Victor Gutierrez’s Narrative about Michael Jackson Revisited
It seems that the subject of Victor Gutierrez is far from being exhausted and certain things need to be put down just as a memo.
The May 24th 1994 issue of the Globe provided to us by MJJ critic quoted Gutierrez’s book which at that moment had a draft title ‘In the Closet: Inside the Michael Jackson Criminal Investigation’.
This product was copyrighted in 1995 under a much more salacious title – ‘Michael Jackson was my lover. The secret diary of Jordy Chandler!’ and was published in English in March 1996 (the Spanish version came out earlier).
Jordan Chandler didn’t have a lover and didn’t keep a diary, and in addition to these and a thousand more lies Gutierrez told in his book he also revealed that at the very least he is a pedophilia sympathizer and that his detailed descriptions of ‘love scenes’ could be based on his own experience or the fantasies of his sick mind.
This was evidently the reason why Evan Chandler’s brother Ray didn’t endorse Gutierrez’s book and called him a sleazebag (a sleazebag is defined by the dictionary as someone bad and repulsive, a person who has low standards of honesty and morals).
However in 1994 the Chandlers were still collaborating with Gutierrez as the photos printed by the Globe could be produced only by the family. On May 9th and 10th Gutierrez went on a Hard Copy show to present whole chapters from his book together with the photos, and this couldn’t be done without the Chandlers’ consent either.
So the May 24th publication of Gutierrez’s text and the photos was absolutely not the first time he made his writings public. However it is the first time we see them and in color too.
One of the photos depicts Michael sitting in an armchair in June Chandler’s home with an open box full of books in front of him.
The Globe says about it:
Michael was wearing lipstick, eyeliner and a Band-Aid on his nose during one visit to this young friend’s bedroom, says author Victor Gutierrez.
‘Exclusive photo. This photograph is some of the evidence that Evan presented to the police to prove that Jackson was in his son’s bedroom ready to sleep with the boy. Michael Jackson sitting on Jordie’s bed in pijamas, and with little make up on it. When the young boy took this picture neither he or Jackson would ever imagine it would be used as evidence”.
Evidence of what, I wonder? Michael is indeed in June Chandler’s home and is sitting in an armchair with what looks like a book in his hands and an open box in front of him full of more stacks of books.
What indeed strikes us about this photo is that Michael is wearing his pajamas in June’s home (so this is how comfortable he felt there), but is sitting in a hat and the expression on his face is far from being happy. Why so?
It is because at that very time he was suffering from the after-effects of an operation on his scalp made by plastic surgeon Dr. Gordon Sasaki. The operation was made on March 16th 1993, just two weeks before their visit to Las Vegas at the end of March, and this photo must have been taken after that visit.
The reason for the operation was a scar that remained on Michael’s head from the burn he sustained in 1984 when filming a Pepsi commercial and some unsuccessful follow-up operations which left him partially bald.
The bald area had to be covered by a hair piece which was a big problem for Michael during his dance routines and the whole idea was to deal with that problem within the break between the two legs of the Dangerous tour. The hair recovery was meant to be over by August 1993 when the second leg of the tour was starting, and as a result the process of treatment spanned the whole period Michael associated with the Chandlers (since February 1993).
All these details are known to us from Dr. Sasaki’s deposition during the AEG trial. The description of the operation is actually a pain even to read – the doctor placed a metal device on both parts of the scar, made an incision and placed a balloon under each side of it. Then through a series of expansions Michael’s skin was stretched until finally some of it became loose. The excess skin was cut out together with the scar and bald spot and the wound was closed.
Dr. Sasaki talks about ‘three periods’ within which these procedures were made, so we don’t know for sure whether it involved one operation or several. In the latter case Michael was to carry those balloons on his head during a prolonged period of time.
But whatever the operation technique was we can be absolutely sure that when we see Michael sitting in June Chandler’s house with a hat on his head he has a big wound under it and the distressed expression on his face is a reflection of the pain it is giving him.
Just as a reminder here is an excerpt from Dr. Sasaki’s testimony in August 2013:
Q. So on February 16th, 1993, you met with Michael Jackson and Dr. Steven Hoefflin at Dr. Hoefflin’s office; is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. So what technique did you ultimately use for Michael Jackson’s scalp surgery in March 1993?
A. We used a combination of prestretching. We first put onto the area of the defect, without touching the defect, a device that’s called a STAR device, S-T- <> you have one metal device here and one metal device here with sutures across it, and the metal devices are attached temporarily to the scalp tissue, and you crank it, twist it, and the tissues come in, and generally on rapid expansion to the skin, one can recruit about 30 percent more skin just by stretching. So that was done first <>
Then incision is made along the edge, one edge of the scar, and from that, the pockets are made to place in the balloons, and there are two balloons placed in, and we went through three periods of rapid expansion, deflation, rapid expansion, deflation, rapid expansion, deflation, and generally skin takes about three times of stretching acutely to get that 30 percent extra tissue, and you can tell that you have enough tissue because it’s so loose that you just pull it together and you know it covers the size defect. At that point we then commit to the full excision of the scar, and once that’s done, one just closes.
Q. In your opinion, was the procedure — the March 16th, 1993, procedure — a painful procedure?
Q. Okay. How long for the typical patient would the pain last after that kind of surgery?
A. Six weeks.
Dr. Sasaki says that as time goes by the pain is exacerbated instead of being relieved and is at its worst approximately four-six weeks after the surgery:
A. “I received a phone call from Dr. Klein that Mr. Jackson was experiencing significant post-operative pain along his scalp scar. Reassured Dr. Klein that the post-operative pain was expected to be more significant between the fourth and sixth weeks after surgery because the nerves are coming back, and “Dr. Klein expressed concern of his pain pattern — that was being exacerbated by his performance schedule. I suggested to Dr. Klein that Mr. Jackson be seen by a certified pain specialist with possible biofeedback treatments.”
Q. Okay. Why did you reassure Dr. Klein that Michael Jackson’s postoperative pain was going to be more significant during four to six weeks?
A. That’s the usual recovery sensation to any incision. That’s when inflammation occurs from the cellular standpoint. So things get very inflamed, and people experience more pain at that time.”
The round-the-clock pain, increasing with time and lasting for a month and a half is a torture in and of itself, but Michael’s pain lasted much longer than that – he developed a complication, a neuroma along the scar line, from his forehead to the top of his head, and this twitching of the nerve pain was still there five months after the operation. And it was in this terrible condition that he was supposed to start the second leg of his tour.
A. “I visited Mr. Jackson at his LA home and injected his scalp with intralesional steroids and 5% Marcaine local anesthetic block for the neuromatous pain along the scar line. I gave Mr. Jackson IM Demerol 50 and 50 milligrams of Vistaril for pain.
Q. Is that August 15th, 1993?
Q. Could you read that entry.
A. “Saw patient at 12:00 noon through about 2” — “2:00, 2:50” with Debbie Rowe, the registered nurse, complaining of pain to scar area. Area had healed completely but injected the scar with a Lidocaine and epinephrine for pain relief along the scar line” — And gave him what’s called a supraorbital nerve block because the nerve here goes back to here —
Q: Indicating forehead back towards the –
Q: — top of the head.
You can learn more about the burn accident and the surgery that followed it from this video clip from David Gest’s “Michael Jackson: The Life of an Icon” documentary:
The pain from the forehead to the top of his head was the reason why Michael asked for a painkiller when he visited Evan Chandler’s home. And Evan Chandler was a kind of a dentist who provided narcotics at first request, according to the late Carrie Fisher who frankly spoke about herself being his regular client.
So when Michael complained of his splitting headache Evan Chandler gave him an injection which sent him into a drugged stupor. Of course Evan said that it was a shot of harmless Toradol and it was only Michael’s reaction that was ‘peculiar’, but whatever it was it is worth remembering that Evan didn’t miss this opportunity to interrogate Michael under the effect of that drug.
This episode is described both by Gutierrez and Ray Chandler. Please note that Gutierrez’s narrative leaves you with the impression opposite to Chandler’s opinion about Michael.
Gutierrez (in the Globe):
“The boy’s father gave him a shot of Toradol,” says the author, “an injectable version of Motrin or Advil, but he said he didn’t feel anything, so he gave him another.
“The diary reads: ‘I left the room, and when I returned, I found Michael in a stupor…I was perplexed about how he got so high. He had a yellow overnight bag which he always carried with him and I thought he may have kept sedatives or narcotics in it.
” ‘He talked about how he loved my son so much, and talked in such a way, it made me uncomfortable.”
A simple check of Ray Chandler’s book makes it clear that there was nothing about that conversation with Michael that made Evan ‘uncomfortable’. On the contrary even in a drugged state Michael’s words were so clean that Evan came to a conclusion that he was asexual.
Ray Chandler, pp.47-48:
“Evan injected 30 mg, half the maximum dose, into Michael’s gluteus. But one hour later the star claimed he was still in a lot of pain, so Evan administered the remaining half and instructed him to lie down and try to relax. <>
“When I went back to check on him, maybe ten minutes later,” Evan recalled,” he was acting weird, babbling incoherently and slurring his speech. Toradol is a pretty safe drug, and I thought that either he was having a rare reaction or had taken another drug and was having a combination reaction. <>
Four hours and a serious case of cottonmouth later, Michael began to sober up. While Jordie was downstairs fetching water, Evan decided to take advantage of Michael’s still uninhibited but somewhat coherent condition. “Hey, Mike, I was just wondering … I mean, I don’t care either way, but I know some of your closest people are gay, and I was wondering if you’re gay too. “You’d be surprised about a lot of people in this town,” Michael mumbled, as he rattled off the names of a few prominent Hollywood players who were still in the closet. Evan tried to get back on track before Jordie returned. He stroked Michael’s hair and reassured him, ” I don’t care if you’re gay, Mike. I just want you to know you can tell me if you are.” “Uh-uh,” Michael slurred. “Not me.”
Given Michael’s willingness to talk openly about everyone else’s sexuality his consistent denial about being gay reinforced Evan’s belief that the singer was asexual.”
During the four hours Michael was in full possession of Evan Chandler he could turn Michael’s mind inside out as regards his friendship with his son, and surely did, however even that brought Evan nowhere.
Another point about this notable episode is that Evan Chandler made two shots in Michael’s buttocks and that he and his son had a perfect view of his buttocks and probably some of his front private parts too.
But what makes me really wonder is why none of those authors ever mentioned that Michael had a raw wound on his head? All of them, including the police and June Chandler knew about it, but how come we learn about it only from Dr. Sasaki’s testimony and twenty years later?
The answer is simple – no one wanted people to know the real reason for Michael’s dependency on drugs which developed as a result of that treatment, and no one wanted to draw attention to the fact that he was in no condition to do all those things he allegedly did according to their official version.
Indeed, how could Michael take a bath together with Jordan with a twitching wound on his scalp? And are we supposed to believe that he was taking a shower with a hat on his head?
SUICIDE NOTE & LOVE BRACELET
Another picture published in the Globe worthy of attention is the so-called “suicide note”. A detailed post about it was made here four years ago, however now it requires one more observation added to it.
Gutierrez presents the drawing as Jordan’s suicide note and claims that the boy was so depressed about the need to testify against his ‘former lover’ that he was ready to commit suicide. However nothing can be further from the truth.
The drawing shows two figures on the roof – the bigger one is ready to jump off and the smaller one is standing behind and is shouting “No!” The small figure is Jordan of course, the bigger one is Evan, and considering that the inscription “Don’t let it happen” is made in Evan’s handwriting, now it looks to me perfectly clear that it was Evan who made that drawing – as a warning of what would happen to him if his son didn’t do as he pleased.
Actually Evan did act on his threat when he killed himself in 2009 soon after Michael Jackson’s death. This continuous emotional blackmail by the father who was highly unstable and bipolar could probably be the real reason why Jordan had to stay by his side for years after that.
The remaining two photos from the Globe are nothing special. One shows the arm-chair where Michael was sitting with a book in his hands and the other gives a better view of the jewellery Michael gave June Chandler.
The jewellery was a ruby and diamond ring, a necklace and two ear-rings from the same ruby and diamond set, a watch and a love bracelet which usually comes with a screwdriver. The very meaning of this bracelet is that the man making the gift takes a screwdriver and locks it around a woman’s wrist symbolizing a bond between them and his commitment to this woman.
In an interview with Martin Bashir Michael said that there were three people in his life he would buy jewellery for – Elizabeth Taylor, his mother Katherine and if there was a girl he liked at that moment he would buy jewellery for her too. Hence an easy conclusion that Michael did like June Chandler and that this love bracelet is actually a message – for her and for us too.
RULES OR NO RULES?
In both the Globe article and the book Gutierrez speaks of a certain ‘twisted’ chant which Jackson allegedly taught Jordan to say daily:
Jordie learned from Jackson to repeat six wishes three times a day so that they would come true:
1. No wenches, bitches, heifers or hoes.
2. Never give up your “bliss” (sex acts).
3. Live with me in Neverland forever.
4. No conditioning.
5. Never grow up.
6. Be better than best friends forever (lovers).
The above has nothing in common with reality of course and the truth is much funnier than anyone could expect. When Henri Vaccarro who came into possession of some trash discarded by the Jackson family was about to put it up for sale, the media made a lot of fuss about one of its items – the so-called contract for the members of the Rubberhead club.
Diane Dimond naturally interpreted it as some dirty rubbing, but in reality the word meant nothing and was an innocent invention of one of the kids.
- All members of the Rubberhead Club must be idiots and act crazy at all times.
- All members must have the brain power of a two year old. (Michael qualifies)
- All members must read and know the story Peter Pan fluently.
- All members must carry their cards and badges with them wherever they go.
- All members must speak highly of and never curse out our club.
- All members must watch at least 2 episodes of the Three Stooges every day.
- All members of the Rubberhead Club must not smoke, drink, use foul language, or use drugs under any circumstance.
- All members must be vegetarians and fast on every Sunday for good health.
- When a member is confronted by another member of the Rubberhead Club, he is to give a peace sign and then half of it.
- All members of the rubberhead club must pay dues to the President whenever possible and however much they desire so that it can be given to sick children and underprivileged fatheads.
- Every member of the Rubberhead Club must take flying lessons at the Peter Pan school of flying.
- All members must attend all meetings that the Club has scheduled.
- All members must be in bed (alone) by three o’clock in the morning. (unless the stooges are on late)
- Every member must read, study and follow these rules.
If any member is seen disobeying these rules, he will be kicked out of the club.
… sign on the dotted line
As is usual with Gutierrez’s tedious pedophilia narrative, the innocent truth about Michael Jackson is different from it like day and night.
Where Gutierrez speaks about ‘no bitches or whores’, Michael is talking about vegetarian food, not smoking, not drinking, not using foul language and avoiding drugs. Where Gutierrez speaks of ‘sex acts’ Michael asks his young friends to go to bed alone not later than 3 o’clock in the morning – unless they are watching “Three stooges” of course. And where Gutierrez sees ‘lovers’ Michael sees only sick children that should be taken care of.
In other words where Gutierrez comes across as a pervert, Michael comes across as a big kid who liked to have fun, but also tried to mix it with teaching his younger friends the rules of clean living he himself very much believed in.
However even those proposed rules are not the whole truth about Michael’s Neverland.
It turns out that the Rubberhead club was only a project and this is probably why those papers were thrown out.
Roger Friedman explains that there was actually no club.
Everyone around Michael was called ‘Applehead’ (a word derived from The Three Stooges) and there were no rules imposed on the guests of Neverland – same as we don’t impose rules on the guests who come to our homes.
Monday, May 03, 2004
By Roger Friedman
A note to other Rubbaheads was found in the Jackson family storage bin purchased by a man in New Jersey. There’s an implication that because Jackson called some boys “Rubbas,” it connotes any number of unseemly things.
So I asked one of the boys, now grown, about the alleged Rubbahead Club of 10 years ago, when all this happened. He says when he heard about all this a few weeks ago and again yesterday, he was stymied.
“First of all, there was no Rubbahead Club. Rubba was a name Emmanuel Lewis, who played Webster, came up with,” he explained. “Everyone called everyone Rubba. It didn’t mean anything. What we did have was the Applehead Club, and that was from ‘The Three Stooges.’ Everyone was an Applehead because Michael loved ‘The Three Stooges.'”
“It’s nothing sexual,” my source continued. “Michael even called one of the younger kids Baby Rubba. It didn’t mean anything.”
So what about the typed list of rules found in the storage bin? They included requiring members to be “idiots and act crazy at all times”; be vegetarians who fast on Sundays and avoid drugs; watch two episodes of “The Three Stooges” daily; know the Peter Pan story by heart; and when seeing another member, “give the peace sign, and then half of it.”
In fact, insists my source, “there were no rules at Neverland. The whole thing was about not having rules and having a good time. It was all from Peter Pan. There was no club, no initiation, and I never heard of a ‘club kit’ or anything else.”
So much for Gutierrez’s ‘twisted chant’. Now comes his ‘two Mexican boys’ myth and the strange Latin American background to this and his other stories.
TWO MEXICAN BOYS
The Globe article says about it:
“Victor Gutierrez says he spent 10 tireless years trying to expose Jackson as a serial child molester after receiving a tip that he’d sexually abused two Mexican boys who were later deported from the U.S. The result is an arsenal of bombshell charges, all leveled in his upcoming book, In the Closet: Inside the Michael Jackson Criminal Investigation.’
So now we learn that Gutierrez’s strange obsession with Michael Jackson lasted for 10 years before the first allegations of 1993.
In other versions Gutierrez says it was 7 or 4 years depending on who he talks to, but what’s also important besides Gutierrez’s long fixation on Michael is his admission that all that time he was not just ‘interviewing’ people about Michael as he claims in his book, but was ‘exposing’ him – i.e. breaking malicious lies about Michael upon every person he met.
In fact calling Michael a criminal was Gutierrez’s unique way of introducing himself to his interviewees:
“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”
Gutierrez’s other stunt was to present himself as a LAPD undercover agent or someone working for the FBI. We can imagine the thrill experienced by some Latin American Spanish-speaking maids when Gutierrez shared with them information about Michael Jackson being the subject of some ‘secret’ investigation and them feeling important by taking part.
The person who helped Gutierrez to open many of those doors was Mario Kreutzberger, a Chilean television host of the variety shows Sábado Gigante and Don Francisco Presenta running on Univision network that reaches Spanish-speaking viewers in the United States and who is known to every Spanish-speaking family in the US as their beloved Don Francisco.
In his book Gutierrez thanks Kreutzberger for his help in opening the doors to many people – maids like Blanca Francia in Neverland and Norma Salinas, the housekeeper working in Evan Chandler’s home, for example.
The only woman who evidently stayed immune to Gutierrez’s charms was the live-in housekeeper in June Chandler’s home. We have never heard about this woman from either Gutierrez, Sneddon or the Chandlers, so her account of those events surely contradicted the official story and this is why this witness would be really most interesting to listen to.
Gutierrez thanks Mario Kreutzberger for being a source of reassurance and confidence for all those maids and bodyguards he extensively interviewed and consulted:
My thanks to the animator of “Sabado Gigante,” Mario Kreutzberger, not only for inviting me on his show on three occasions to expose my investigations, but also for being a source of reassurance and confidence for the many witnesses and participants in this case who gave me exclusive interviews and were excellent sources of information, and, in some cases, good friends.
One of the numerous legends Gutierrez related to the people he ‘interviewed’ about Michael was a story about two Mexican boys allegedly molested in 1985/86. The story was presented as an exclusive tip received by Gutierrez from an Hispanic agent Mormon working for the FBI. The story looked more credible considering that Gutierrez himself comes from a Mormon family.
The Globe mentioned it in passing, but promised the resulting ‘bombshell charges’ to be revealed in Gutierrez’s book. However the book doesn’t say a word about it and the reason why not was revealed only in 2009 when the FBI opened up their files about Jackson.
The files contained a memorandum that referred to someone (it could be only Gutierrez) who approached the FBI for information about that alleged incident. The officer who handled that inquiry searched all FBI indices for a reference to that case but didn’t find any traces of it, so hence his report.
The FBI memorandum is dated December 28th 1993. Here is the document and its retyped text:
MEMORANDUM DATE 12/28/93
To: SAC [Special agent in charge], Los Angeles (62D-LA-162715) (P)
From: SA [Special agent]
On December 27, 1993, writer received a telephone call from [ ] Los Angeles Police Department Sexual Exploitation of Children (SEOC). He advised that he had been contacted [by ] has been writing a book about Michael Jackson concerning allegations of sexual molestations of children. [ ] advised that [ ] told [ ] that he had information that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 1985 or 1986, investigated allegations against Jackson for reportedly molesting two Mexican boys. Reporter further advised that the Los Angeles FBI Special Agent who investigated the incident was an Hispanic Agent. The SAC, who [ ] referred to as the one was Mormon, did not pursue the allegations because Jackson was to receive an honor at the White House from the President. According to [ ] the investigation was covered up.
[ ] advised he was providing this information to writer in the event inquiries were received by the FBI Los Angeles Office.
Writer searched indices, both manual and automated for any reference to above mentioned investigation. No references were found.
What an elaborate mix – a Mormon, an Hispanic agent working for the FBI, two poor Mexican boys deported from the US and all of it allegedly hushed up because Michael was to receive an award from President Reagan – oh, it does read like a thriller.
The truth is of course much more boring. Michael received an award in May 1984, the FBI didn’t investigate anything of the kind and there was not a single mention of it in their files.
However Gutierrez’s narrative already gripped people’s imagination and once introduced on a Hard Copy TV program and retold by the Globe the story about two boys acquired a life of its own.
Actually by now it has already grown into a mammoth myth about some 20 plus ‘victims’ all of whom were allegedly paid off by Michael Jackson.
Add to it that this and other lies were spread by media outlets for decades and affected millions of people, while the FBI memorandum was read by a handful of the most inquisitive, and you will see how a mountain of lies was built around Michael Jackson and why very few people know the truth about him.
Actually that non-existent case of two Mexican boys is only an example how Gutierrez and other scumbags created their mythology about Michael. The method was to make a shocking lie, grab attention (and money) and then leave things to take care of themselves.
This way many of Gutierrez’s fantasies have already turned into urban myths senselessly repeated by people who don’t have the slightest idea what kind of a sleazebag they originated from.
And Gutierrez is an exceptional sleazebag. When he and his lawyer approached the journalist Ken Wells for some pictures of Michael Jackson, Gutierrez admitted that he was making these stories up for money and by his own admission was telling ‘BS’.
Here is an excerpt from the declaration of Eric Mason who met Ken Wells, the journalist approached by Gutierrez. Eric Mason was the detective working for Michael Jackson on and off in 1993 – 2005:
“During their discussion on July 2, 1997, Mr. Gutierrez told Wells about all of Mr. Gutierrez’s connections in the tabloid business, and that he had sold many stories, some of which had been “B.S.” and simply made up. According to Mr. Wells, Mr. Gutierrez said money in the tabloid business was easy, even for false stories.
<> Throughout the meeting on July 2, 1997, Mr. Wells told me that Mr. Goldman and Mr. Gutierrez requested that Mr. Wells get the supposed photographs of Mr. Jackson, with Mr. Gutierrez saying that he needed the photographs to help him with this case, and even if the pictures were fake, he could still make money selling them”
[Eric Mason, October 16th, 1997]
I hope you appreciate the openness with which Gutierrez is declaring his principles of work.
He says that he “sold many stories, some of which had been bullshit and simply made up”.
He says that “money in the tabloid business is easy, even for false stories”.
He says that “even if the pictures were fake, he could still make money selling them.”
This type of honesty has an explanation to it.
Gutierrez is open about his lies because he has no doubts that the same is done by everyone else in the tabloid media and he is not the first and the last one to do it.
So it is a kind of a wink to a fellow journalist Ken Wells and a sort of a message to him – “You and I know what it is like, don’t we? And this is why he is not even ashamed of his lies and admits them with a smile and unbelievable cynicism: “Well, you know how that is. You know how these things are…”
The rest of the Globe article is Gutierrez’s routine lies which fade in comparison with many other things he is claiming about Jackson.
For example, look at the way the diary he attributes to Evan Chandler describes the innocent situations when Jordan met Michael Jackson. In Gutierrez’s interpretation it looks almost like grooming the child since age 5:
According to the author, the damning document says: ‘Before he was 5, my son met Michael Jackson on two separate occasions at an L.A. restaurant. After that, he became my son’s hero. My boy knew the words to all the songs and taught himself how to dance just like Michael.
“A few years later, Michael ended up in Brotman Memorial Hospital after being burned in the Pepsi commercial. My son wrote a get well note, included his phone number, enclosed a picture, and gave it to a bodyguard.
“Michael called him personally that same day and thanked him.”
The superstar’s manager later called the boy’s mom and offered them the best tickets in the house for the L.A. leg of his Bad tour, says Gutierrez, and soon afterwards they met again.
“The boy’s stepfather owns a car rental company,” says the author. “Maybe not so accidentally, Michael called that company when his car broke down.
“Someone in the office called the boy’s mother and told her to come over right away with the kid. Michael befriended the youngster and invited him to The Hideaway, which is what he calls his Century City condo.
<> ‘I asked what is the nature of his relationship and he said: It’s cosmic. He said he didn’t understand it himself, but he knew they were meant to be together.’
Remember that the above is supposed to be Evan Chandler’s diary. And now compare it with the way Evan himself described the same encounters in Ray Chandler’s book:
“The encounter at the car rental agency was not the first time Michael and the boy had met. Jordie was little more than a toddler when be and his parents ran into Michael in a restaurant. The star picked him up, said something like, “Oh , he’s so cute,” and put him back down. For Michael, this brief acknowledgment was one among thousands in the day-to-day life of an icon. And little Jordie was too young to know what a superstar was. Neither would he remember the event. But for Jordie’s mother and stepfather, the thrill may never have worn off.
As if to be sure it wouldn’t, fate stepped in and brought them together again. In 1984, when Michael was in a nearby hospital recovering from burns he sustained while filming a Pepsi commercial, June penned a get-well letter on behalf of her son and hand delivered it to a bodyguard outside Michael’s room. Included in the letter were Jordie’s picture and phone number.
Needless to say, June and Jordie — who was now five years old — were thrilled when Michael called later that day to thank them. Surprise turned into elation when an invitation arrived several days later for Jordie to appear in an ad Michael was filming. Though Jordie was not selected to appear in the ad, and did not get to meet Michael on the set as expected, the letdown was softened by a personal invitation from the star to attend the Los Angeles performance of BAD.”
So the stark facts are as follows. The first encounter took place when Jordan was a toddler (and not five years old) when his parents met Michael in a restaurant.
The second encounter was in 1984 when Michael was staying in a nearby hospital and it wasn’t Jordan, but June Chandler who wrote a letter on behalf of her 5-year old boy and personally took it to the hospital to hand it to the bodyguard outside Michael’s room, complete with a phone number and the boy’s picture, after which the polite Michael called and thanked them.
And the third encounter was the fateful accident on the road when the owner of the rental car agency called his wife June and stepson June to run to his office to meet Michael Jackson there. And Michael didn’t invite the boy to his Hideout soon after that – instead he went on a tour and met the family only half a year later.
You wonder why Michael used the word ‘cosmic’? Because those three chance encounters indeed looked like the fate was constantly making their paths cross as if in some cosmic plan.
The comparison of two stories makes it clear that Gutierrez is simply unable to tell the truth. Lying is like breathing the air for him. It is his passion, his lifestyle and his whole mission in life.
In fact even in his childhood Guiterrez was already a compulsive liar. On Chilean TV he once told a story about himself as a boy and a writer living next door to them who rebuked him for disturbing the elderly and suggested he read a book instead and made a summary of it. The result was almost horrifying – Gutierrez’s summary turned out to be longer than the original story and he even invented and added new characters to it.
“When he read it he was almost horrified. He told me: this is longer than my story! And you have added new characters to the book! Probably, you’re going to be a writer or a journalist.”
However it is exactly Gutierrez’s talent for saying too much which is letting him down and giving him away as a pedophilia apologist and sympathizer at the very least.
GUTIERREZ’S TRUE SELF
Michael Jackson is a pedophile, which in the eyes of society makes him a “criminal.” For me it was confusing, not knowing whether to refer to the boys as victims or ex-lovers.
The inverted commas in the word “criminal” are Gutierrez’s punctuation and speak to his doubt that what he alleges about Jackson is actually a crime (in contrast to normal people who never doubt it).
Gutierrez implies that it is wrong only ‘in the eyes of society’ (while to him it is not). And in a documentary film by a certain Perretti Gutierrez even speaks with some hope that in a hundred years from now pedophilia will be accepted by the society.
As to his confusion on how to regard a molested child – as a victim or lover – this statement is a dead give-away. To all others except his sick mind it is crystal clear that a child can only be a victim in such a relationship, while for him it is not. He is confused over this point, you see.
And the final chapter of Gutierrez’s book is actually an open glorification of pedophilia. In this chapter he gets really carried away and talks of the historical precedents and of all the ‘good’ such ‘loving relationship’ does to a society.
I am afraid you should read at least some pieces from this chapter to understand that the stories so ingeniously created about Michael were actually made up by a professional.
Here are the examples:
“These <> experts indicate that sexual relations between adults and minors are sometimes loving and do not have a negative effect on the youngster’s life. What better example than Jordie? He was more harshly affected by the legal procedures associated with his case than by his relationship with Jackson.”
“The North American Men Boy Love Association (“NAMBLA”) is a group that approves of consentual sexual relations between men and boys. N A M B L A is pleased that the topic of pedophilia has attracted so much attention through such a famous personage as Michael Jackson. They wrote: Jackson is a hope in a society that condemns us. A victory for Jackson can be a victory for all of us.”
Please remember that Gutierrez is a suspected NAMBLA member himself as he openly spoke of attending their conference in 1986 (as an ‘undercover agent’ of course).
“Historians report that the topic of pedophilia is not new. In some civilizations and cultures it was considered normal for heterosexual men, married or single, to have sexual relations with children, such as in ancient Greece, Persia, medieval Japan, and among native Americans. Samurai taught boys the art of fighting with a sable, how to ride a horse, and how to make love, practicing amongst themselves. Twentieth century Arabic poems show that a Muslim society found satisfaction with slaves boys and boy prostitutes at parties. Another example is the city of Zambia in New Guinea. Until 1940, adult males [description of what they did to boys follows].
“Important historical figures have been suspected or identified as being pedophiles engaging in sexual activity with minors, including [a list of famous names follows with details about the boys they “married”].
Gutierrez provides examples of movies based on some novels and criticizes those directors who did not follow the original concept of ‘love’ envisaged by the authors. He also explains what Diane Dimond delicately described as the ‘nuances’ – the nuances of these people’s outlook on children:
Pedophiles fall in love, they become obsessed and feel desire, just like a heterosexual or homosexual persons. Now that we better understand the sexual drive some adults feel for children we are able to comprehend more completely Jordie and Jackson’s experience, a couple that loved intensely in a very erotic way.
The end it really is.
People should understand once and for all that the team working against Michael Jackson included a pedophilia sympathizer who invented all sort of BS stories about Jackson using his rampant fantasy and his own sexual desires, and a journalist who considered this person as her ‘best source’ and someone whose opinion and information she never doubted and wholly relied on.
RESHUFFLING THE TIMELINE
Gutierrez’s appearance on Hard Copy on May 9th and 10th, 1994, same as the article in the Globe on May 24th with a presentation of his product about MJ, allow us to reshuffle the timeline of those events and see a clearer picture of what happened.
Let us recall that the Neverland 5 group of disgruntled employees – Adrian McManus, Ralph Chacon, Abdool Kassim and others, sued Michael Jackson for wrongful termination (despite their allegations about MJ they still wanted to continue working for him?).
Their suit was filed on December 2nd 1994, but before that had also approached a tabloid.
Some of them admitted that prior to sharing their stories with the media they met Gutierrez for a two-three hour chat and our impression was that these consultations were taking place sometime at the end of 1994. Therefore it looked like Gutierrez had nothing to do with their change of heart during the police investigation, which was over in September the same year, and he was simply a gossip source they resorted to before going to a tabloid.
However Gutierrez’s presentation of his book in May 1994 suggests a different timeline.
First of all, if at the time the book was finished it means that it already included the accounts of all those maids and bodyguards, and this could happen only if Gutierrez met them several months prior as he still needed time to incorporate their allegations into his book.
But the same also suggests that it may be due to Gutierrez’s interference with these people that they made a U-turn against Jackson right in the middle of the Chandler case.
Remember that Adrian McManus, Ralph Chacon and Kassim Abdool initially spoke of Michael’s innocence and only later started claiming the opposite.
In 2005, when confronted with her 1993 deposition McManus had to admit that initially she had no bad word to say about Michael Jackson.
Kassim Abdool also initially said ‘he as the father of two children ages 9 and 13 would have no problem with leaving them alone with Michael Jackson’.
As to Ralph Chacon also testifying to Michael’s innocence when he appeared before the Santa Barbara grand jury we deducted it ourselves in this post.
So if the new timeline is correct it could be Gutierrez’s really extraordinary power to impress people with his fantasy stories as well as a promise of big money that lured these people into changing their testimony about Michael. Gutierrez himself was so hopeful of making a fortune out of his lies about Jackson that he boasted on Chilean TV that one day he would ‘own Neverland.’
As to Gutierrez’s cooperation with Evan Chandler we have never had any doubt about it.
In fact Gutierrez claims that he met not only Evan Chandler, but Jordan too, on several occasions and at the time when the conditions of the settlement were only ‘hammered out’ of Jackson, making it clear that the meetings took place at a rather early stage of the 1993 case.
“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”
In a declaration Jordan Chandler made in connection with the fake video tape over which Michael Jackson sued Diane Dimond and Victor Gutierrez, Jordan did not deny his association with Gutierrez.
Yes, in his defense against Michael Jackson Gutierrez wanted to have Jordan Chandler deposed. Jordan refused and instead made a declaration that he had no idea about the episodes Gutierrez described in his book and the people mentioned there.
Here is an excerpt from it:
2. I am informed and believe that Victor Gutierrez is attempting to take my deposition in a case captioned Michael Jackson vs. Diane Dimond, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court No. BC119778. In particular, I am informed and believe that Mr. Gutierrez believes that I have knowledge about the making and/or content of the following quotations from Mr. Gutierrez’s book entitled “Michael Jackson Was My Lover” [four quotations follow].
3. I know absolutely nothing about either the making of these quotations, or their content. I have never discussed the subject matter contained in any of these quotations with Mr. Gutierrez or anyone else, and I have no information on these subject matters whatsoever. Further, I do not know, and have no recollection of ever speaking to, Kassim Abdool or Melanie Bagnall, the persons to whom some of these quotes are attributed. As for Ms. McManus, I may have met her, but I only remember exchanging pleasantries.
4. I understand that this lawsuit involves Mr. Gutierrez’s statements concerning the existence of a videotape allegedly showing Michael Jackson and a child. I know nothing about whether Mr. Gutierrez saw this tape, or whether the tape ever existed.
[August 14, 1997. Signature: Jordan Chandler]
What’s interesting is that Jordan does not deny that he knows Victor Gutierrez.
Why is it important to establish that the ‘consultations’ between Gutierrez and the 13-year old boy did take place and at a rather early stage of their scam against Jackson?
This is because we cannot exclude that Jordan was gravely influenced and coached by an expert like Gutierrez, especially in terms of all those nuances and the way this or that innocent event is interpreted from the point of view of a real pedophile.
Now that we know of those meetings with Jordan I can practically see Gutierrez explaining to him:
- ‘He said it was ‘cosmic’? It indicates sexual bliss. He said you were like a family to him? Oh, this is a typical step in the grooming process. You don’t know what he did to other boys? Wait till I tell you…’
Actually the only thing we need to clarify now is the exact time when Gutierrez approached the Chandlers. If it had been before Jordan made his first public statements, then the whole story will have to be revised once again as the ghost writer for all those statements could very well be Gutierrez himself.
In case you think that Gutierrez’s tales are so ancient and ridiculous that no one will believe them any more, you need to check up the claims of Wade Robson’s lawyers who currently cultivate a crazy idea that Neverland was a sophisticated ‘sex ring’ where its manager Norma Staikos was a ‘madame’ procuring boys for Michael Jackson.
Can you guess who was the first to invent this BS story and where Robson’s lawyers are drawing their inspiration from?
Correct, it is Victor Gutierrez again.
Look at this photo from his book and the comment he made on it.
“Norma Staikos, administrator of the Neverland Ranch, was described by the police like the woman who used to get young boys for Jackson.
She fled the country to escape being interrogated by the police. She always talked to her employees about the singer’s sexual desires for young boys’.
Nothing of it is true of course.
First of all, Norma Staikos did testify. Jordan’s civil lawyer Larry Feldman couldn’t depose her as she left for Greece, but she returned to appear before the Santa Barbara grand jury in the criminal investigation held by the police, and her testimony was one of the key factors that broke the back of the prosecution case against Jackson.
And secondly, the police never called Norma a ‘procurer of boys’. It was the invention of Gutierrez’s sick mind which turned a woman who made phone calls, arranged tickets and was in charge of the children’s groups that visited the range into a ‘madame procuring boys’ for her boss.
No one had to procure any boys for Neverland – the children flocked to Michael in a natural way and it was he who could hardly shield himself from a torrent of people who sought his friendship and tried to make acquaintance with him one way or another. Remember June Chandler as an example of that.
As to the story about the ‘sex ring’ – well, if someone chooses to believe a compulsive liar with pedophilia fantasies who likes to feed his BS to those who are ready to swallow it, we can’t help it and can only feel sorry for these people. After all it is their choice.
* * *
The truth about Michael’s real preferences and interests often comes in most unexpected ways. And since we’ve mentioned Dr. Sasaki at the beginning of this post it would be a crime not to say that Dr. Sasaki was also invited to Neverland and visited it twice at around the time of those allegations.
And Dr. Sasaki does remember one subject about which they talked more than about Michael and his health. Guess what it was.
Q. Approximately how many times did you visit Neverland Ranch?
A. Twice. <> The first time with my family. The second time at his request.
Q. Okay. And was Michael Jackson present for either of those visits?
A. Just the second one. <> I think he just wanted to have me look at his wound — which was healing quite nicely, and I really can’t remember — I know what we did talk about more than himself. We talked about the Bible.
Q. You talked about the Bible?
So Michael Jackson was talking about a much more important subject than ‘boys’ or even his own health and looks.
He was talking about the Bible.