Barresi, Pellicano and Michael Jackson ‘FBI’ files. Part 2

This is part 2 of the post about Michael Jackson so-called secret FBI files. The subject of the discussion is 6 pages disclosed in June 2013 by some UK tabloids and a certain Barresi who claims that the papers come from Pellicano and that Barresi once worked for him.

To see that the papers are not FBI and are no secret, and to learn who Barresi is, you need to go to the first part of this post.

And over here we will focus on Barresi having no right to speak on behalf of Pellicano at all, and on Barresi’s story about MJ being the opposite of Pellicano’s, and the fact that even today Pellicano insists that there was not a single shred of evidence against Michael Jackson in 1993 or ever.

This post will also look into the 6 documents presented by UK tabloids as some kind of a sensation which they are not –  except the sensation, of course, that some of them are fake.

DID BARRESI WORK FOR PELLICANO?

The Sunday People article of June 30, 2011 speaks of Barresi as Pellicano’s “senior snoop”. From the way they present Barresi here it looks like he is Pellicano’s right hand who is fully entitled to speak on his behalf:

Pellicano is now behind bars serving a 15-year jail sentence for racketeering and wire-tapping. But one of his senior snoops – who worked extensively on the Jackson case – has broken his silence to speak exclusively to the Sunday People.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/michael-jackson-paid-23million-buying-2011662

Barresi is Pellicano’s “senior” snoop? So every story told by Barresi now should be regarded as first-hand information direct from the investigator who looked into the scandal around Michael Jackson in 1993?

Noooo, guys. Of all lies told by Barresi this will be one of the biggest ones. Barresi wasn’t Pellicano’s investigator, senior or any other, and he had no access to any of Pellicano’s files – firstly, because Pellicano was not in the habit of sharing his secrets with anyone and secondly, because he didn’t regard Barresi as a credible source.

To describe Pellicano’s secrecy and unwillingness to let anyone into his investigative work Barresi himself said that even Pellicano’s direct employer Bert Fields did not know a thing about the way Pellicano was going about his business. And this is the exact reason why Bert Fields didn’t have to answer for Pellicano’s methods for which he is now serving a term in prison.

Barresi said about it:

“He had a lot of extraordinary trade secrets, and for Pellicano to share with his long-term clients — Mr. Fields was a long-term client — would be like a magician telling the audience how he did his tricks,” said Paul Barresi, a former legman for Mr. Pellicano.  Mr. Barresi has been aiding the defense team for Mr. Fields in hopes of a later payday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/business/06holly.html?_r=0

When Pellicano was arrested Barresi was arrested too, but was set free, and from this fact alone we know that the magician did not share his trade secrets with Barresi either.

The above piece is also a tacit explanation of the role played by Barresi in all those investigations  – he volunteered his services, most probably by offering dirt on someone, and this dirt could then be paid or unpaid depending on the situation. So his style was closer to that of a blackmailer than an investigator, especially since the dirt was not necessarily to be true.

This voluntary informant’s work is actually what Barrisi did for Pellicano. The field he was working in was the one he knew best – it was gay sex industry.

Barresi also regularly freelanced for Pellicano. “Whenever there was a damaging story involving a celebrity client that involved sex, then I was involved,” Barresi said

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/LegalCenter/story?id=1625097&page=1&singlePage=true

The difference of an informant is that he brings in any dirt he is able to dig up, whether true or not. He doesn’t check up the veracity of the story and doesn’t analyze things in order to arrive at the truth which is the job of an investigator proper. “Legman” is exactly the right word for Barresi.

But the most important proof that Barresi wasn’t Pellicano’s investigator, especially the one entitled to speak on his behalf, is the fact that Pellicano was asked a direct question about his cooperation with Barresi and Pellicano said “No”.

The question was asked in October 2006 by Martin Lasden, a journalist working for the California Lawyer Daily Journal who approached Steven Gruel, Pellicano’s attorney with this and other questions.

And what answer did he get? Pellicano fully disavowed Barresi and said that he never hired Barresi to do any investigative work for him. The word “any” was put in italics by Martin Lasden himself.

Martin Lasden’s account about Barresi is very detailed and I couldn’t resist making a long quote from it because it was only here that I realized one other important thing about Barresi. Back in 1993 he not only worked both sides of the street – with LAPD (prosecution) and Pellicano (defense) over the Lemarques’ tapes, but he used them to a threefold advantage for himself.

To LAPD and Pellicano he told the true story of Lemarques, but to two tabloids he sold the false version of the same.

Do you think Pellicano could regard a person like that as a credible source and trust him with his own findings? Absolutely not! Barresi would have sold Pellicano’s secrets at the first corner had he had known any of them.

Here is Martin Lasden’s story:

Of all the people I interviewed about Anthony Pellicano, Paul Barresi had the most-vivid stories to tell. A former porn star who quit the business in 1989 because he was afraid of getting AIDS, Barresi worked for a while as a sales rep for a courier service. He also capitalized on his Hollywood contacts by occasionally selling information to the tabloids, and later he got back into the porn business as a producer. He met Pellicano in 1993.

“I found out about Pellicano through what I read in the media,” he says. “I knew he was Michael Jackson’s PI. I also knew that we had certain things in common. For one thing, we were both Sicilian. And when I saw him on TV, he acted a lot like the kids I grew up with. I said to myself, ‘I should get along with this guy.’ So I called him up and said, ‘Look, I can’t discuss this over the phone, but I got something that will be useful to you in the Michael Jackson case.’ ”

The next day, Barresi sat on a black leather sofa in Pellicano’s office, describing the contents of two surreptitiously recorded conversations he had had with one of Jackson’s cooks, Philip LeMarque, and his wife, Stella. The LeMarques, Barresi says, claimed they observed Jackson molesting child actor Macaulay Culkin. They also told him they wanted to sell their story to the tabloids.

Barresi agreed to act as their broker, and he quickly secured a $150,000 offer from the National Enquirer, with the understanding that he would get a 15 percent cut. The deal turned sour, though, when the LeMarques hired an attorney who promised to get them half a million dollars instead. Naturally, Barresi was upset, and he wanted to get back at them if he could. This was where the tapes came in.

When the LeMarques first told Barresi their story, they said they saw Jackson’s hand over Culkin’s pants. But as time passed, their narrative evolved and had Jackson’s hand inside the boy’s pants. Barresi had this discrepancy on tape, and now he was alerting Pellicano.

“He was very attentive,” Barresi says of that first meeting. “He looked at the transcripts, evaluated what I had to say about the inconsistencies between one transcript and another. … I could tell he liked my handiwork. That is how the relationship started.”

For the next ten years, Pellicano hired Barresi from time to time to dig up dirt on famous people. Barresi says he was always paid in crisp $100 bills and was never told the reason for a particular assignment.

And here comes a piece about Pellicano denying that he ever hired Barresi:

“I inform him of Pellicano’s latest denial, which is that he never hired Barresi to do any investigative work for him. My source on this is Steven Gruel, Pellicano’s attorney. But, as I say to Barresi, it’s not a claim I take seriously. Not with the emails and faxes Barresi has shared with me that document the relationship. And then there are all the other people I’ve talked to who vouch for Pellicano and Barresi’s association. Yet Barresi is still upset. And so the next day he sits down and writes Pellicano a letter.

“Look, I got proof I worked for you,” Barresi writes. “Proof positive. You paid one of my sources in cash yourself. You mailed him money, $200 cash, in an envelope. … How about that male hustler who said he was with Tom Cruise? I brought him to your office on your instruction. You said you needed to interrogate him. I still get e-mails from that cocksucker, all pissed off at me. Also, several of your secretaries, who John Connolly spoke with, and other people associated with you confirmed I did jobs for you. “Reflect on this, please. Be honest. Write me back.”

http://www.callawyer.com/clstory.cfm?pubdt=200610&eid=877922&evid=1

Raymond Strait, Barresi’s unsuccessful book partner described the situation with the male hustler in the opposite way – Pellicano didn’t give him any assignments in respect of this man. On the contrary, when the hustler approached Barresi with his story and requested him to get a movie deal based on it, Barresi started thinking of how to “spin the story into a small fortune” with a 15% commission for himself. The first call was to the National Enquirer, but when that deal went sour the second call was to Pellicano who asked (or agreed) to interrogate the hustler to check his credibility. In the end Barresi got $5,000, the hustler got nothing and had to flee the country.  Now Barresi is saying that he has done “investigative work on behalf of Cruise”.

This is the usual routine with Barresi. He learns of some dirt about someone (fictional or real) and offers it to all interested parties expecting a lavish pay for it, and when things don’t go his way he favors those who pay most. No wonder Pellicano said he never hired Barresi – a style like Barresi’s can compromise any true investigation.

But what worries me most about Barresi’s letter is its last sentence –  “Reflect on this, please”. To me it sounds like a threat. It sounds like if Pellicano doesn’t reflect on it the right way Barresi will make Pellicano regret it.

Pellicano is in prison now and will stay there for long, and won’t be able to defend himself or anyone from behind prison bars. In circumstances like these Barresi can easily take his little revenge on Pellicano. For example, by distorting his words. For example, about the person whom Pellicano fiercely supported. Someone like Michael Jackson, for example. Especially if he is paid good money for it.

The big difference between Barresi and Pellicano is that Barresi can say anything about Michael depending on the sum, while Pellicano is an investigator who cherishes his reputation of a man-who-knows-all and who, once he learned the truth, will stick to it no matter what.

And as regards Michael Jackson Pellicano always spoke of his innocence. And he did not just say it – he was adamant about it. He said it at all times while he worked for Michael Jackson and after the work was over too, when he quit the job in solidarity with his employer Bert Fields who was fired in December 1993.

But the most interesting point in Pellicano’s story is that recently, in August 2011 he spoke in the defense of Michael’s Jackson again. It was in an interview he gave from behind prison bars to a journalist of the Daily Beast. The majority of people think that in that interview Pellicano recanted on his words.

No, he didn’t. He was simply talking about a different thing.

PELLICANO SPOKE OF SOMETHING DIFFERENT

The story by the Daily Beast of August 7, 2011 was intentionally structured to produce the effect that Pellicano knew some unwelcome truth about MJ. In reality the same Daily Beast provided irrefutable proof that in his interview Pellicano was speaking about Michael’s innocence and the dark secret found during his 1993 investigation was about someone else.

Since there is a very big danger that in the wake of Wade Robson’s case someone will be tempted to replace Pellicano’s views on Michael Jackson by those of Barresi (opposite to Pellicano’s), I need to describe here how the Daily Beast did their best to mask the fact that in his prison interview Pellicano supported Michael again.

The trick was simple but practically unnoticeable.

In the Daily Beast article of August 7, 2011 called Hollywood Hacker Breaks His Silence  Pellicano was quoted saying that he quit the Chandler case because he had found out some truths. Then he allegedly dropped an ambiguous phrase saying that MJ ‘did something much worse than molestation’.

“Pellicano’s reach” was published by the Daily Beast the same day as the article

And in the chart published the same day by the same Daily Beast but only on a different page called Pellicano’s Reach, Pellicano said that he had indeed found some damning evidence, only it was not about MJ, but was about the accuser’s family.

This way those who read the article knew one thing, and those who saw the chart knew another thing. And it never occurred to anyone to bring the two pieces of information together.

However if they did bring them together the true message from Pellicano would read as follows:

• Pellicano did find some truths … and it was damning information about the accuser’s family.

The way the whole thing was done makes me think that it was a deliberate lie told by the Daily Beast journalist who snatched Pellicano’s words from the context and all those ambiguous phrases dropped by her were meant to mask the truth who Pellicano was really talking about.

Please reread the respective piece from the article again and please first take note of the fact that Pellicano warned Jackson that he had better not be guilty or Pellicano would be the first person Michael to “fuck him over”. Knowing Pellicano’s Cicilian temper I easily believe that he would have done it had he really found anything bad about MJ, especially since Pellicano himself is a father of nine children.

Also please take note of the dots in the Daily Beast article which can easily stand for a gap in the journalist’s narration:

“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

And here is information from the “Pellicano reach” chart published the same day on the Daily Beast parallel page which contained the actual truth found by Pellicano. The text accompanying point 7 of the chart says:

“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

Pellicano found damning information about the accuser’s family

To hide the fact that the article about Pellicano’s interview and chart were published on one and the same day (August 7, 2011) the Daily Beast did not place the date on the chart at all. The date of the chart could be found only in its URL and this is what made all this masquarade all the more intriguing:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/08/07/pellicano-s-reach.html

• Note: Now I am told that the link to “Pellicano’s reach” is no longer working. Well, it means that my diagnosis of the plans of Michael’s adversaries is absolutely correct. They are erasing all traces of Pellicano’s support for Michael Jackson and intend to replace him with Barresi who will say the opposite of what Pellicano said.

• 

  April 14, 2013. Pellicano Reach  chart WAS there but is no longer available now

  As proof that the Pellicano’s reach chart has been there I’m posting here a screenshot of today’s Google search for it, which shows that only recently the page was there but is no longer available (blocked). It looks like someone doesn’t want the innocent truth about Jackson to be ever known.

• Actually here is a cached version of the chart: http://web.archive.org/web/20110809130148/http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/08/07/pellicano-s-reach.html

As to things “far worse than molestation” any normal person will tell you that nothing can be worse than child molestation (except murder, of course).

So it was either a joke on Pellicano’s part or he was speaking about those families around Michael who initially thought that once they made friends with the famous Michael Jackson they would roll in gold ever since but later found all their hopes shattered into pieces.

When it turned out that MJ couldn’t sustain them for the rest of their lives and instead of fame their children were doomed to carry the label of Michael’s “boys” forever after, this could indeed be a heartbreaking experience for many of them. The children had to grow up in the ruthless atmosphere of media ridicule and harassment from their classmates and intrusive public, and this way Michael’s desire to help or just be a good friend of the family could indeed turn into their worst nightmare, and this experience was probably far more horrible than any molestation.

Other explanations of Pellicano’s words are also possible but all of them will amount to one and the same thing – Pellicano was talking not about molestation and this way even from behind bars Pellicano sent us a clear message of Michael’s innocence. 

PELLICANO ALWAYS SAID IT

Pellicano said he quit the 1993 case as he had found the truth – Michael was innocent, the investigation was complete and everything was now in the hands of his lawyers. But the real reason for his leave was of course his disagreement with the new team of MJ’s attorneys who wanted a settlement while Pellicano fiercely insisted on a fight.

Here is what Pellicano said about Michael Jackson throughout all times (it is interesting to see how we came a full circle and what Pellicano said at the beginning was repeated at the end).

On August 7, 2011, the Daily Beast article said:

“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.’ ”

And the same was said 20 years ago, on August 31, 1993:

Of the molestation charges, the investigator said: “If this was a true and legitimate claim, why didn’t this guy go to law enforcement right off the bat? If you molested my kid, it would take an act of God to keep me from ripping your heart out of your frigging chest.”

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-31/news/mn-39718_1_michael-jackson

August 24, 1993:

“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

January 25, 1994 (prior to the settlement):

Amid signs that a lawsuit accusing Michael Jackson of sexually molesting a young boy may soon be settled, prosecutors announced Monday that they will not bring charges against the boy’s father, whom Jackson and his advisers claimed tried to extort money from the entertainer.

Pellicano–who no longer works for Jackson but who still fiercely proclaims the entertainer’s innocence and opposes any effort to settle the civil case–scoffed at that and suggested that prosecutors and lawyers in the civil case are orchestrating an effort to dismiss all the cases.

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-25/local/me-15027_1_civil-case

January 26, 1994 (the day of the settlement):

“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. 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

January 1994 (about the events on July 12, 1993):

After listening to the tape with the mother and stepfather, Fields and Pellicano believed that the father had Jackson spend time at his house only so that he could bug the room the star and Jamie shared….Fields raised that possibility with Jackson. “Michael’s response was completely inconsistent with guilt. When I told him what he said, he was completely unafraid of any tape that might have been made during that week. It was not the attitude of somebody who was worried about what was on the tape.”

Anthony Pellicano decided to go right over to Jackson’s condo and question Jamie [Jordan]. “I went in there with an attitude that I was not going to prove that Michael was innocent. I was going to prove that Michael was guilty.

According to Pellicano, Jamie told him a lot in 45 minutes. “He’s a very bright, articulate, intelligent, manipulative boy.” Pellicano, who has fathered nine children by two wives, says he asked Jamie many sexually specific questions. “And I’m looking dead into his eyes. And I’m watching in his eyes for any sign of fear or anticipation—anything. And I see none,” Pellicano says.

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

“‘So you never saw Michael’s body?’ ‘One time, he lifted up his shirt and he showed me those blotches.‘” Then Pellicano asked Jackson to come downstairs. “And I sit Michael next to him and go through exactly the same thing,” he says. Pellicano claims they both maintained that nothing happened, and Jamie began to disparage his father. “He’s talking to me about his father never wanting to let him be a boy and never wanting to let him do the things he wants to do. ‘He wants me to stay in the house and write these screenplays.’ … And he said to me several times during this conversation, ‘He just wants money.’ I said, ‘What are you talking about?'”

Then, Pellicano claims, Jamie told him the story, confirmed by Michael, that when Michael was over at his father’s house his father told Michael he really didn’t have the room for him to stay there. “Why don’t you build me an addition?” Then he went and checked with the zoning board, and he couldn’t put the addition on, “so he asked Michael just to build him a whole new house.” Larry Feldman, Jamie’s attorney, calls this story “ludicrous and factually incorrect. I checked with the zoning board, and there are no such restrictions.” Pellicano says he also learned that the dentist wanted to close down his practice and get involved in screenplays with Michael. http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1994/01/orth199401?currentPage=5

The GQ article by Mary Fischer, October 1994:

Remember, this case was always about money,” Pellicano says, “and Evan Chandler wound up getting what he wanted.”

Was Michael Jackson Framed? by Mary A. Fisсher GQ magazine 1994

And in September 1994 Pellicano spoke with tabloid reporter Jim Mitteager (friend of Barresi).

The tape of this conversation has a story of its own. It was first passed over to Barresi by Mitteager’s widow together with all other tapes in Mitteager’s file, then Barresi gave it to Aphrodite Jones who placed it on her website, but after Aphrodite Jones fell into Barresi’s disfavor (didn’t pay for it?) she had to pull it down from her site. I made a copy of its cashed variant:

PELLICANO: You have to understand something. I have nine kids. Michael [Jackson] plays with my baby. They crawl all over him. They pull his hair. They pull his nose. Sometimes he wears a bandage across his face. If I let my own kids (unintelligible) do you think there’s a chance?

MITTEAGER: Well, all things being equal, I would say, no.

PELLICANO: Not only that. If you sat this kid [Jordie Chandler] down like I did, as a matter of fact, he couldn’t wait to get up and go play video games. I said, “you don’t understand how serious this is. Your dad [Evan Chandler] is going to accuse Michael of sexual molestation. He going to say all kinds of stuff.”

He [Jordie] says, “Yeah, my dad’s trying to get money.” As a matter of fact, I (unintelligible) for 45 minutes. Then I tried tricking him. I mean, I want you to know, I’m a vegetarian. I picked this kid with a fine tooth comb. So we’re there (unintelligible) with this kid… and if you sat down and talked to this kid, there wouldn’t be any doubt in your mind either. And I said Michael is all upset. We went over and over.

I tried to get him to sit down and he wants to play video games while I’m sitting there. I’m sitting there with the kid’s mother [June Chandler] and David Swartrz walks in and (unintelligible) what’s this all about? And [Barry] Rothman (unintelligible) asking questions. There is no question that Rothman (unintelligible) what this is all about.”

What’s absolutely invaluable about this piece is that Pellicano doesn’t know that he is being recorded. He is speaking not for the sake of impressing the public but is just telling things the way he really knows them.

The moral of this chapter is that Pellicano first made sure of Michael’s innocence and only then started defending him. And once he made sure of it he stuck to his words and supported Michael till the end.

And therefore any attempt to present Barresi’s stories about Jackson as Pellicano’s views is the most horrible, insolent and unconscionable LIE.

’24 ABUSED KIDS’

Sunday People Front Page, June 30, 2013

The headline of the June 30, 2013 UK tabloid and the last quote from its article about the so-called ‘FBI’ files suddenly break on its readers a fictional number of “Jacko’s victims”.

The headline gives one number, the quote gives another one, however none of them matter as any number of “victims” is actually a lie.

But the author (James Desborough) doesn’t care. He is so carried away by his story that takes it so far as to claim that MJ was fixated with “child porn”.

First, let us state it once and for all – there was no child porn found in Neverland.  If it had been found Michael Jackson would have been put into prison long time ago on this charge alone.

And the rest of Desborough’s article is a no less outrageous lie:

“The paedophile allegations – sandwiched between thousands of pages of information about Jackson, his career and his accusers – include interviews with ex-aides who claim their boss was fixated with child porn.

The files name 17 boys – including five child actors and two dancers – Jacko singled out for abuse. Other kids the singer preyed on include a European boy and the sons of a screenwriter.

At least three boys got hush-money, the investigator said, with the family of one well-known young film actor ­being given £392,000 “to refrain from any and all contact with media and communications, newspapers, television, radio, film and books”.

The gagging order also insisted there would not be any attempt now or in the future to “extort, intimidate, harass or impede” the Jackson organisation.

A maid who worked for the singer at Neverland was said to have been paid off with about £1.3million after complaining her son had been abused by her employer. And the investigator told of one shocking case of a mother who knew her young son was being molested by Jackson “but turned a blind eye to it because if it didn’t bother him, it didn’t bother her”.

Many of the files on the victims – whose names are not being published for legal reasons – were originally pulled together by lawyers drawing up a list of potential threats to Jackson’s paedophile secret in the early 1990s.

The legal team was scrambled after the dentist dad of 13-year-old Jordan Chandler went public with claims his son had been abused – opening the door to a string of accusations involving other kids.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/michael-jackson-paid-23million-buying-2011662

Whether 24 boys (in the headline) or 17 boys (in the text) where does this crazy number come from? The only source it can come from is Gutierrez’s list of the alleged “victims” which he presented to Diane Dimond and sent to the Los Angeles Police Department in 1993.

Let me remind you that the police took the matter of Chandler’s allegations so seriously that when the news broke out they interviewed Gutierrez for two days running, but then let him go as this clown had absolutely no proof for his stories. The policemen were evidently so disgusted with his lies that they never even mentioned his name ever since (though all of them read his book, including Tom Sneddon).

Gutierrez told us about his fiasco himself in the British GQ magazine of October 2006. He complained that he had sent his findings to LAPD, but they didn’t pay attention, as he was “a nobody for them, just a Latino reporter”….

Victor Gutierrez about LAPD: “I was a nobody for them. Just a Latino reporter in L.A.”

But how did Gutierrez come to the list of 17 boys? Easily. He simply made rounds of all parents of boys in Michael’s vicinity and told them his crazy stories about Michael – just as he explained it in his book. Remember the way he “interviewed” Joy Robson in 1992?

By the way Joy Robson is the mother whom Desborough describes as the one knew that her son was molested but “turned a blind eye to it, because if it didn’t bother him, it didn’t bother her”.

This great statement enables us to make a couple of interesting conclusions.

If Joy Robson knew all about it and it didn’t bother her because it didn’t bother her son, it means that Wade Robson also knew everything, and his story about ‘amnesia’ or whatever new version he is voicing now is complete BS.

If you recall Gutierrez’s book you will remember that Gutierrez also made it clear that Wade Robson was present when Gutierrez was talking to his mother.

So how could this boy “never realize” that it was “abuse” until he reached age 30 if Gutierrez was telling them that it was already in 1992?

And why did all of them speak of MJ’s innocence at the 2005 trial? If it was a lie told under oath, but now it turns out that she knew of the “molestation” all along and just “turned a blind eye to it”, shouldn’t the mother be the first to go to prison for perjury and for pimping her son?

Joy Robson, I demand answers to these questions.

MICHAIL JACKON ‘FBI’ FILES

Now finally let us have a look at those 6 pages which Desborough and his followers gave a false name of ‘FBI’ files. These ‘files’ may be found on the Daily Mirror site (of course): http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/michael-jackson-paid-23million-buying-2011662

DOCUMENT 1

Document 1

The first piece is the receipt given to Barresi for passing over the tape with the Lemarque’s revelations to the LAPD on August 30, 1993.

This document actually enabled us to establish Barresi’s identity and proved to us that back in 1993 the authorities were well aware of the Lemarques’ interview which James Desborough attemps to present now as something novel, sensational and top secret.

DOCUMENT 2

The second piece is the receipt given to somebody (Barresi?) in return for 3 more tapes about Jackson recorded on  September 9, 1993; December 21, 1993 and January 1-13, 1994.

The interviewees are evidently the same Lemarques as the article told us about “hours and hours of interviews with ex-aides”, but some tapes may also be the recordings of Jim Mitteager’s conversations with Pellicano and the Newt family.

Document 2

You don’t remember the story of the Newts?

The Fox News article has an excellent material about that family and the conversation Jim Mitteager had with them. In that conversation the tabloid journalist implored the boy and his father to accuse Michael of molestation for the sum of $200,000.

However nothing came of it. Initially the father was tempted by the money but finally tore up the agreement. But though the story went nowhere the tape of Jim Matteager talking to the Newts still remained – first in Pellicano’s and then in FBI’s possession, and the second receipt must be covering that tape too.

Here are some details about Jim Mitteager speaking to one of the Newt brothers:

“He didn’t care! He was like, ‘Just say it and we’ll give you the money.’ And I was like, ‘He [Jackson] never touched me!” Newt said. “He [Mitteager] was really fishing and really digging. Think about it — most people you say it to, ‘We’ll give you this money,’ even [if it’s not true]. And they’d take it.”

Bobby Newt recalled more details of the 30-minute meeting with The National Enquirer’s reporter:

“He was trying to coach me — if I decided to take the money, what would happen. He said ‘You know, it’s going to be a huge scandal. You’ll probably have a lot of people not liking you. You’re going to be famous!’ But to me, you’d be ruined. And the truth is Michael didn’t do anything even close to trying to molest us.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152708,00.html

The 30 minute tape of Newt’s conversation with Jim Mitteager must be part of Document 2 by all means. I wish the Sunday People had published the transcript of that conversation instead of the Lemarques.

DOCUMENT 3

The next document is a sort of a report addressed to Pellicano. It is dated July 26, 1993.

Document 3

I’ve retyped it so that anyone can translate this great “document” into their own language:

FAX: July 26, 1993

TO: ANTHONY PELLICANO

FROM: [ blacked out]

Jackson’s former lawyer, …… who specializes in corporate law stated money was paid to ……. No money was paid to…….. According to source, Jackson has paid off child victim’s parents dating back to the summer of 1992. Jackson settled with the mother of child actor/dancer wantobe…., AKA …. I was unable to obtain copy of said settlement worked out by lawyer named Howard Weitzman reads as follows:

1. On this seventh day of July 1992 by and between the Michael Jackson organization, herein referred to as the “organization” and ….. herein referred to as “claimaint”. Witnesses said, in consideration of the mutual covenant and agreements to be kept and performed on the part of set parties hereto, respectively as here and stated said party of the first part, the organization does hereby covenants and agree that it shall, 1. Have no contact of any sort, written verbal or telephonic with claimant and claimants minor child, …. Furthermore, the sum of six hundered thousand dollars ($600,000) shall be paid to claimant upon execution of this agreement. In addition, the organization shall make no attempt to extort, intimidate, harass, impede or liable in any way claimant, either now or in the future. In said party of the second part claimant convenants and agreements that it shall, in

2. In consideration of receipt of above stated monies, in the amount of six hundred thousand dollars, ($600,000) refrain from any and all contact with media and communications, newspapers, television, radio, film, books. Furthermore, claimant shall make no attempt to extort, intimidate, harass, impede or liable in any way the organization, either now or in the future. This agreement shall be binding upon the parties by their successors assigned the personal representatives. This agreement shall be enforced according to the laws of the state of California, County of Los Angeles. Seventh day of July 1992

In the end, Jackson allegedly paid off the following victims:

[17 blacked out names]

A detailed analysis of the above manuscript was made by this blog:  http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/tag/paul-barresi/, so I won’t repeat what was said there and will just express my own opinion about this paper.

Everything in it makes me wonder. For example, the name of Howard Weitzman.

This paper refers to some alleged settlement and a paper “worked out by Weitzman” already in 1992 –  but Weitzman started working for Michael only a year later, in 1993!

Below is an article which explains that Pellicano enlisted Howard Weitzman’s services only on August 21, 1993 when he learned that the police had raided Michael’s property. Pellicano was on a tour together with Michael Jackson and learned of the surprise raid by telephone and it was only after that that he hired Howard Wietzman.

Gloves Come Off in Damage Control by Jackson Camp

September 03, 1993|DAVID FERRELL and CHUCK PHILIPS, TIMES STAFF WRITERS

The instant the phone call arrived, Anthony Pellicano knew there was trouble–possibly big trouble. The caller told him there had been a raid. Police had confiscated photos and videotapes from the homes of the private investigator’s top client, pop superstar Michael Jackson.

For Pellicano, who was accompanying the singer on the Asian leg of a world concert tour, the bombshell was sufficiently jarring to prompt his own phone call moments later to Los Angeles, where it was not yet dawn.

“Wake up,” Pellicano told an old ally, criminal attorney Howard Weitzman, whose high-profile legal battles have been waged on behalf of former auto maker John DeLorean, actress Kim Basinger and, most recently, a Columbia Studios executive rumored to have crossed paths with alleged Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss. This time, it was Jackson who needed him, Pellicano said to Weitzman.

As the Aug. 21 police raid threatened to spill the accusations into the public realm, Pellicano sought to act quickly, enlisting Weitzman’s services before flying from Bangkok, Thailand, to Los Angeles.

Strategy for Jackson’s defense, Weitzman said, is being mapped out through constant communication among Weitzman, Pellicano and Jackson’s entertainment attorney, Bertram Fields. “Michael is kept regularly advised,” Weitzman said. “I talk to him almost daily. I know that Anthony and Bert talk to him almost daily.”

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-03/news/mn-31256_1_michael-jackson

So what fictional “settlement worked out by Weitzman in 1992” is this paper talking of if this attorney was hired only a year later?

The riddle is easily solved when you realize that the author of the fabrication evidently heard Weitzman’s name in the media in August 1993 when he had just been hired (and when this fake was made) and assumed that Weitzman had always been Michael Jackson’s lawyer – while in reality Michael’s long-time lawyer was civil attorney Bert Fields.

The author of the fake hints that he saw the original of the settlement and is even quoting from it, but says he was unable to obtain a copy of it (and this is supposed to explain why he cannot enclose it as proof of his fake).

But we know that it is a fake not only from Weitzman’s name, but from the simple fact that the “legal” text he is quoting is not even proper English – look at this grammar, for example:

• “In said party of the second part claimant convenants and agreements that it shall.”

Or at this gibberish:

• “Witnesses said, in consideration of the mutual covenants and  agreements to be kept and performed on the part of set parties hereto respectively as here and stated said party of the first part, the organization does hereby covenants and agree that is shall…”

The above is simply a totally meaningless and random choice of words! It probably produces the impression of a legal document but is absolutely not. It is simply illiterate. And someone is telling us that this paper was written by Howard Weitzman?

And this attorney didn’t even know what was the proper name of Michael Jackson’s company and simply said that it was MJ’s “organization”?

No, a mere suggestion that the above may be a sort of an “agreement” with MJ is simply preposterous! It is so big a fake that it is even unreal. But now we at least know from what kind of a crazy document the number of 17 alleged “victims” came from…

DOCUMENT 4

Document 4

If sorted out by the date the next paper will be the Lemarques’ transcript dated August 28, 1993 about a theatre in Neverland where MJ and children allegedly watched “porn movies”.

Over here I have only one comment. The Lemarques forgot that the movies were shown by MJ’s special staff and that they were not a simple video which could be handled by MJ all by himself – so at the very least there must have been a witness and an accomplice to this activity.

However the witness was missing and there was absolutely no one who could prove this outrageous story. No wonder the police disregarded the Lemarques’ lies. They wanted to embellish them as much as they could, but overdid it to the extent that all these embellishments became their own ruin.

DOCUMENT 5

The next paper is dated December 10, 1993 and is called “Excerpt of conversation Globe Bureau Chief Jim Mitteager and Anthony Pellicano December 10, 1993”. The conversation was recorded secretely as was the habit with Jim Mitteager.

Document 5

Pellicano is talking of the need to have every story come out before the trial so that nothing takes them by surprise later. This means that he is extremely interested in pulling into light every single story and every single claimant that can claim that he is a victim.

The time of the discussion is December 10^th 1993. By now the investigation has been going on for several months, but even at this late stage of the investigation Pellicano says that “there is no other kid”. He says, “They keep looking and looking and calling and calling, and there is no other kid”.

Jim Mitteager asks him (with some hope): “What about Wade Robson?”

Pellicano suggests: “Call her” (evidently meaning Joy Robson)

Jim is in doubt: “Well, she is not going to talk to me”

Pellicano replies: “Well, call her and see what happens”

Jim: Well, we talked about you smoothing the way.

Pellicano: Yeah, I know but…

Isn’t it interesting that Pellicano was so sure of Joy Robson’s good opinion about Michael, that he shrugged his shoulders and actually insisted that the tabloid reporter from the Globe should talk to her?

The text may possibly suggest that Pellicano “smoothed the way” for Joy Robson to support Michael Jackson, but from another source we find out that he didn’t have to as she was speaking in support of Michael Jackson from the very start of it.  She was actually the first to defend Michael from any insinuations and take the matter of his defense into her own hands.

The confirmation of this comes from no other but Victor Gutierrez who in his book describes his conversation with Joy Robson in the summer of 1992 after which she complained to Norma Stakos, Michael’s manager and Norma evidently brought the issue to Pellicano’s attention. So Pellicano didn’t have to “smooth” Joy Robson – it was she who was the first to voice her protest against Victor Gutierrez’s activities.

The disappointed Gutierrez called Joy Robson an “opportunist”:

“Joy turned out to be something of an opportunist. She tried to use my interview as a means of making good Jackson’s promise of the “good life.” The next day, Joy called the manager at Neverland Ranch, Norma Staikos… Joy told Norma that a journalist had an abudance of information and was asking questions about the relationship between Jackson, her son and other boys.  She explained that the journalist was writing a book about Jackson on the subject of his being a pedophile.

Joy told her that the journalist knew where Wade was and he would return to continue with the conversation.”

After reading texts like these it would be all the more interesting to talk to Joy Robson. Where is this esteemed lady now and why is she keeping silence?

DOCUMENT 6

Now comes the last document out of the great Sunday People file. It is called an “investigative report” sent by someone to Pellicano.  And if all the previous documents could simply surprise you this one will simply knock you off your feet.

Why?

Document 6

Let’s have a look at the dates here.

The paper is about a parent who got $20,000 for her Hard Copy interview and who was escorted by detectives on March 2^nd. This clearly refers to Blanca Francia as she was the one who spoke to Hard Copy (in November 1993).

On March 2, 1994 she could be escorted only by her lawyers who were starting to prepare a civil suit against Jackson. After learning of the Chandlers’ success in January that year Blanca Franca decided to step on the money extortion road too and actually got what she wanted.

The November 1993 date is okay as at that time Anthony Pellicano was still investigating the case. But the paper is written the next day after March 2, 1994 when Pellicano had already stopped working for the case by several months, so how can it be addressed to Pellicano if he quit his job so long ago?

This means that either the paper is a complete fake or Pellicano went on sleuthing on Michael after he stopped working for him.

If it is a fake let’s throw it away without spending a single more minute on it. But if Pellicano continued sleuthing on Michael even after he quit the job let us focus on this point as it produces all the more proof that Pellicano was very thorough in his job and wanted to know the truth just for himself.

To learn what Pellicano found out as a result of all his spying on Jackson all you need to do now is compare this “investigative report” of March 1994 with the transcript of Pellicano’s conversation with Jim Mitteager half a year later – the one that was dated September 1994 and provided by Barresi to Aphrodite Jones (see above please).

This small comparison will tell you all you need to know about Pellicano’s final conclusion about Michael as a result of spying on him for another 9 months after he officially stopped working for him (if we are to believe this document of course).

And from this second Pellicano’s conversation secretely recorded by Jim Mitteager in September 1994 we learn that after a whole year of investigating Michael, Pellicano still didn’t have a single shred of evidence against MJ.

This will automatically nullify all those 17 “victims” in the first paper and the story about Blanca Francia allegedly “eye-witnessing” some children molested in her presence – because all those things were mentioned in some dubious documents before Pellicano spoke to Jim Mitteager in September 1994.

And all the “facts” stated in those earlier documents had already been looked into by the time Pellicano had a frank conversation with Mitteager and made it clear to him that he had absolutely nothing against Jackson.

And by the way how on earth could anyone ever believe this “investigative report” which claims that Blanca Francia “eye-witnessed” some children being molested in her presence if in her 2005 testimony she said that she never saw MJ have any sexual contact with any child at all? 

Here is just one quote from her testimony (of which we have a lot) where she repeats her “No” twice:

27 Q. But you did say under oath that you had
28 never saw Mr. Jackson have sexual contact with
1 anyone, right?
2 A. No. No.

Will there be any more questions about these ‘FBI’ files, guys?