan was 14 and could be charged with extortion. Aint that a kicker because Pellicano had to swear out a declaration that he was not accusing Jordan but that he was in fact accusing Evan during the hearing on whether the civil case should be postponed.By the way it was not Bert Fields that prepared and litigated that hearing it was an associate from his office, I’ll get back to you with the name I just don’t remember it right now.

    Like

  246. lynande51 permalink
    October 29, 2012 7:01 am

    Aldebaronredstar it was most likely Gutierrez that leaked the DCFS report to Diane Dimond and the rest of the press. It was faxed out to news outlets all over the country and it was in fact given to Diane Dimond by a mysterious someone in a cafe`. She tells the story of it in detail in her book. What is interesting is the taped conversation that Dave Schwartz had with Evan Chandler. This took place on July 7th 1993, two days before Evan got physical custody of Jordan. Then Rothman prepares a custody stipulation that had to be signed by June Chandler on June 13th,1993. She signed it under duress and on the advice of Bert Fields, they thought they could calm Evan down that way and get Jordan back and find out just what Evan was up to. It was on July 16th three days later that Evan “pulled Jordan’s tooth” and supposedly when the allegations first came out. How could he have been demanding anything prior to the 16th and prior to him even having custody of Jordan when he had not spoke to Jordan for over three weeks at that time?
    The phone call itself is full of what Evan wants, what he demands and when directly asked 3 times he does not say that he suspects that Michael is molesting Jordan but that he has broken up the family. How could Bert Fields or Pellicano even begin to know what he was talking about if he does not say it? Because they knew about Gutierrez, that’s how.They had been waiting for this to happen for over a year.
    Someone in Michael’s team knew about this being a possibility because Joy Robson had told them the year before,1992, that she had been approached by Gutierrez. She told Bill Bray so they were well aware of the existence of Gutierrez. At least his security team was, whether Michael was told or not is something else altogether.
    Now why I think it was in fact Gutierrez that got a copy of that DCFS report from Evan and sent it is because he was in the ‘business” so to speak. He would have known exactly who to contact and where to send that leaked interview for one. Second, because Diane Dimond called him one of her best sources. Those are not my words but hers in the appeal that Michael filed when she was dropped from the lawsuit he had against her and Gutierrez.
    If you listen to Evan in the tape he says that he has “people in certain places”. That is plural, more than one so he is not just talking about Rothman.Who else could it be but this man when he is found within days of the publicity starting. How much you want to bet that is one of the reasons that they found him because they were investigating that leak and someone told them who they got it from or who sent it.

    Like

  247. nannorris permalink
    October 29, 2012 5:38 am


    This is a clip of Mr Pellicano lawyer talking about prosecutors over reaching in cases and how he thought Pellicano got a more severe sentence because it was high profile..If you hit “more info” under the description it gives you the times during the video and what they are talking about..
    Somewhere on here , I thought I read that VG said he came here as a photographer and decided to stay in the states..Unless, I am remembering it wrong..But if that was the case , why didnt he become a photographer instead of a supposed journalist..? and how do you free lance and get to stay in the states if you arent a citizen and somebody isnt sponsoring you?I wonder if his assignment all along was to come her to look for dirt on MJ before he even went arrived in LA or any Nambla meeting he attended in the states,,,I would think he would have to do something with immigration and give them a specific reason he was staying on, but I could be wrong….

    Like

  248. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 29, 2012 5:32 am

    “Gutierrez is too stupid to realize that he is releasing his own pedophile fantasies in his book so why wouldn’t he say something that could possibly hurt him? That line of thinking didn’t bother him when he went on Hard Copy and lied, then lied to the courts.
    @ aldebaranredstar I already addressed that point.”

    So your theory is that Jordan invented the molestation story without input from VG and then VG wrote his book to match Jordan’s account, and that’s why they are similar? No, I think it the other way round. Jordan’s story was invented with VG’s interpretation of what pedos do and how they do it and why they do it: It’s all just normal man-boy love. And this is strongly at variance with what child abuse really is and what happens to the victim.

    VG is not stupid. He has an agenda, which is to get pedo man-boy love to be legal and socially accepted. His book, which was published in 96 in Chile, was done after the Jan.95 videotape story. Remember too DD claimed that there were love letters between Michael and Jordan. She announced this on various shows, including Larry King. This is all in keeping with the pedo line. So who is the real pedo in this whole case? I ask you. Who? There is only ONE. VG.

    VG was contacted by the sheriff’s office in the 03-05 case. I made a comment on that earlier. He had to give them full name, address, name of his USA lawyer, so that he could be located if they needed him. It’s in the la cuarta article, VMJ referred to. He was taken seriously by the prosecution. I wish they had called him and Mez could have taken him apart on the cross!! That would have been so great to see!!!

    The whole media, court, VG line was in sync. Michael fell in love with special friends and groomed them for love-dovey sex. For example, when Francia supposedly ‘saw’ the 2 in the shower they are laughing. It is all consensual fun. That’s why the boys refuse to testify against Michael (in their opinion). That’s why Gavin didn’t want to leave NL, that’s why they deny anything happened. The idea was Michael grooms them, loves them, and when they get older, he discards them and finds a new boy. But they can’t explain why there were no new boys except Gavin for 10 years.

    The scenario was born and developed around Jordan. The trips, the toys, the bonding, and then the sex, the love letters.

    Like

  249. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 29, 2012 5:06 am

    I think VG is around 45 so he would have been in his early 20’s in the 80’s when he says he attended NAMBLA. I will try and find out exactly how old (he tells his age on yt on the Mentiras Verdaderas program). But if you look at the screen shots in this post, he does not look much older than 45-ish.

    About his claim re the videotape, made Jan. 95, for which he got sued. First, he was in contact with a lot of Michael’s ex-employees and they may have scammed him by telling him there was a video and the whole story. Obviously, VG himself had to have sources. As we see from the Neverland 5 and Blanca Francia, these were some real lowlifes. Look at Chris Carter, pulled out of jail for burglary and kidnapping with a deadly weapon to testify at the trial. And he was a security chief for NL! Blanca Francia stealing from MJ and going into other staffer’s purses. Some of the people were truly awful and were looking for $$. VG claimed the video was taken by security cameras at NL. I think he himself was scammed by an employee source and that’s why he went on TV with the claim. He obviously believed the story enough to convince DD, who STILL claimed much later that the videotape existed and that Margaret Maldonado was lying. DD said on the show about the videotape, “I have never had a doubt about this person, ever.”

    VG was the source for so many media people and why? B/c he had info, b/c he had contacted and interviewed people around Michael, b/c he had constructed a case, b/c he was able to question ‘the help’ and get them to talk. There is no way IMO he just appeared in mid 93 and then went around interviewing Norma Salinas, Blanca Francia, Joy Robeson, and all the other people starting from zero involvement, and then had a whole case by August so that he was questioned by the LAPD right after they opened the investigation. It is just not a plausible scenario.

    According to his account, he was in touch with LAPD, DEA, FBI as a reporter covering the Latino population in LA and when he decided to focus on the newly formed “Sexually Exploited Child Unit,” he got the list of famous pedos, on which Michael’s name appeared. From there he started his investigation (hiring a P.I.), probably, as Lynande says, going with the boys he saw Michael with in public and the help at NL, but when he showed the police his report, they were not interested, until Jordan Chandler appeared with his story. The NAMBLA story adds a new dimension as to why he focused on Michael, one that VG does not seem to be promoting on Chilean TV, and he no doubt did not push that story to his media pals.

    Dr. Gardener’s interview with Jordan is on the site, I believe. This where I got the quotes re ‘it felt good’ and Michael told me sex between friends was normal, etc.

    Like

  250. October 29, 2012 1:22 am

    And, see comment by VMJ, why would the police be interested in V.G. only 4 days after the investigation started?
    That Gary Glitter is the scum of earth.Do they still play his R&R piece at sport events?

    Like

  251. October 29, 2012 1:14 am

    In that photo,Blanca Francia looking rather formal, and Victor Guitirrez so young.There are ways of “aging” peoples faces,used at times in forensics, esp. childdren missing, possibly abducted. Also for other reasons. Could V.G.´s face be dated by this method?

    Like

  252. October 29, 2012 12:41 am

    @vmj

    In order to conclude something we have to have some kind of proof. I wouldn’t depend so heavily on the words of a proven liar. Victor Gutierrez could have been a journalist that Evan had in his place ready to move like he told Schwartz on the telephone, I’m not disputing that even though it is still speculation. Why had Victor told Diane Dimond he had a molestation tape? Why had he claimed there were other victims that Diane still claims she spoke to? Do you know if the police called him or did he jump on board to give information like everyone else only to get money for interviews or report it later? He claimed he had files and blah blah blah just like he claimed to have other evidence. We cannot conclude he is telling the truth about something unless there is evidence.

    He is a liar all right, but by admitting that he did so much undercover work against Michael before 1993 he is not getting any advantages for himself.
    By claiming that he had suspicions about Michael earlier than 1993 he was trying to establish a history. Most would conclude that if MJ was questionable with children they would have gotten wind of it before 1993. Gutierrez is too stupid to realize that he is releasing his own pedophile fantasies in his book so why wouldn’t he say something that could possibly hurt him? That line of thinking didn’t bother him when he went on Hard Copy and lied, then lied to the courts.

    @ aldebaranredstar
    I already addressed that point. What documentation did you get the phrase “it felt good from” again?

    Like

  253. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 29, 2012 12:20 am

    Tatum, you are not addressing the way Jordan presented the molestation–‘it felt good’–this is not the way a molestation victim talks. Someone set him up for that. Who? Obviously, none of us thinks Michael was a child molester, so we need to look at the way this was invented and described. Jordan was coached and this is a very strange story of molestation that he tells.

    Could someone please give me the links to the leaked Child Services interview with Jordan? Any thoughts on who leaked this? Was it Feldman? Rothman? Had to be someone who had ready access to the interview, of course.

    Also, VMJ, do you have the link to that CNN statement of DD re the 5 files she received?

    In looking over the timeline, I am struck by some facts. Evan was wanting Michael to build an addition to his house or even build him a new house so they could be together in May 1993.Yet in the taped conversation of July 2, he is in a rage and saying ‘it will be a massacre if I don’t get what I want.’ So what happened between May and July? Then there is that sentence about “a certain plan that isn’t just mine”–this is intriguing. Who did he mean? Rothman, yes, but who else? Could it have been VG? Why did things shift so much between May and July?

    He also says his lawyer Rothman is ‘hungry for publicity.’

    I must stay if this tape was made known to Michael, Bert Fields, then they really needed to have acted faster with filing the extortion allegation and take this whole thing much more seriously. Here Michael’s habit of paying people off got him in trouble–he offered Evan 350k and then 1 million. This delayed the extortion filing.

    Yet when it was filed the police did nothing serious. They did not take action–get a Grand Jury together, get search warrants for Evan and Rothman (hit in the extortion filing). If only they had done their JOBS this might have had a different outcome, the outcome it SHOULD have had–that Evan and Rothman went to JAIL!!!–police can be so incompetent and biased.

    VMJ, I found the name of the LAPD unit that VG refers to in the video you sent me where he ‘explains’ how he got involved–it was the “Sexually Exploited Child Unit.” This unit was also referred to in the Wikipedia article on the allegations. This is the police unit that started the investigation (the name came out differently in Spanish).

    Like

  254. October 28, 2012 7:30 pm

    So what do we learn about these beasts?

    Gary Glitter:
    – committed crimes away from his native country, in places where all pedophiles hope they will not be spotted
    – what they do at home is keeping pornography on their computers. They derive pleasure from seeing small children raped (these are not just “photos” – these are real lives ruined!)
    – he never said anything to anyone, never gave any cause for suspicion, as otherwise the discovery wouldn’t have been made just by chance

    Savile was different.
    – He was so famous and so sure of himself that he committed his crimes even “on his workplace”.
    – but since he was so famous, no grooming was needed. He just came, took what he wanted and discarded the child as waste
    – there were no friendly contacts with the families. Adults can notice things which children will not, so the parents were avoided
    – officially he said that he hated children. This was his precaution against rumors.
    – and he was right. He indeed hated them as he didn’t regard them as human beings. Just dolls which were to be used and thrown away.

    Total, complete, utter human fall.

    Like

  255. October 28, 2012 7:15 pm

    Oh, this beast had 4000 images in his computer of hardcore pornography involving even 2 year old children! “The police characterized the photographs as “hard-core, sick and degrading” involving children as young as two being sexually abused, tortured, bound, gagged and blindfolded”. Oh my God!

    This article is dated December 2005:

    Gary Glitter Faces 12 Years on Sex Charge
    Published: Dec 31, 2005 at 5:53 am 5 comments

    Former glam rock superstar Gary Glitter will be tried in Vietnam for commiting obscene acts upon children, dodging the more serious charge of child rape, which carries a potential penalty of death by firing squad, The Globe and Mail and Ireland Online are reporting this week. The trial is scheduled for February.

    Child abuse and child pornography have been a recurring issue with the 61 year old Glitter (Paul Francis Gadd); in 1999, he was sentenced to four months imprisonment (and served two) for possessing over 4000 hardcore pornographic images of children as young as two on his computer.

    Glitter’s biggest hit should be instantly familiar to anyone reading this; the tribal-sounding stompfest “Rock & Roll, Pt. 2”, co-written with producer Mike Leander, is played at nearly every sporting event in the country, is featured in nearly any movie that has a sports scene, and is played by every marching band in any stadium.

    While his popularity in America was limited to two top-40 singles in 1972 (including “Rock & Roll, Pt. 2”), and his best selling album, Glitter (1972) peaked at #186, he remained popular and fairly beloved in England until his crimes were revealed.

    Since then, there have been few who have fallen so far so fast; while details of Glitter’s past six years have been sketchy at best, what is known is pretty disgraceful; herein lays the story of ultimate rock star narcissism, taken to a tawdry, ugly, dead end.

    His downfall began in 1997, when he took his computer to a Bristol computer shop for repairs. On it, a technician found images of hardcore child pornography and called police; the police characterized the photographs as “hard-core, sick and degrading” involving children as young as two being sexually abused, tortured, bound, gagged and blindfolded. In 1999 he was sentenced to four months in Horfield Prison, Bristol, and was released after two months.

    Since his release, his whereabouts have raised red flags. He moved to Cuba briefly in 2000, but when the British press became aware of his location, he relocated to Cambodia.

    In 2003 he was deported from Cambodia after allegations of child abuse cropped up there.

    Glitter was arrested on Saturday, Nov. 17, 2005 as he tried to leave Vietnam for Bangkok from Tan Son Hnat airport in Ho Chi Minh City. The incident for which he was arrested involved sexual relations with a 12-year-old girl and a 15-year-old girl at his home. Although the younger girl has admitted Glitter paid her the equivalent of $9.50 for sex, she is below the age of legal consent. In all, six females in Vietnam between the ages of 11 and 23 have admitted to having sex with Glitter, according to Associated Press.

    http://blogcritics.org/music/article/gary-glitter-faces-12-years-on/

    Like

  256. October 28, 2012 7:05 pm

    More information about Gary Glitter and Jimmy Savile – this article says that they were members of a sex ring in the BBC! Incredible stuff:

    Jimmy Savile arrests begin… starting with Gary Glitter

    By Ian Dunt

    Gary Glitter became the first person to be arrested in the investigation over Jimmy Savile this morning, as the row continued to dominate the headlines.

    The development comes as questions are raised about former BBC director-general Mark Thompson and the BBC Trust moved to limit the damage to the corporation.

    Glitter, 68, was arrested at 07:15 GMT in London today, and was led away dressed in a hat, a coat, black gloves and a scarf.

    The Metropolitan police refused to say what led to Glitter’s arrest, except too say it was for allegations of sexual offences.

    “The individual falls under the strand of the investigation we have termed ‘Savile and other’,” a Met spokesperson said.

    There are allegations Savile was part of a sex ring in the BBC and several rumours abound about other high-profile entertainment figures – some of whom still performing today – who may also have been engaged in the sexual abuse of children.

    The Met are currently following up 400 separate lines of inquiry concerning around 300 potential victims.

    Meanwhile the BBC tried to get on the front foot over the scandal, as BBC Trust chairman Chris Patten adopted a more robust response to allegations of a cover up in the BBC.

    “The filth piles up,” Patten wrote in the Mail.

    “Can it really be the case that no one knew what he was doing? Did some turn a blind eye to criminality?” he asked.

    “Even those of us who were not there at the time are inheritors of the shame.

    “The BBC must tell the truth and face up to the truth about itself, however terrible. So no grandstanding, no covering our backs. My primary task with my fellow trustees is to sort this out, as fast as we can, once and for all.”

    The BBC Trust has come in for considerable criticism for acting as both a cheerleader and a watchdog over the BBC. Patten’s comments suggest it intends to take a more critical role in the row in a bid to defend itself from criticism and as an effort to limit the damage to the BBC brand.

    Thompson, who left recently as director-general of the BBC and is about to take over at the New York Times, was dragged into the scandal today when the Sunday Times claimed his office was told of the Savile allegations on two occasions. He denies the report.

    The Sunday telegraph reported that senior government figures are “extremely concerned” at the way Thompson’s successor, George Entwistle, has handled the affair.
    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/jimmy-savile-arrests-begin-starting-gary-glitter-093148924.html

    Like

  257. October 28, 2012 6:49 pm

    Here you are – another of them: Gary Glitter, a convicted sex-offender who was sentenced in Vietnam (these people like committing crimes away from home!), has now been arrested in Britain in connection with Jimmy Savile’s case:

    Reports: UK police arrest Gary Glitter Gary Glitter in Vietnam

    By Associated Press
    Sunday, October 28, 2012 – Added 3 hours ago

    LONDON — Police investigating the sex abuse scandal surrounding late BBC children’s television host Jimmy Savile have arrested pop star Gary Glitter in connection with the case, British media said Sunday.

    Metropolitan Police said they arrested a man in his 60s early Sunday morning at his London home, on suspicion of sexual offenses, and that he remains in custody in a London police station.

    The force did not identify the man, but British media including the BBC and Press Association reported he was Glitter, 68, a former rock musician and a convicted sex offender. Glitter’s real name is Paul Gadd.

    Hundreds of potential victims have come forward since police began their investigation into sex abuse allegations against Savile, the longtime host of popular shows “Top of the Pops” and “Jim’ll Fix It” who died at age 84 last year. Most allege abuse by Savile, but some said they were abused by Savile and others.

    Glitter, best known for “Rock & Roll (Part 1&2),” was convicted in 2006 in Vietnam of committing “obscene acts with children” — offenses involving girls aged 10 and 11. He was deported in 2008.

    He had a previous conviction in Britain for possessing child pornography.

    The scandal has horrified Britain with revelations that Savile cajoled and coerced vulnerable teens into having sex with him in his car, in his camper van, and even in dingy dressing rooms on BBC premises.

    Police have said that though the majority of cases related to Savile alone, some involved the entertainer and other, unidentified suspects. In addition, some potential victims who reported abuse by Savile also told police about separate allegations against unidentified men that did not involve the BBC host.

    http://www.bostonherald.com/news/international/europe/view.bg?articleid=1061170892&srvc=rss

    Like

  258. October 28, 2012 4:11 pm

    “It is not about sex which is what they would like you to believe. It is about power over the helpless and weak, and it would not matter if they were male or female, only that they are children.” – Lynande51

    Exactly! It is also manifestation of the deep depravity of a person who tried everything else in his sex life and now wants some “pepper”. With his contacts it was also absolutely safe for Savile to do it to children – who are they and who is he? Who will listen to them?

    And isn’t it amazing that these children wanted to talk (only no one listened), while in case of children who associated with MJ the police were hammering out their testimony but all stood their ground and said nothing happened. In fact only one – Jason Francia – came to the trial, because Jordan Chandler never did (the Arvizos joking on the stand are not even worth talking about).

    Many people still think that Brett Barnes, Wade Robson and Macaulay Culkin who testified at the 2005 trial did not tell the whole truth.

    I have asked myself a question in this connection – since they were standing there in front of the jury anyway and everyone thought that they had been molested and many didn’t believe them whatever they said, wasn’t it easier for them to say “Yes, it did happen”? In those circumstances they would have been the “heroes” of the prosecution, media and public and could have made a lot of money on interviews, books, films, etc. Everyone expected them to say it and they would have been showered with attention and even admiration for their “courage”, “honesty”, etc.

    Instead they chose a very hard road for themselves – that of the truth which gained them no material, public or social profit (because people still didn’t believe them and still thought that they were molested, even after their testimonies). Can any of us imagine how difficult it was for them to tell the innocent truth? And nevertheless they did it!

    How many of us are tempted to “side with the majority” when someone unpopular is driven out of the office they work in? The person who is driven out has never done you any harm but the majority doesn’t like him/her and you are almost forced to join the crowd – after all you will have to work with these people… Yes, it takes very much courage to stand up to this kind of psychological pressure and not all of us are able to do it. People often take the line of the least resistance.

    However Brett Barnes, Macaulay Culkin and Wade Robson never did. These three boys are real heroes.

    Like

  259. lynande51 permalink
    October 28, 2012 2:53 pm

    And let’s not forget the book that was confiscated by the police that day in 1993. He reiterrates that part of the story over and over again. Every boy that VG connected to Michael was found in a publicity photo with him! There were never any others that weren’t in a photo only those boys that were seen with him publicly.If someone could explain that I would like to see them try. It is in fact VG that had to have approached Evan that is a given because they have a book about MJ within four days of the onset of the investigation.What kind of police were these guys when they only looked at the Chandler side and NEVER investigated the possible extortion?

    Like

  260. lynande51 permalink
    October 28, 2012 2:42 pm

    Yes Gutierrez was the one that supplied the small details like the juvenile hall thing.
    What I could not help but notice is that one of Saville’s victims that has spoken up is a boy. Here are hundreds of women coming up and now men as well.That is what a true pedophile does. It is not about sex which is what they would like you to believe. It is about power over the helpless and weak, and it would not matter if they were male or female,only that they are children.

    Like

  261. October 28, 2012 1:22 pm

    There are several things I need to mention.

    Please don’t even try to apply the things said about Savile to the pure name of Michael.

    Now it has become clearer than ever how easy it was to write slanderous materials about MJ. You read about real pedophiles (their court cases, media information, etc.) and apply those signature ped-lia marks to the person you want to slander.

    Look at all these phrases: “He was a God-like figure to me” (a kid about Savile) or “Don’t tell it to anyone, no one will believe you anyway” (said by Savile which is their standard intimidation practice). You take these and other things and simply transfer them to another personality, and here you are, the skeleton of a fictional story about the person you want to slander begins to grow muscles. By the muscles I mean the necessary “true-to-life” details which make your story look genuine.

    To make such a thing you either have to prepare yourself extremely well for the job – go to libraries, browse the Internet, etc. all of which will leave traces on your computer (I wonder if the Chandler’s computer was ever examined?) or you simply need an expert to handle the story.

    The Chandlers did not even need to do research – they had their expert, Victor Gutierrez.

    I don’t understand why some readers doubt Gutierrez’s own account about it. He is a liar all right, but by admitting that he did so much undercover work against Michael before 1993 he is not getting any advantages for himself. If he had said that he learned about the allegations only in 1993 and investigated MJ only after that it would not have changed the perception of his story at all – nothing gained, nothing lost.

    However his own words that he was there 5 years before 1993 makes him subject to suspicion and makes us investigate his activities with much more attention, so by claiming all these things he is doing harm only to himself. The fact that he followed MJ (and spread stories about him) for so long only proves that Gutierrez and the people behind him have an agenda, and this makes us look into who these people are and why they were doing it to MJ.

    So it isn’t the fact of his following Michael that should be doubted – it is his stories about MJ that should be doubted.

    Because all you hear in these stories is an account of a real pedophile which was simply transferred to another person’s name.

    Like

  262. October 28, 2012 12:35 pm

    Another incredible discovery – it turns out that in the 70s this kind of depravity was considered a “norm” by those on TV and when Savile indulged himself this way others followed him!

    How celebrity child sex scandal has rocked the BBC
    By Simon Hooper, Special to CNN
    updated 4:55 PM EDT, Mon October 22, 2012

    London (CNN) — In life he was one of Britain’s best loved children’s television personalities, an icon of the pop music world, flamboyant friend of the famous, renowned for his eccentricities and honored for his tireless charity work.
    But in death, Jimmy Savile now stands accused of being a pedophile who used his status and celebrity to prey on young girls throughout decades in the public spotlight, his gravestone already removed amid an outpouring of public revulsion. Prime Minister David Cameron has even suggested the removal of Savile’s knighthood might be considered in light of the allegations.
    As presenter of “Jim’ll Fix It,” the BBC’s flagship Saturday teatime kids’ show from the mid-70s until the mid-90s, Savile cultivated an image as the nation’s kindly uncle who could make children’s dreams come true with a twirl of his trademark cigar.
    Yet an ITV documentary — “Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy Savile” — broadcast in early October portrayed the late star as a nightmarish figure whose sexual predilection for teenagers was known about, laughed off or suspected by many within the entertainment industry but never openly challenged.

    … Savile has also been linked to the notorious and now defunct Haut de la Garenne children’s care home on the Channel Island of Jersey, with the former lead investigator into abuse allegations at the home telling the Guardian newspaper that he now had “no reason to doubt” allegations of sexual assault made against the presenter by former residents.
    In a statement last week Jersey Police said that during its investigation into the care home, a verbal allegation of indecent assault said to have occurred during the 1970s in relation to Savile was reported but there was insufficient evidence to proceed. A spokeswoman said that since the documentary aired, the police had had contact with three other parties in relation to allegations involving Jimmy Savile.

    Meanwhile the BBC finds itself accused of complicity in a sprawling child abuse scandal because some of the alleged incidents in the 1960s and 1970s are said to have happened on its premises. It’s also facing claims that it allowed a wider culture of routine sexual harassment to thrive within its corridors in past decades.

    Describing the atmosphere at the BBC’s Radio 1 pop music station in the 1980s, veteran DJ Liz Kershaw said Savile’s taste for young girls had been an “open secret” and described how she had been “routinely groped” live on air by a fellow presenter “When I complained to somebody they were incredulous and said ‘Don’t you like it? Are you a lesbian?”‘ Kershaw told BBC Radio.

    …”Because he was associated with the BBC, people trusted him and thought of him as a family-friendly face. He was a massive presence in the living rooms of millions of British families.”

    “There are a lot of people who were aware of what was going on, but in the 60s and the 70s it was almost the norm. No one had heard of pedophiles, they were just young girls whether they were 17, 18, 16, 15 or 14.

    While Savile did not live to see his reputation shredded, Clifford said there were others who exploited the permissive attitudes of the era who could yet be held to account — and who would now be very worried.

    “I know there are a lot of people out there who are worried there will be a call from the police, because in the 60s and 70s it was life,” Clifford said. “Various people have come to me over the years with accusations not just about Savile … which I eventually managed to bring out, but the one common thing is that nobody is going to believe us or we can’t do it because we’ve moved on because I’m married with children and they don’t know and I’m sorry but I can’t do it…”

    Clifford said he had six calls to his office, not just about Jimmy Saville, the day we talked to him, adding “in the last week there must have been 20-30 of them. Some of them were under age, some of them were 16, 17 or 18 at the time, but they were all being used in not dissimilar ways by a variety of people to the way Savile used these young girls. And we said to all of them you’ve got to go to the police. You’ve got to tell them.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/16/opinion/savile-scandal-hooper/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

    Like

  263. October 28, 2012 12:11 pm

    Oh, and this pervert Jimmy Savile abused not only girls, but boys as well! Here is a story of a nine-year old boy Kevin Cook. The story is very important as it shows how real victims feel even 37 years later. He cannot even see the face of this person… And he makes it clear that the BBC people knew about it! Why is Kevin bringing it up now though Savile is dead? Because he hates those executives who knew and wants them to answer for it!

    Ex-Scout tells of abuse at hands of TV presenter Jimmy Savile
    By Atika Shubert, CNN
    updated 4:13 PM EDT, Fri October 26, 2012

    British radio disc jockey, television star and charity fund-raiser Sir Jimmy Savile poses for a photo at Buckingham Palace, London, after receiving the Order of the British Empire in 1972. Since his death a year ago at age 84, Savile has been knocked off his perch as a national treasure, accused of being a predatory pedophile who used his fame and position to abuse youngsters, sometimes on BBC premises.

    jimmy savile

    London (CNN) — There was a time in the 1960s and 70s when Jimmy Savile seemed to be everywhere in Britain.
    The BBC television personality with his trademark white-blonde hair was the face of “Top of the Pops” and “Jim’ll Fix It.” Families would sit down with their children to watch Jimmy Savile in their homes.

    So when nine-year-old Kevin Cook learned his scout troop would be featured on Savile’s show in 1974, he was absolutely thrilled.
    Cook told CNN: “He was almost God-like. He was so famous. Everyone was writing to ‘Jim’ll Fix It.’ When I told people at school, they just didn’t believe it. When they knew we was going on, he was just fantastic. He was the person every child, certainly, wanted to know.”

    After the show, Cook presented a tie to Savile as a present. That’s when he says Savile asked him if he would like his own “Jim’ll Fix it” badge.
    According to Cook, Savile lead him backstage at BBC studios into a small, cluttered dressing room and sat him down in a chair.
    Profile: From national treasure to reviled ‘abuser’

    “He said to me: ‘You want your own badge?’ I said: ‘Yeah.’ He said: ‘You want to earn your badge?'”
    Savile proceeded to molest him, he says, undoing his boy scout uniform and fondling him.

    It was only interrupted when someone opened the door and peeked in, apologized and immediately walked out. That, he says, is when Savile issued this threat:

    “He said, ‘Don’t you dare tell anyone about this. No one will believe you because I’m King Jimmy. Don’t tell your mates. We know where you live.’ And that’s it. That’s the last I ever spoke to him,” Cook told CNN.

    Cook kept the incident a secret for 37 years. When a number of women came forward several weeks ago with claims that Savile abused them as children, he decided to tell his wife.

    “When I first heard, I thought, ‘Oh my God.’ I blamed myself for 37 years. That’s the first thing you do. Blame yourself. But I was realizing it’s not my fault. That’s a relief. Do you tell anyone? I don’t want to tell anyone else but my wife, I thought.”
    Immediately after he told his wife, Cook says, they called the police.

    Cook’s case is now one of more than 200 allegations of abuse by Savile that UK police are investigating, stretching back as far as 1958 and as recently as 2006 – some of the incidents are alleged to have happened on BBC property.

    Jimmy Savile died in 2011, and Cook has no hope of bringing him to justice. But he does want an investigation into what BBC executives knew – and when — about Savile’s alleged predatory behavior, and whether they could have stopped it.

    “I feel hatred towards them,” he says of the BBC. “Somebody must have known something. Obviously it was just covered up. That’s disgraceful because, I don’t know when it was known, but if it was [before] my incident, this might not have happened to me.”

    The BBC says it is launching an investigation into whether the culture and practices there at the time allowed Savile to carry out the sexual abuse of children. The broadcaster says that investigation will begin once it gets the go-ahead from authorities. In testimony before British lawmakers Tuesday, BBC Director General George Entwistle said, right now, the broadcaster is working with police and has sought to ensure nothing it does would compromise their investigation.

    Kevin says he feels guilty for not reporting the alleged incident sooner, and is now urging others to come forward.

    “I’ve come forward now. If anyone ever suffered any abuse, you will be believed. It’s the hardest thing I could have ever imagined to do,” Cook said.

    “Even after all these years, I still can’t watch the man.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/world/europe/jimmy-savile-scout-abuse-victim/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

    Like

  264. October 28, 2012 11:55 am

    I’ve had a brief look at Jimmy Savile’s case and see that some of those 300 women who speak up now say that they were abused not only by Savile, but by other people (presumably from TV?):

    “Some 300 potential victims have come forward in the wake of the Savile revelations, according to police. Most of them say they were abused by the late BBC TV host, but some say they were abused by other people, Metropolitan Police said Friday. The force has refused to give a detailed breakdown.”

    And it turns out that Savile was honored as Sir Jimmy!

    Jimmy Savile: How could allegations go unnoticed?

    This is a March 25, 2008 file photo of Sir Jimmy Savile, who for decades was a fixture on British television. A year after he died, aged 84 and honored as Sir Jimmy, several women have come forward to claim he was also a sexual predator and serial abuser of underage girls. The child abuse scandal that has enveloped the BBC, one of Britain’s most respected news organizations, is now hitting one of America’s, as the incoming president of The New York Times is on the defensive about his final days as head of the BBC. Mark Thompson was in charge of the BBC in late 2011 when the broadcaster shelved what would have been a bombshell investigation alleging that the late Savile was a serial sex offender. (AP Photo/ Lewis Whyld/PA, File)

    What a disgusting guy! You can see at a first glance that he is utterly depraved!

    jimmy savile

    http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/2012/10/27/jimmy-savile-how-could-allegations-unnoticed/9Hq7u6xCQFeBkVXbqxkqJL/story.html

    Like

  265. October 28, 2012 11:00 am

    “Did Gutierrez get involved as early on as he says, back in 85-86? I have no reason to believe he was involved before 1993 other than his own words – which is not enough. No one questioned Michael’s relationship with children until 1993”

    Tatum, I am totally amazed that you doubt Gutierrez’s involvement in this story before 1993. It is so obvious that does not require any proof. However since it is evidently not obvious to you, I will have to ask you to think over the following questions:

    – Why was Gutierrez called by the Los Angeles police 4 days after they started investigation and questioned him for several hours for two days? Do the police do it to every passer-by in the street? And what did they talk about for so long?

    – Why does Diane Dimond say in that CNN inteview that she was approached by someone who had already collected a file with 5 “cases” against MJ? So there was at least someone who had been collecting this material before 1993?

    – Who could be that person? And who became Diane Dimond’s best source ever since then?

    Like

  266. October 28, 2012 8:46 am

    @aldebaranredstar
    The police followed the stories of Hard Copy by Diane Dimond as well as other tabloid stories; their desperation doesn’t mean the information given by Gutierrez was sensible, credible nor truthful. It was also Gutierrez who claimed he had a molestation tape involving Michael. According to him the authorities knew about the tape and would confirm it but they maintained the complete opposite. The article you referenced was published in the early days of the investigation, its still after the media got wind of the allegations, along with the illegal leak of the DCS report. The similarities between Jordan’s psychiatric interview and book could’ve been due to the book being published after the information leaked.

    But the Declaration wasn’t released to the public–it was sealed. It wasn’t released to the public til 03 on The Smoking Gun, which leaked it on the same day as the USA showing of the Bashir LWMJ.Jordan’s interview with Dr. Gardener also is not public, although chunks have been leaked by now, but not til way after 1993

    The declaration was released illegally in the 2000’s, that’s true, but the Dr. Abram interview was also followed up by an interview with Children Services and the graphic details of that report was leaked to the public in its entirety in August 1993.

    Like

  267. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 28, 2012 6:29 am

    “I understand what you’re saying about the similarities between the allegations and VG’s book, but remember; those statements had been released to the public.”

    But the Declaration wasn’t released to the public–it was sealed. It wasn’t released to the public til 03 on The Smoking Gun, which leaked it on the same day as the USA showing of the Bashir LWMJ.Jordan’s interview with Dr. Gardener also is not public, although chunks have been leaked by now, but not til way after 1993. Even now the whole thing is not available publicly. VG’s book wasn’t published til 96. And apparently, Sneddon and his team read it for the 03-05 trial.

    Looking at the allegations in 93 and 03, they are very similar, even the same cast of characters, with the sole addition of the Arvizo kid. So in the decade between 93 and 03, not one new boy appeared except for Gavin, so the ‘prior bad acts’ had to come out of the woodwork and the whole list of previous witnesses and allegations from 93. Why didn’t Michael find more than one new ‘special friend’ in 10 years if he was what the prosecution and the media claimed??

    Like

  268. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 28, 2012 6:15 am

    8/28/93 LA Times story

    “One of those interviewed was Victor Gutierrez, a Southern California free-lance journalist who has been working on a book about Jackson for several years. Gutierrez spoke to LAPD officers for two hours Thursday and was interviewed again Friday.

    He would not disclose what transpired during those sessions, but he told The Times that he has interviewed for his book some of the same youngsters being sought for questioning by the LAPD.”

    VG has been consistent that he was working on his book/investigation for several years before the 93 allegations broke. It is true that I do not have proof of this, but apparently Joy Robeson did report to the Jackson family that VG contacted her (anyone know where this is discussed in Jermaine’s book?), which VG says he did in 92. This could be independent verification that he was collecting info before 93.

    The other point to consider is that here he is being interviewed by LAPD in the early days of the allegations, and why would they interview him so soon unless they thought his info was valuable? He is saying here to the press he interviewed the kids the police were interested in previous to their investigation. How would he know so soon which kids were of interest?

    Somehow he was already involved in the case in its beginning stages. It was only announced that there would be an investigation into allegations on 8/17/93, and here is VG, with interviews already completed of the exact same kids the police wanted to meet? He was way prepared and that cannot be a coincidence.

    Look at what Jordan said to Dr. Gardener about the molestation: “It felt good”–nothing about being forced or being distraught. He says Michael told him this was ‘normal’ between ‘friends’–and this is a 13 year old boy who doesn’t know that oral sex with an adult man is not normal? (This claim that Michael told Jordan the sex was normal and he went along with it is repeated in Jordan’s Declaration.) And this is what VG claims in his book–that Michael and Jordan had a normal consensual love relationship, something that I never heard in the child molestation testimony in other trials, at least not from the victim.

    From VG’s book:

    “People were not ready to believe that Jordie and other children actually wanted to have sex with Jackson.” “He [Jordan] enjoyed sex with his friend.”

    This is the pedo line, that it is consensual, normal, just 2 love birds, and Jordan basically repeats this in a less sensational way–Michael convinced him to go along and it felt good. If you listen to real victim testimony, in the Sandusky case, for example, the boys were horrified, sickened, felt violated, and they were essentially raped. Nothing about it felt good.

    Like

  269. kaarin22 permalink
    October 28, 2012 3:25 am

    What about the NAMBLA having set their eyes on Michael?It would not surprise me if they found him desirable in many a way.

    Like

  270. Truth Prevail permalink
    October 28, 2012 3:23 am

    This may be off topic but does anyone know when MJ befriended Mark Lester?

    Like

  271. October 28, 2012 12:23 am

    @all
    Also, Pelicano interviewed Jordan, met the family, interacted with Rothman and knew the charges were bogus. By the time the other lawyers got on board the allegations had become more detailed and bigger (the press) and many motions to push a criminal trial had been denied. This was already brought out on this site but they didn’t even get the chance to question Jordan which is why he doesn’t have a deposition. Honestly, they were kind of pushed in the direction of a settlement because all Evan’s negotiations and filings centered on a civil trial.

    @VMJ
    Completely agree, I think VG is a the p word. Being from Los Angeles, this place would definitely be on my top six child danger zones list next to Florida.

    Like

  272. October 28, 2012 12:12 am

    @ aldebaranredstar

    Oh my goodness, I just opened up a Pandora’s Box. Lol. Did Gutierrez get involved as early on as he says, back in 85-86? I have no reason to believe he was involved before 1993 other than his own words – which is not enough. He’s another tabloid leech that is no different than any of the other liars who claimed they seen things in 80’s. No one questioned Michael’s relationship with children until 1993. I understand what you’re saying about the similarities between the allegations and VG’s book, but remember; those statements had been released to the public.

    VG touched base with Evan at some point, possibly, but I don’t believe he was the source of Evan’s molestation thinking nor was he on board in the 80’s. I know this question wasn’t directed towards me but I think Rothman and Evan separated because they were scared.

    Remember, this was after Michael launched the extortion investigation against them, they both hired attorneys. It’s similar to when people collaborate in committing a crime; sometimes they throw each other under the bus and sometimes just separate to be less obvious. Evan said it was his ass on the line and in danger of going to jail. To me that meant “you’ve done X, Y and Z – I’m going to jail”.

    Like

  273. October 27, 2012 11:09 pm

    I wanted to also post a video of Corey Feldman talking about this biggest secret in Hollywood and searched for it in the previous comments made in this blog. And you know what? The previous video I used has been deleted and the reason for that is because of the "discriminatory comments" there.

    Do they mean to say that when Corey Feldman spoke about pedophiles in Hollywood the poor guys got offended and their rights were discriminated?

    This is outrageous.

    My next step was to go Youtube and find a new video about Corey Feldman. But the video I've found gave a terrible buzz upon opening it and stopped my computer, so that I had to reload. What is going on? We cannot even watch Corey Feldman speaking about this problem? Have pedophiles declared a war or what?

    Here is a video which is still available. I recommend you to download it, so if (when) they delete all traces of it from youtube we will continue posting it again and again:

    Like

  274. October 27, 2012 10:50 pm

    “VG talks about the FBI list of famous pedos, , and he says that a ‘film director’ was on the list. It made me think of this when I read your comment. You wrote that Lewis was arrested in 1973, but maybe he and VG knew each other, or his name was still on the FBI list (if it existed, which I question) or of course VG could mean another film director?” – aldebaranredstar

    Goodness gracious! Gutierrez could not miss if he spoke about film directors! Hollywood is where? In California? It is a place where several NABLA conferences were arranged (Los Angeles, San Francisco and probably others). It is also a place which is full of pedophiles – according to actor Corey Feldman they surrounded him when he was a boy. He said they were everywhere – everywhere he looked! It is also a place where all these events with poor Michael Jackson took place. Michael was in a serpent’s nest!

    Corey Feldman: Pedophilia Is Hollywood’s Biggest Problem

    First Posted: 08/12/11 11:21 AM ET Updated: 10/12/11 06:12 AM ET
    Former child-star Corey Feldman is making some shocking claims in a new interview with ABC’s Nightline.

    The 40-year-old actor, who starred in hit films in the 1980s like “The Goonies” and “Stand By Me,” told Nightline that the biggest threat to children in show business is something that just isn’t talked about — pedophilia.

    “I can tell you that the number one problem in Hollywood was, and is, and always will be pedophilia. That’s the biggest problem for children in this industry… it’s all done under the radar. It’s the big secret,” he said.

    Feldman said he was surrounded by pedophiles when he was 14-years-old and didn’t realize until he was older just what these “vultures” were and what they wanted. Feldman says it was these people who abused both him and close friend and troubled teen actor Corey Haim, who died last year at the age of 38.

    “There is one person to blame in the death of Corey Haim, and that person happens to be a Hollywood mogul — and that person needs to be exposed but unfortunately I can’t be the one to do it,” he said.

    Both Feldman and Haim have talked about their abuse before, even confronting one another about it on their 2008 reality series “Two Coreys,” revealing that they were both being molested by different people at the same time.

    Feldman told Nightline, “There are so many people in this industry who have gotten away with it for so long that they feel they’re above the law. And that’s got to change, that’s got to stop.”

    There still seems to be a rift between Feldman and Haim’s family. When Haim died in 2010, Feldman was not invited to the funeral and when Nightline reached out to Haim’s mother for comment, she told them she wasn’t going to respond to anything Feldman had to say, and wishes he would only talk about himself.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/12/corey-feldman-pedophilia-is-hollywoods_n_925287.html

    Like

  275. October 27, 2012 10:13 pm

    “Both of them, Chandler and Rothman, feared a criminal trial because of MJ’s counter-claim of extortion. According to Hughes they were very nervous about it. That’s why they needed a criminal attorney”.

    Susanne, a very good observation!

    “Hughes also told that Bert Fields and Pellicano were so convinced of MJ’s innocence that they wanted to clear his name through a criminal trial. But when Michael switched lawyers, Pellicano quit because they wanted to settle.”

    Right. Pellicano was an investigator brought in by Bert Fields. They were working together, so when Bert Fields was fired (due to those technical reasons I explained) and a new team of lawyers (Johnnie Cochran with this rat Carl Douglas) immediately went for the settlement Pellicano quit in disgust. He proved that it was pure extortion, found some damning information about the Chandlers (as he said to the Daily Beast) and after all that the defense did not even want to lift their little finger to try to defend Michael? They only discussed the terms of the settlement as this Carl Douglas said!

    Anyone would be disgusted. Pellicano simply did not understand it and left the case.

    Like

  276. October 27, 2012 8:10 pm

    Sorry I did mean the doctor of course, Doctor Mathias Abrams ,if I remember the name correctly. Evan did not want to report it himself,something which would have been natural had there really been suspicion of abuse. He had money in mind.

    Like

  277. October 27, 2012 8:06 pm

    According to the site WoW (and i am no garantor of their reliability), in 2009 there were comments or statements : D.D. has been on Michael Jacksons trail, investigating(?) for 15 years, but Victor G. was into that, ie Michael since the late 80:ies.! This was to point out that V.G. had more experience in this matter.

    Rothman [correction: Dr. Abrams] as a child psychiatrist was an obligatory reporter of any suspected child abuse. Note suspected, need to be confirmed.

    Like

  278. Susannerb permalink*
    October 27, 2012 12:28 pm

    Aldebaranredstar: As far as I remember Geraldine Hughes tells in her book that Chandler switched the lawyer because Rothman was an entertainment laywer, and he needed a criminal lawyer. But in reality he continued to work closely together with Rothman behind closed doors. So I think there is a good possibility that Rothman knew Gutierrez.
    Both of them, Chandler and Rothman, feared a criminal trial because of MJ’s counter-claim of extortion. According to Hughes they were very nervous about it. That’s why they needed a criminal attorney.
    Hughes also told that Bert Fields and Pellicano were so convinced of MJ’s innocence that they wanted to clear his name through a criminal trial. But when Michael switched lawyers, Pellicano quit because they wanted to settle.

    Like

  279. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 27, 2012 8:14 am

    “Look at Christopher Lewis for example. He is a film director and when he was 29 he was indicted with “soliciting boys ranging from ages 6 to 17 to perform lewd acts in their movies”. He was charged with child molestation and filming and distributing child pornography, along with 13 other men.”

    VMJ, you wrote this in a comment about Lynande’s GQ article. In the Spanish video you sent me, VG talks about the FBI list of famous pedos, , and he says that a ‘film director’ was on the list. It made me think of this when I read your comment. You wrote that Lewis was arrested in 1973, but maybe he and VG knew each other, or his name was still on the FBI list (if it existed, which I question) or of course VG could mean another film director?

    Someone was bankrolling VG and all his investigations, which he says in the GQ article went on for 5 years after the NAMBLA conference.

    Like

  280. October 26, 2012 10:48 pm

    VMJ, what was this statement from Pellicano about ‘damning information”?

    Aldebaran, I thought everyone knew (I wrote about it several times in the comments). It is another of those detective stories around Michael Jackson, this time connected with Anthony Pellicano.

    Everyone thinks that Pellicano said some nonsense about MJ to a certain author Christine Palisek in the Daily Beast, right? But I was not convinced as I knew how sure of Michael’s innocence Pellicano was and therefore looked a little further. And what did I find when I really looked? Another media scam.

    Here is my earlier comment about it with some additions:

    A certain author named Christine Palisek attributed the following words to Pellicano – please note the dots between the two sentences, they are used when something is omitted:

    Later in the interview, Pellicano reveals that when he agreed to work for Jackson during the star’s 1993 child-molestation case, he warned Jackson that he’d better not be guilty. “I said, ‘You don’t have to worry about cops or lawyers. If I find out anything, I will f–k you over.’ ” The detective took the assignment, but says, “I quit because I found out some truths. . . He did something far worse to young boys than molest them.” But he refuses to say anything more about it. It’s as if Pellicano wants to send Hollywood a reminder: I know which closets hold the skeletons.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/08/07/hollywood-phone-hacker-anthony-pellicano-breaks-his-silence.html

    It was impossible for me to imagine things “far worse” than molestation, but the fact that Pellicano implied that IT WASN’T molestation suited me all right. His words could mean anything – for example, that MJ gave the family hopes for a better life and then those hopes crashed when there was no more contact.

    Or Pellicano could have said it as a joke – meaning, for example, that MJ spoiled children by allowing them too much. And it could be just Christine Palisek’s trick to use the joke to imply something sinister. Nothing can be “worse” and even “far worse” than molestation, so over here I was calm – there were no murders involved, so it had to be a joke snatched out of some context.

    But he also said that he “found some truths”? What could that be?

    The answer was found in the same Daily Beast and was published on the same day – only on another page. It was a chart of Pellicano and his clients, and No.7 was Michael Jackson which was accompanied by the following innocent text (no fuss about it, no hoopla in the press, no nothing). The text was sensational:

    Facing molestation charges, Michael Jackson reportedly used Pellicano, who claims he found damning information about the accuser’s family”.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/08/07/pellicano-s-reach.html

    Damning information about the accuser’s family? The accuser’s family? Meaning the Chandler’s family? So this was what Pellicano found?

    And this was written the same day, in the same issue of Daily beast, in connection with the same Pellicano only on a different page? So this is how they do it now? They take someone’s words, break them into pieces, one piece is written on one page, the other piece on another page – and here you are, the person is slandered all over though he never meant it, and you cannot find fault with the journalists – they reported the whole of it!

    Add to it the fact that they did not provide a date for their chart (you can see it only in the link to the page), so if you don’t pay attention to the link you cannot connect this information with what was reported by this Palisek – and their meanness becomes totally devilish.

    But the crucial point is that Pellicano found damning information about THE CHANDLERS’ FAMILY and NOT Michael Jackson!

    Here it is:

    Pellicano - damning info about the Chandlers

    Now our Christine Palisek says that “He quit as he found out some truths”. But Pellicano quit because he found the truth of Michael’s innocence and his case was over! He always said that Michael was innocent – before and after the settlement!

    In 1993 before the settlement he said about Michael:

    “People are always trying to extort him for all kinds of reasons because he’s a superstar,” Pellicano said. “I have worked for Michael Jackson for many years and have gone through many of these. This one just happened to have gone too far. Michael is probably one of the most kind and decent men I’ve ever met, and this is horrible.”
    http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-24/local/me-27332_1_michael-jackson

    When Pellicano left his job as MJ’s private investigator early December 1993 he said:

    “I swear on my children this decision was not Michael Jackson’s,” Pellicano said in an interview Tuesday. “It was my sole decision. If I wanted to, I could be working on this case today.”
    “In no way, shape or form does (my resignation) indicate that Michael Jackson is guilty,” Pellicano said. “Michael Jackson is not guilty, and all the things I said in the past I reaffirm.”
    Pellicano insisted that he pulled out of the case because it was taking too much of his time and because his investigation was essentially complete. “The investigation has all been done and is now in the hands of the lawyers,” he said.”

    And after the settlement he said:

    Anthony Pellicano, an outspoken private investigator who worked for Jackson until resigning last month, said the settlement merely reaffirmed his belief that the boy and his family were after the singer’s money.
    “I have maintained Michael Jackson’s innocence from the very start, and I still maintain that he is innocent,” Pellicano said. “Obviously, there has been an exchange of money to settle this case. It all boils down to money.”
    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-26/news/mn-15478_1_michael-jackson

    And recently, in addition to all that I came across an article which is found only in the Spanish-speaking forum. No original in English is left, so I have to provide it in back translation from Spanish:

    02/27/2004, 18:33
    (excerpts)
    Of all the problems that Michael Jackson may have now, one of the biggest might be one of which he has not thought: the jailed investigator Anthony Pellicano.
    Some insiders are wondering why the days when Pellicano was arrested and [raid] of Neverland are connected. Pellicano went to prison for possession of weapons (grenades and plastic explosive). Tom Sneddon began his raid of Neverland the next day.
    What is the connection? Pellicano worked hard for Jackson’s attorney, Bert Fields, in 1993.
    It is known that Pellicano illegally recorded many phone conversations with his celebrity clients, and many of them were then investigated by the FBI and other authorities.
    Pellicano expert source tells me, It is too coincidental that Pellicano was in prison the same day that there was Neverland.”
    http://mjhideout.com/forum/archive/t-34782.html

    What do I think about it? I think that Pellicano had something exonerating MJ in the 1993 case (tapes, etc.) or some “damning information” about the Chandler’s family (as he said to the Daily Beast). This was standing in the way of Sneddon’s plans, who was getting ready to raid Neverland and open a new case against MJ.

    Was Pellicano responsible for the crimes he was accused of? I don’t know, but I’ve read somewhere that the weapons found in his place were not his, he said he was asked to pass them (the package?) over to someone and the one day he kept them he was arrested. Is it true? I don’t know as I have not really looked. But all these coincidences begin to get on my nerves. Too many of them.

    Like

  281. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 27, 2012 7:14 am

    VMJ, Here is what you wrote:

    The computer translation from Spanish says:
    “According to Tom Sneddon, Victor Gutierrez has not yet been called to testify in the case against the new “Domino”.”

    This is why computer translations are limited. The word “domino” is a reference to King. So the translation is: “According to TS, VG has not yet been called to testify in the new case against ‘the King.'”

    The main text of that article in La Cuarta says more: Another journalist Miguel Angel Morales spoke with T.S., who said he has not sent anyone a formal witness announcement or subpoena. But VG said in a recent episode of a show called Primer Plano (First Floor)

    “that he had received a message from the sheriff’s office to send the following information: complete name, address and a lawyer who presents him in USA, so that if he will be needed to testify, he can be located.”

    So TS did consider having VG testify.

    Like

  282. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 27, 2012 6:50 am

    TatumMarie, Did VG know B. Rothman? VG says he gave his manuscript to the police when he was questioned in 1993, so he was assembling ‘evidence’ against MJ for some time in order to have that manuscript written by then. Also, he says he got the name Michael Jackson from 1) NAMBLA and 2) FBI–so he has told 2 stories about it. My question is did he get involved (by whatever means) as early on as he says, back in 85-86. He definitely contacted Joy Robson in 92, b/c she verified this. I thought Michael met Jordan in 93. VG also spoke with McManus, Blanca Francia, but I don’t know when. When did DD and VG get connected?

    There are marked similarities between VG’s scenario and the Chandler civil suit allegations. For ex., Evan’s lawyer, Richard Hirsch claimed that MJ told JC that sex was ‘normal’ between friends. This is not something that a parent who suspects their child was molested comes up with in the usual course of events, b/c this line is exactly what pedos claim (love relations between boys and adult males are normal, loving relationships). Other details of JC’s story to Gardener sound like VG had a hand in it too–for ex., nipples being twisted. Sounds like pedo porno, no?

    Lynande, so how did VG get that photo of Michael sitting in June Chandler’s house? Do you think he was in contact with the maid of the Chandlers, whose name we don’t know? Or he got it from Norma Salinas?

    Since LaToya hugged VG and agreed to meet with him, is it possible she also met with VG prior to her announcement that she claims Jack Gordon orchestrated? She said there that Michael’s sexual relations with boys went back to 1981. This is a long shot, but I wonder.

    There is a new book by Craig Baxter that looks at Michael’s body language during various interviews and statements, for ex. when he was on Oprah and when he talked about the strip search and said he was innocent. Baxter is an expert on body language. He concludes that Michael was innocent. Sounds like a good book.

    Does anyone know why B. Rothman was dropped by Evan? Was it b/c the extortion charge was more likely to stick if he stayed with Rothman?

    Like

  283. October 27, 2012 4:28 am

    It’s hard for me to base the whole theory of Gutierrez’s involvement in the Jackson case on what he claims was said by members of the NAMBLA. This guy is clearly a stone cold liar and we can’t verify those claims. There was someone else involved who had a history in making child abuse claims which was Rothman. Gutierrez was clearly Evan’s go to man to publish the lies to make money on the case outside of the settlement but … I don’t see proof of anything else.

    Like

  284. lynande51 permalink
    October 27, 2012 1:54 am

    The maid that VG spoke to was in fact Norma Salina’s she was Evan’s maid. The photo with Michael in his pajamas was from June’s house because he is sitting in the same chair that is seen in another photo from her house. Norma Salinas was on the Prosecutors witness list in 2005.

    Like

  285. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 27, 2012 1:02 am

    VMJ, I knew of that quote (misquote) from Pellicano saying MJ did ‘much worse things’ than molest boys, but I was not sure what you were referring to. Thanks for the info. and for the many quotes from Pellicano when he says MIchael was not a child molester.

    In the indictment of 2008, it was stated that Pellicano had police informants who passed him confidential police documents. So if he had the same insider contacts in 1993, he would have had access to everything the police had, including the manuscript of VG’s book, that VG gave the police when the investigation opened.

    Here are some quotes about Pellicano’s sources in the police.

    During the call, Pellicano reads a police report with Zsbrita’s side of the story and assures Rock the police aren’t taking her seriously. No charges were every filed.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allison-hope-weiner/chris-rock-and-anthony-pe_b_91391.html

    The indictment alleges, in part, that members of the Los Angeles and Beverly Hills police departments unlawfully accessed confidential records on celebrities and public figures that they turned over to Pellicano. Pellicano and associates allegedly tapped actor Sylvester Stallone’s telephone and accessed confidential police records on other public figures, including comedians Garry Shandling and Kevin Nealon.

    Wiki—anthony pellicano

    Like

  286. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 26, 2012 9:56 pm

    http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=2278&forum=DCForumID61

    Kathleen Keane was a freelance reporter and her husband, Charlie Montgomery, was a National Enquirer editor at the time of JonBenet Ramsey’s murder.

    The News Journal/JENNIFER CORBETT
    Kathleen Keane was in the kitchen of her Trolley Square home, helping her 5-year-old grandson Matthew get ready for preschool.

    Voices from the television yapped in the background. A man in Thailand had been connected to the decade-old unsolved murder of JonBenet Ramsey.

    Keane ran upstairs to her bedroom to tell her husband, Charlie Montgomery, who for eight of his 20 years as a senior reporter and senior editor at The National Enquirer led coverage of the Ramsey case.

    They had a huge interest in the story: At the height of its notoriety, Montgomery assigned Keane to go “undercover” to Charlevoix, Mich. Keane is a painter in addition to being a freelance writer, and Montgomery told her to paint near the Ramsey house, and try to attract the Ramseys’ attention — without telling the family she was a writer for the Enquirer.

    Keane did, managing to become closer to the Ramsey family (if only for a spell) than perhaps any other reporter — and getting a huge front-page story in the Enquirer on the first anniversary of JonBenet’s death.

    A partnership begins

    Montgomery had met and hired Keane at a twice-weekly Absecon, N.J., newspaper, The Sun. They married in 1983, and after he got a job at the Lantana, Fla., base of The National Enquirer in 1983, his wife occasionally would freelance stories for the supermarket tabloid.

    Montgomery remembers reading the Palm Beach Post four days after Christmas 1996. It was a Sunday morning. He turned to a page with news briefs from around the nation. The third brief, he says, offered scant details about a 6-year-old girl who had been slain.

    “Not even a name or a place,” he says.

    The media onslaught gained momentum, and several months later Montgomery had an idea.

    He required staffers at The National Enquirer to identify themselves while reporting stories. Keane, however, was a freelance writer, and she technically had no allegiance to the tabloid.

    “There was no way that Patsy Ramsey was going to talk to The National Enquirer,” says Keane, now 69. “She wasn’t going to talk to anybody.”

    There is more to the article, but you get the idea. At the end, the writer Jennifer Corbett says that her newspaper does have standards of ethics that require even free-lancers working for them to identify themselves. I think there is a legal liability to the tabloids if they do not identify their paid staffers.

    Like

  287. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 26, 2012 9:38 pm

    “The information about Gutierrez being in direct contact with the Chandlers and Gutierrez instigating Evan Chandler could be that very “damning” information which Pellicano found out about the 1993 case and mentioned a year or so ago.”

    VMJ, what was this statement from Pellicano about ‘damning information”?

    I would like to see a new book published called “Michael Jackson Was My Victim, The Secret Diary of VG,” in which ALL of VG’s stalking of MJ and ALL his involvement in the witch hunt and persecution of Michael is displayed for everyone to see.

    VG did the ‘leg work’ in collecting evidence and lining up ‘witnesses.’ He started doing this years before the 93 allegations (in 86, when he attended the NAMBLA conference, but possibly earlier) and his Spanish and guile helped him ‘discover’ Hispanic and other employees as sources (a.k.a. liars). So when he hit the jackpot with the mentally ill parent and extortionist Evan Chandler, he had already constructed a ‘case’ that could be appropriated by anyone wanting to smear or accuse Michael.

    He communicated not only with Evan but with Feldman, himself a major sleazebag who, as we now know thanks to Lynande, gave Jordan’s Declaration (itself probably lifted in part from descriptions in VG’s manuscript) to the Associated Press before it was sealed. So Feldman promoted VG to the police IMO. Thus, VG’s scenario becomes the de facto basis for the accusations, including the prior deeds. (If the police had a copy of Vg’a 1993 ‘manuscript’, for sure so did Feldman.)

    Can anyone explain why Evan Chandler switched lawyers, dropping B. Rothman and going with Feldman? I wonder if Rothman met VG?

    Thanks so much VMJ and everyone who is helping to put the pieces of the puzzle together.

    Like

  288. October 26, 2012 7:07 pm

    “Yesterday I saw a news report about the Jimmy Saville case for the first time on German TV. They even said there are more than 300 victims and that it had been well-known among a lot of people working for BBC and that BBC covered it up for years. It’s incredible what real pedos could do trouble-free for decades, while MJ was hunted down for decades for nothing. It really looks like Michael was victimized by the media to distract from the deeds of their own sleazebags.”

    Susanne, awful. 300 victims! So this is the price the naive and lazy public is paying. They were chewing up and swallowing media lies about the innocent Jackson while all this time crimes were committed by the media people themselves! And those Hollywood pedophiles who, according to Corey Feldman, were “everywhere around him”? He said that it was an open secret in Hollywood and everyone knew what was going on too! And now we find out that even the BBC was covering up for Savile’s crimes – and for decades!

    Yes, they used Michael for distracting the public from real crimes. And they terribly enjoyed themselves in the process. It was a game and the fact that he was innnocent only added to the zest of it. It would have been totally “uninteresting” to create all that hoopla around a real criminal – but turning the whole world against an innocent person – this was where the real challenge was.

    It was a “creative” task. People had to be original, inventive, look for new methods of brainwashing the public (like the one described in the Tabloidbaby – they fed a lie about MJ to a British reporter and then innocently reprinted it in the US). It was a thrilling game and the most joy was derived from the fact that they managed to turn the public against one of the purest and best persons on the planet. It requires skill and they probably even bragged to each other at how they fooled all of us.

    You know when was the first time I had the impression that they were playing a game with us? When three years ago I noticed traces of the truth left here and there in some articles about MJ. It was almost like seeing them say to us: “How can you claim that we fooled you if we left all those traces around? It is your fault and not ours that you have not noticed. We have reported it! So what if we misplaced the focus? You should be able to think for yourselves. Otherwise the game is not interesting!”.

    Indeed, if they had not wanted us to know the truth they would have hidden ALL facts from their readers, but those small traces left here and there were like an invitation to attentive readers. The game was called “Will you notice?” I wrote about it this post: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/the-truman-show-for-michael-jackson-will-they-notice-that-everyone-is-acting-their-part/

    It is about the movie “The Truman show”. I compared the film with what the media was doing to Michael Jackson. Later on I found out to my complete astonishment that the director of the film said that the movie was based on … Michael Jackson’s life! He was still alive when the movie was made.

    The idea is that a baby boy is born almost online and is then followed by TV viewers all his life (he doesn’t know about it). It is a reality show which lasts for 25 years and its creators use it for selling to viewers their products. Everything – I mean EVERYTHING and EVERYONE there are artificial – the man’s wife, friends, mother, the crowd in the street – all of them are actors and all they use, wear or eat are advertisements of some products…

    IT IS A GREAT MOVIE!

    P.S. Some time ago I noticed that the rules of the game had changed. They started hiding the evidence about MJ by “archiving” the most illuminating pieces. Now you can get most of them only for money or from some chance catched copies. They noticed that MJ’s fans are interested and suddenly grew fearful that one day we will learn the truth – the truth about Jackson and especially about the way they intentionally slandered him.

    This is why I ask everyone who sees an interesting document to store it on their computers and even make a screen shot of it.

    Like

  289. October 26, 2012 6:28 pm

    Helena, have you seen this before? It’s a video of Latoya Jackson HUGGING Victor Gutierrez after granting him an interview in March 2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BOB7SNGOTA

    David, of course I have seen it. There was even a big article in Spanish newspapers about it. Actually Gutierrez himself almost laughed at her. I cannot read it as it would not translate into English but the MJ forum where I found the link gave a short summary of it. Here is the original:

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

    And here is its summary in English made by a MJ fan:

    PCR March 17, 2010
    I know I should not spread any bad feelings towards MJ’s relatives, but I really need to vent. Today, in a Chilean newpaper, a happy Víctor Guitérrez claims he made what seemed to be impossible: to interview one of MJ’s family members, namely, LaToya.

    This guy is one of MJ’s biggest haters of all times. He has been for some 18 years telling lies and spreading the worst rumors against Michael not only in Chile, but in Latin America, USA and Europe. He claims he is one of the few who know “the most” about MJ. He has always said MJ hated being black, that he bleached his skin, and always refused accepting MJ had vitiligo something which has now been confirmed as a fact by MJ’s autopsy report. Not only this, but he wrote a disgusting book using, according to him, the personal diary of Jordy Chandler, describing how Michael did this and that to the poor boy, being “this and that” those nasty, disgusting lies we all know. MJ sued this man and he won the legal battle. The book was forbidden and he would have had to paid MJ some 2 million USD, but Gutierrez claim he was in bankrupcy (while running away from the US and traveling around the world to be paid to tell lies about MJ on the media). Just think how terrible that book must be that even the US legal system agreed it was a lie and defamation. This man has links with Diane Diamond. Of course.

    And now, LaToya has given him an interview to talk about what Gutierrez calls “other things”, that is, her conspiracy theory against Michael. Gutierrez said he didn’t believe she would accept him, but finally she did and they had such a good talking that at the end he told her about his mother (who died some time ago) and she was so sorry… And then they talked about the earthquake of Chile and she was so moved she sent a brief message to Chile : “Fuerza Chile”.

    On Gutierrez words: “I believe the earthquake brought us together”
    ……
    Seriously… how can this bring those together? At the end of the article, Gutierrez jokes the rest of the brothers “wouldn’t even want to see my face” and that despite this interview he will always believe Michael was a pedo…. , but also that he had been murdered. A proud liar.
    You can see the article (in Spanish) here: http://www.lun.com/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?dt=2010-03-17&PaginaId=26&bodyid=0 and you can see a small video of her message to Chile and she holding Gutierrez so happily as long time friends No info was given on where this will be aired.

    Now…. am I missing something here? Does the “fight for justice” mean deals with this kind of people who have hurt Michael IN LIFE so much? I really don’t understand LaToya. And I wonder if she knows this guy is now claiming so cheerfully he got her and that he will always belive MJ was a p*****

    I might be over reacting. I know. But if you see LaToya holding Diane Diamond like an old time friend… and then Diamond she will always think MJ was a monster…. then… I need some help to understand what is the idea of LaToya doing this.”

    This is because she is a fool and doesn’t know the first thing about Gutierrez. She should have checked before going there.

    But isn’t it interesting that Gutierrez says that Michael was murdered? Especially if we look at this information from the angle of Gutierrez’s close contacts with the police? Though the police will never admit it, of course.

    Like

  290. October 26, 2012 6:12 pm

    “I wonder if Tom Sneddon had him talk to Janet Arvizo too.She was Hispanic and would have fit right in talking to him and being comfortable….”

    Nannorris, an interesting observation. It is simply incredible that there are so many Spanish-speaking people involved in this case. It cannot be a coincidence – it is surely the result of Gutierrez’s work among them.

    “It was an incredible realization to me , after reading something on this site , that the prosecutors were actually going by this guys book in the trial..”

    Well, there are so much proof of it, beginning with the fact that Sneddon himself wanted to introduce Gutierrez’s book as evidence but quickly withdrew it as if in some embarassment.

    Then Gutierrez said that the police studied his book (“when its first phase was finished”, so it was a manuscript with some “documents”?) even before the 1993 allegations, but at the time “he was a nobody for them”, “just a Latino reporter”, so they did not pay attention to it.

    Then Gutierrez said that when the allegations were made the police read it again and even used it as a “document”. Don’t know if he was talking of the 1993 or 2003 case – could be the Arvizos. In the latter case we have a confirmation from Sneddon himself that he wanted to introduce Gutierrez’s lies as “evidence” (but never did).

    The funniest thing is that when you read the transcripts of the 2005 trial you can recognize here and there various ideas coming from Gutierrez’s book. For example, that lion in a cage which was allegedly “stoned” by Michael and Brett Barnes. Brett said they threw small pebbles at the lion in MJ’s zoo as they wanted to hear the lion roar, but in Gutierrez’s version it turned into a bloody scene with the lion almost bleeding to death… So the defense and prosecution discussed in full earnest how big were the pebbles – stones or pebbles, and how many, and why they threw them, etc. It was hilarious.

    Like

  291. October 26, 2012 5:42 pm

    “Interesting though that TS never called VG as a witness.”

    Victor Gutierrez was very much willing to get into the limelight, but Tom Sneddon never summoned him – which is a very telling fact. If Gutierrez had really been a secret and trusted “agent” of some sort, he should have testified first at the trial. But Sneddon was extremely unwilling to subpoena him and I can even guess why…. The most Sneddon tried to do was introducing Gutierrez’s book.

    At a preliminary stage when the sides were defining what evidence would be admissible or not, Sneddon presented a list of 14 items he wanted to be admitted as evidence. It was a crazy list. Among other things it contained the lyrics of Michael’s songs, newspaper reports about the “baby-dangling” episode, Michael’s cosmetic surgery, bankruptcy filed by the Jacksons, “All that glitters” by Ray Chandler and Gutierrez’s “MJWML”.

    But what is extremely interesting is that when the Defense filed a motion against those items Sneddon immediately agreed to drop everything (including Gutierrez’s book) except some odd pieces of dirty underwear meant for laundry but found in an attic among some books (!) and MJ’s claim to the sheriff’s department that he was mishandled by the police. Everything else was readily dropped by Sneddon even without any dispute. The readiness with which Sneddon parted with Gutierrez and his lies amazed me.

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

    And here is Victor Gutierrez claiming that he is waiting to be summoned as a witness to the 2005 trial. The photo is taken from La Cuarta article dated November 23, 2003:

    The computer translation from Spanish says:

    “According to Tom Sneddon, Victor Gutierrez has not yet been called to testify in the case against the new “Domino”.”

    “Domino” must be a reference to a domino effect when one piece falls and all the rest of them follow one after another? Or is it some case which took place in Chile?

    The original is here: “Según Tom Sneddon, Víctor Gutiérrez aún no ha sido llamado para testificar en la nueva causa contra el “Dominó”.”
    http://www.lacuarta.com/diario/2003/11/24/24.23.4a.ESP.JACKSON.html

    Like

  292. October 26, 2012 4:54 pm

    “A free-lance journalist has advantages if they are trying to get people to talk. They do not have to identify themselves as journalists. For example, one free-lance journalist fooled Jon Benet Ramsey’s mother into thinking she was just a watercolor painter in the neighborhood, getting a drink of water, and being friendly. When Patsy Ramsey invited her into her house, she had no idea she was the wife of Charles Montgomery, one of the senior editors of the National Enquirer. Then everything went into a front page tabloid article. But if a journalist is employed by a particular paper, they HAVE to identify that by law. So VG being free-lance would help him.”

    Aldebaran, this was very helpful! I didn’t know that journalists working for newspapers have to identify themselves by law. Very interesting. You also noticed what Gutierrez said about Joy – “I told her I was not from a tabloid or newspaper.” Good!

    It is an indirect hint at the fact that he presented himself as someone really “important” – an undercover agent and not just a reporter. If there is at least a grain of truth in Gutierrez’s story about Joy Robson I can understand why she “listened to him attentively” – she was trying to figure out who he was and what was his agenda. She indeed later warned Michael about this person – as far as I remember Gutierrez writes about it himself in one of the later chapters.

    This explains a visit to him from Pellicano which frightened Gutierrez very much. The information about Gutierrez being in direct contact with the Chandlers and Gutierrez instigating Evan Chandler could be that very “damning” information which Pellicano found out about the 1993 case and mentioned a year or so ago. He could have also found out that Gutierrez was a pedophile.

    Somehow he definitely had some connections with the police, such that he was one of the first interviewed by them in the 1993 investigation. I think he also met with Larry Feldman, as well as Evan. Perhaps Larry Feldman told the police to interview VG?

    In fact in his book Gutierrez claimed that he not only knew Larry Feldman, but Larry Feldman “hired a private detective to find Gutierrez”. At the time when I was reading it, it looked to me as a complete absurdity, however now I don’t know. If Gutierrez spoke to Evan and possibly even to Jordan, why wouldn’t Feldman try to find the man who started it all?

    I wonder if anyone ever realized VG was a pedo himself and had an agenda to turn MJ into a pedo so that pedophilia could get accepted? (maybe Ray Chandler did eventually?) This reminds me of Thomas O Carroll and “Michael Jackson’s Dangerous Liaisons,” another person with a pedo background who used MJ to gain acceptance for his behavior.

    I think Ray Chandler did finally realize it, otherwise he would not have called him a sleazebag. It seems that Evan Chandler also eventually had a major fall-out with Gutierrez, because in his book VG portrays Evan in a very unfavorable light saying something like “he didn’t understand that it was love, and wanted only money”.

    And all those in the police who read Gutierrez’s book (still at the stage of a manuscript) should have realized that he was a pedo too – it is too obvious from the way he writes. Even we can see it, not to mention professionals.

    And in 1997 when Gutierrez published his book Diane Dimond surely realized it too, as the final chapter in the book does not leave a single shred of doubt about Gutierrez’s views. Even if she was the dumbest of them all, this was the moment to clearly see it. So everything else that came afterwards was Diane Dimond’s intentional spreading the ideas of a person who admitted that he attended a boylovers’ conference and confirmed his pedophilia views by his book.

    I still need to write about VG’s final chapter.

    It is so ironic that TS, DD, NG, MO, MB and all the people who were so horrified at the thought of pedophilia, so moralistic and pure, were actually, by persecuting Michael, furthering the aims of a pedophile organization to spread its message! Unbelievable.

    Ironic, tragic and an incredible lesson for the general public. Those who look most moralistic are not moral at all or may be even completely immoral. All is not gold that glitters.

    “The photo of Michael in pajamas in VG’s book–is that from Evan’s house or June’s? Could VG have spoken with the live-in maid that June had?”

    Did he speak to June’s live-in maid? Are you joking? NONE of them spoke to her maid! I mean that there is not a single mention of this woman either by Sneddon, Larry Feldman or Gutierrez!

    She never testified anywhere at all (probably only before the Grand jury in 1994). We have no transcript of it, but from the complete silence about her it is clear that she DID NOT CONFIRM any of those lies. Otherwise they would have trumpeted her views long ago. She was the first person to ask all those questions about MJ staying in June’s house and still we have never heard anything from or about her!

    Even if haters come up with fantastic versions now and say that she was killed by some gangsters working for MJ, at least something should have been left – a statement made in 1993, a deposition, or at least some small note in the press about her existence at all (or on the contrary, something happening to her).

    But we have NEVER heard about this woman. NEVER! If only we could find her…

    Do you have a link to that GQ article?

    There is no link because GQ magazines are not published online – you can only buy a physical copy of it. This was done by Lynande51 who made screen shots of some pieces from it and wrote a post about the GQ article here: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/victor-%E2%80%9Cthe-toad%E2%80%9D-gutierrez-british-gq-another-nail-in-their-coffin/

    Now the link to her post and some screenshots from the GQ magazine were included into the current post too.

    Like

  293. October 26, 2012 4:13 pm

    Yes, great work about this sleazebag.
    Yesterday I saw a news report about the Jimmy Saville case for the first time on German TV. They even said there are more than 300 victims and that it had been well-known among a lot of people working for BBC and that BBC covered it up for years. It’s incredible what real pedos could do trouble-free for decades, while MJ was hunted down for decades for nothing. It really looks like Michael was victimized by the media to distract from the deeds of their own sleazebags.

    Like

  294. October 26, 2012 3:15 pm

    Last midnight on the news: Savile had 300 victims,-Diane Dimond, so cosy with her main source,a pedo.What the #### did she think she was doing?It is impossible that she did not know, that is the reason for keeping num on his name while spreading his lies.

    Like

  295. Truth Prevail permalink
    October 26, 2012 1:47 pm

    “Another of his laughs was about the children “having a normal life at last”

    I am sick and tired of people claiming this how is there father being dead good for them or normal.

    Now someone who is as grotesque as VG dropped dead not only would the journalism world be better off but the whole world.

    Like

  296. sanemjfan permalink
    October 26, 2012 11:48 am

    Helena, have you seen this before? It’s a video of Latoya Jackson HUGGING Victor Gutierrez after granting him an interview in March 2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BOB7SNGOTA

    Like

  297. October 26, 2012 11:30 am

    “V.G. promoted from ” a poor latino”, a “nobody ” to a secret agent of sorts ,requested so by the FBI. A rising star!”

    Kaarin, I very much want Victor Gutierrez to become the “rising star” of this harassment-of-Michael-Jackson business. He should be brought into the limelight. The country should know its “hero”, even though he was born elsewhere. I strongly suspect that Chilean people are not too happy to have him among their ranks either.

    And I think that Victor Gutierrez was not really an “agent” – he was an ordinary informant, like those the police have among drug-dealers. Police are disgusted by them but tolerate them because they are insiders in the criminal environment and may be helpful on occasions. But officially they don’t know them. We are actually lucky that firstly, Gutierrez is so talkative and likes bragging, and secondly, that LA Times article published information about the police summoning Gutierrez as one of the first witnesses in 1993.

    There must be one strong police requirement to Gutierrez – that he never commits anything criminal on the US territory, therefore if Gutierrez does anything incriminating he should be travelling a lot (for example, to Thailand). However even a simple check-up of his computer could be also helpful.

    “I need to let you know that Aldebarenredstar had put forward a different interpretation of the suicide picture. Calling it a homicide picture.”

    Yes, I remember. It was a great observation. Quote: “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).”

    Of course it was a homicide and it was Jordan’s way to explain it to the adults. There was so much pressure that at some point they broke his resistance and he agreed to cooperate. But he turned into a kind of a zombi – cold, mechanical, unemotional, just doing the job they wanted him to do (see his interview with Dr. Gardner). This is why later he refused to cooperate with the police, saying that “he did his part”.

    He indeed did his part and didn’t want to have anything to do with it any more. And this time he was so emotional that he even threatened to sue them.

    Like

  298. October 26, 2012 11:02 am

    BTW it’s Jerry Sandusky and Jimmy Saville you made a mistake above and put “Jerry Saville”

    Thank you very much, Truth Prevail. No mistakes should be made – I’ve corrected it. It is because I am fortunate not to be too much familiar with these people.

    Like

  299. nannorris permalink
    October 26, 2012 9:19 am

    Great work !! I wonder if Tom Sneddon had him talk to Janet Arvizo too.She was Hispanic and would have fit right in talking to him and being comfortable….I definitely think he was on a mission from NAMBLA..
    He might have had local contact with police but I didnt see his name or any cases referred to in the FBI files..They had NOTHING scrawled on the files , so somebody was reporting MJ to them , I would assume , but they would always come up empty.
    It was an incredible realization to me , after reading something on this site , that the prosecutors were actually going by this guys book in the trial..It seems to me that DD bought it and sold it to the prosecutors ..She vouched for this nut..
    He is such a sick sick man…twisted individual

    Like

  300. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 26, 2012 6:08 am

    “It is so ironic that TS, DD, NG, MO, MB and all the people who were so horrified at the thought of pedophilia, so moralistic and pure, were actually, by persecuting Michael, furthering the aims of a pedophile organization to spread its message! Unbelievable.”

    I wanted to add that not only were they helping a pedo and furthering his pedo agenda–they were PAYING him big bucks!! They were paying a pedo! And they acted so holier-than-thou–so pure–so outraged. What hypocrites! Bashir hired VG and he must have known all about VG’s book by 2004-05, when he hired him as an advisor.

    Interesting though that TS never called VG as a witness.

    Like

  301. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 26, 2012 5:59 am

    Great work, VMJ! It collects so much info together and lays it all out clearly. VG is a master conman and worked his sociopathic charm on many people and had too many of them fooled (DD and MO for example). He looks quite benign, almost professorial with his glasses. What he says to Joy Robson is indicative of his conman game and how he proceeds to gain entry and trust.

    It’s Interesting that his tactics are similar to the ones the police used in their interrogations, for ex. with Jason F., when they claim Michael is ‘doing it’ to others boys as if that is fact. I read that in Jermaine’s book (You Are Not Alone), he says that Joy Robson actually went to the family to warn them about VG, but apparently they didn’t take it seriously.

    In the letter I translated I missed one sentence (sorry). It is right after the headline where the article says the FBI gave VG a list of famous pedophiles. The missing sentence reads : “Among them was Jackson’s name.” (Entre ellos figuraba Jackson.)Then it goes on to say “VG was interested” and hired the private investigator. The 36 cases then appear to refer MJ, and it is interesting that the number 36 also appears in the GQ article (but about the # of guest rooms, maybe the writer made a mistake on that?). Maybe there were 36 boys to contact?

    I think it is likely that VG was a paid police informant at least for a while. I also think it’s very likely someone bankrolled him, maybe from NAMBLA. He tells a lot of lies so it is hard to know. He claims he worked for a Latino newspaper, but he has never named it, so I am starting to think that is a lie, that he never had a regular journalist job, but was always ‘free-lance.”

    A free-lance journalist has advantages if they are trying to get people to talk. They do not have to identify themselves as journalists. For example, one free-lance journalist fooled Jon Benet Ramsey’s mother into thinking she was just a watercolor painter in the neighborhood, getting a drink of water, and being friendly. When Patsy Ramsey invited her into her house, she had no idea she was the wife of Charles Montgomery, one of the senior editors of the National Enquirer. Then everything went into a front page tabloid article. But if a journalist is employed by a particular paper, they HAVE to identify that by law. So VG being free-lance would help him. He says to Joy, “I told her I was not from a tabloid or newspaper.”

    Somehow he definitely had some connections with the police, such that he was one of the first interviewed by them in the 1993 investigation. I think he also met with Larry Feldman, as well as Evan. Perhaps Larry Feldman told the police to interview VG?

    I wonder if anyone ever realized VG was a pedo himself and had an agenda to turn MJ into a pedo so that pedophilia could get accepted? (maybe Ray Chandler did eventually?) This reminds me of Thomas O Carroll and “Michael Jackson’s Dangerous Liaisons,” another person with a pedo background who used MJ to gain acceptance for his behavior.

    It is so ironic that TS, DD, NG, MO, MB and all the people who were so horrified at the thought of pedophilia, so moralistic and pure, were actually, by persecuting Michael, furthering the aims of a pedophile organization to spread its message! Unbelievable.

    The photo of Michael in pajamas in VG’s book–is that from Evan’s house or June’s? Could VG have spoken with the live-in maid that June had? Do you have a link to that GQ article?

    Thanks for this!!! It really shows the underlying motives of VG and his key role in spreading lies. It took him many years but, you are right, when he found Evan, he hit the motherlode.

    Like

  302. October 26, 2012 3:13 am

    VMJ a brilliant article.V.G. promoted from ” a poor latino”, a “nobody ” to a secret agent of sorts ,requested so by the FBI.A rising star!
    I will leave further comments for now. I need to let you know that Aldebarenredstar had put forward a different interpretation of the suicide picture. Calling it a homicide picture.
    This is a plausible interpretation. I did not find his original statement on this blog as there has been so much going on and comments were hard to find. Whichever, it a an image of violent emotions erupting, of fear, violence and grief.It all turned into tragedy ,not only for Michael but for the Chandler family too.

    Like

  303. Truth Prevail permalink
    October 26, 2012 2:06 am

    VG really is a piece of work.

    BTW it’s Jerry Sandusky and Jimmy Saville you made a mistake above and put “Jerry Saville”

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Wade Robson: What The Heck Is Really Going On?-Pt 3 | AllForLoveBlog

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: