VICTOR GUTIERREZ behind the scenes of Michael Jackson’s case
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.
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.
– 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.
- Conventional appearance
- Incapable of real human attachment to another
- Unable to feel remorse or guilt
- Extreme narcissism and grandiose
All of the above looks like a great summary of Gutierrez and a good scientific explanation of his pathology.
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 …”
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.
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”.
“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.”
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:
“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 , 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.
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.
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.”
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?
” 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?
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”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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 himself. This 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?