March 02 - 2011
Those who will be watching Jacques Perettis film ridiculously
misnamed What really happened should ask themselves
a question what kind of people are standing behind its making.
This question isnt an idle one as once they learn who
is selling them all this monstrosity their perception of it
will surely change.
The film was first broadcast by British television station Channel
4 on October 24, 2007 which was well after Michael Jacksons
full acquittal in 2005 and four years after Bashirs documentary
in 2003. The timing of the initial broadcast was strange. It
strongly suggested that the authors of the film wanted to turn
Michael Jackson never proven guilt into a non-stop
speculation and fix their dirt about the man in peoples
minds for generations to come.
The idea behind their present plans to re-air the film today
(March 2, 2011) on French/German television is also clear
now they want to make sure that the public doesnt feel
a morsel of respect, pity or compassion for a criminal
like Michael Jackson and knows which side to take during the
forthcoming trial of a doctor who gave Michael Jackson a lethal
doze of propofol.
The quality of the film is such that one of the independent
viewers summed up this masterpiece as follows:
It makes the Bashir piece look almost
impartial. Unreal. I was disgusted.
The film is indeed an ultimate accomplishment of Michaels
detractors. It accumulates all possible lies made about Jackson
for decades and is meant to draw a bottom line under the many
years of hard work done to vilify the man and assassinate his
character without any hope for its future resurrection.
The tone of the narration is triumphant and is seething with
deep satisfaction and delight at the mission accomplished. Jacques
Peretti, the producer of the film, portrays himself as a
lifelong Michael Jacksons fan which is a flat lie of course
the goal of the lie is to send the world a message that
even Michaels fans know how deeply fallen and corrupt
their idol is.
Every half a minute Peretti comes up with innuendoes like Is
it the man who enjoys innocent fun" or are
we watching something darker here? or What
was this construction hiding? or Is
it all it seems? or I
was beginning to descend into the basement of the Jackson story
or The story emerging was more complex
and much darker than I had ever imagined and Its
amazing that his fate is to become an anonymous suburban freak.
From time to time Peretti makes long and affected pauses to
set off phrases like they would
lie together on the carpet and imagine flying over Neverland
(as if it were supposed to mean something sinister) or falls
into a horrified tell-all silence for full several minutes of
precious TV time after hearing Bob Jones saying that they
were in the bedroom at night too.
If you add to the picture the type of music usually accompanying
horror or suspense movies which is meant to convey to the viewers
what abominable crimes must have been taking place there, you
will get the complete picture of a horror film we are being
presented with. This kind of presentation is exactly the proof
we needed to make sure what kind of a fan Jacques
DIANE DIMOND and VICTOR GUTIERREZ
But no matter how vicious the way of presenting the material
is, the main characters of the film are the triumphant DIANE
DIMOND and a less known guy who was Diane Dimonds right
hand for many years whose name is VICTOR GUTIERREZ. The film
is a true shining hour of these characters and a tribute to
their life-long meddling with Michael Jacksons life.
Fame has found its heroes at last and it is no chance occurrence
that both of them make their appearance in this film together
this way the proud authors have unwittingly shown to
us who the main players in Michaels vilification campaign
are and emphasized an inseparable link between the two.
Since everyone knows Diane Dimonds ludicrous stories about
love letters never found in Neverland or her delicate
methods of reporting like dangling on TV someones soiled
underwear this post will focus on a less known Victor Gutierrez
who has been Diane Dimonds best source of information
for about twenty years since 1993 when the first allegations
against Michael Jackson broke out.
DIANE DIMONDS BEST SOURCE
How do we know that Victor Gutierrez was Diane Dimonds
best source who consistently supplied her with information,
a better word for which would be actually misinformation?
Well, Diane Dimond named Victor Gutierrez as her best source
herself - in her infamous report about a certain video tape
which allegedly caught Michael Jacksons molesting
his nephew and which naturally never existed as the mother of
the boy, who was supposed to show the video to Victor Gutierrez,
never knew the man and never heard the story until it was told
to her by a friend.
Diane Dimond first mentioned her best source when
she was launching the fake video story on January 9, 1995, on
the The Ken and Barkley Show broadcast by KABC-AM
radio. Diane Dimond didnt disclose his name then but was
full of praise for the man whose word she never, ever
doubted and who had surely seen the tape and
told her that it was truly explicit.
Please see the transcript of the show which later laid the basis
for a defamation suit filed by Michael Jackson against Diane
Dimond and note the triumphant and confident way in which she
is presenting her lie there:
Q: It is an x-rated tape?
Dimond: It is . . . yes.
Q: Of Michael Jackson?
Dimond: Truly explicit.
Q: Its what? Michael Jackson and little boy.
Are you 100% sure that this tape exists?
Dimond: I am as sure as I can possibly be.
Q: You have not seen it?
Dimond: I have not seen it but one of my best sources
on the Michael Jackson story has seen it.
Q: Who .. . you have no doubts about.
Dimond: I have never had a doubt about this person,
ever. I know the District Attorneys Office is looking
for it because they are calling up reporters saying Have
you seen it. . . . Do you know where we can get it?
Q: Who had it and was showing it? His security
Dimond: Well, someone close to Michael Jackson
found this tape and, in deep concern for the boy involved, gave
it to boys mother.
Q: Uh oh. Should Michael not know that one of his
own security cameras was recording what he was doing?
Dimond: Oh no, he knew. He absolutely knew.
Q: He is asking for trouble.
Dimond: You know, I remember way back when, more
than a year ago, we interviewed the head of the pedo[ph]ile
unit at the FBI in Quantico, Virginia and he said you know the
down fall of pedo[ph]iles is that they love to keep a momento
of their victims. Or, they love to take pictures or take videos.
We dont know why, but they do this. It is for their own
self gratification later but it always comes back to bite them.
Q: Somebody close to Michael Jackson got a hold
of it and thought holy, baloney this is worth a lot of money.
Look, Ill split it 50/50 with you and we can get maybe
Dimond: That could very well be.
Q: And he gave it to the mother of the boy?
Q: So she has it.
Dimond: And, I have to tell you, if my source is
correct, who has seen this tape, and again, he always has been.
The acts that are being performed on that tape are exactly what
the accuser a year ago said Michael Jackson did to him.
Q: Well, I mean you dont need to beat around
the bush. What are those acts?
Dimond: We are talking about oral sex.
Q: Um, hmm. Performed on Michael Jackson or by
Dimond: By Michael Jackson. . .
Later that evening, Hard Copy showed a report
where Dimonds best source Victor Gutierrez made a personal
appearance at last and spoke of what he had allegedly seen on
the tape and how he had allegedly interacted with the mother
of the alleged victim.
The speakers on the tape include Diane Dimond; Victor Gutierrez;
Barry Nolan, an anchorperson for Hard Copy; and
Kevin Smith, a reporter, who was also seeking to track down
the alleged video.
Diane Dimonds presents her slander about Michael Jackson
as a New Year wish for him, speaks of the film as if it were
an established fact confirmed by sources even in London and
provides numerous false details about the video (she even knows
that it is black-and-white and lasts 27 minutes!):
Dimond: If Michael Jackson
thought the new year would bring him a new lease on life, it
just isnt happening that way. Hard Copy has learned that
there is now a renewed police investigation into the entertainers
relationship with young boys. This time, authorities are hot
on the trail of an explicit video tape they believe could make
their case. Michael Jacksons videos have been seen around
the world. But it is not his music videos authorities are interested
in. Nope. Hard Copy can now reveal that investigators from the
L.A. District Attorneys office have been working around the
clock lately trying to find an x-rated video of the pop superstar
which they believe shows him naked and fondling a young boy.
Gutierrez: When you [Unintelligible] . . . the
tape, there is no doubt about it. It is very graphic.
Kevin Smith: If the D.A. gets a hold of the tape
and it shows what its supposed to show, then Michael Jackson
will be in handcuffs.
Dimond: The investigators are working for this
woman. Assistant D.A. Lauren Weiss. She was once a key player
in the Jackson child molestation investigation. Last year, police
helped question witnesses brought before a secret grand jury.
Now she has her investigators scrambling to find that video
tape. Journalist Kevin Smith was questioned by the D.A.s
It is impossible to independently confirm the existence
of the video but several sources including some as far away
as London say that this tape is black and white, 27 minutes
long, and reportedly recorded by one of Jacksons own security
cameras. Sources also tell Hard Copy the tape was somehow turned
over to the Mother of the young boy seen on the video.
Smith: The investigator I spoke to said this is
what theyve been waiting for. If they had the tape, thats
all they needed to make an arrest.
Dimond: Victor Gutierrez has reported on Michael
Jackson for the last decade and has a book about to be published
regarding the entertainers relationship with various boys.
Gutierrez has talked with this young boys mother.
Gutierrez: And now she is scared. And now, not
only that, the District Attorney is trying to get these tapes
and I guess through my sources, they already been in contact
with the Mother. So, its up to the Mother now to make
the final decision.
Smith: Even if the original copy damages or is
destroyed or is hushed up, there has been a copy made and that
is what the D.A. is going after.
Dimond: Could there actually be such an x-rated
tape. Well, late today, Jacksons lawyer, Howard Weitzman
categorically denied the existence of such a video and he says
to his knowledge neither the D.A. in Los Angeles or Santa Barbara
has reactivated the case. We will have more on this developing
story tomorrow. Barry?
Barry Nolan: Thanks Diane. . .
TRUTH BEHIND THE VIDEO TAPE STORY
In response to the allegations, Jackson filed a defamation of
character lawsuit against Victor Gutierrez and Hard Copy. During
the civil proceedings, the boys mother Margaret Maldonado
testified that she knew nothing of the story, had never been
in contact with either police or Victor Gutierrez, had never
seen the video, had never negotiated it with Jackson and the
whole thing was nothing but an outrageous lie.
In the book Jackson Family Values Jermaine Jacksons ex-common-law
wife, Margaret Maldonado, wrote in early 1995,
I received a telephone call from a writer named Ruth Robinson.
I had known Ruth for quite a while and respected her integrity.
It made what she had to tell me all the more difficult to hear.
I wanted to warn you, Margaret, she said. Theres
a story going around that there is a videotape of Michael molesting
one of your sons, and that you have the tape.
If anyone else had said those words, I would have hung up the
phone. Given the long relationship I had with Ruth, however,
I gave her the courtesy of a response. I told her that it wasnt
true, of course, and that I wanted the story stopped in its
She had been in contact with someone who worked at the National
Enquirer who had alerted her that a story was being written
for that paper. Ruth cross-connected me with the woman, and
I vehemently denied the story. Moreover, I told her that if
the story ran, I would own the National Enquirer before the
lawsuits I brought were finished. To its credit, the National
Enquirer never ran the piece.
Hard Copy, however, decided it would. Hard
Copy correspondent Diane Dimond had reported that authorities
were reopening the child molestation case against Michael. She
had also made the allegations on L.A. radio station KABC-AM
on a morning talk show hosted by Roger Barkley and Ken Minyard.
Dimonds claims were based on the word of a freelance writer
named Victor Gutierrez.
The story was an outrageous lie. Not one part of it was true.
Id never met the man. There was no tape. Michael never
paid me for my silence. He had never molested Jeremy. Period.
Though the slander suit filed against Diane Dimond did not reach
its goal as she escaped justice by hiding behind the Shield
Law which allowed her to put the burden of responsibility onto
the shoulders of her source, the slander suit filed
by Michael Jackson against Victor Gutierrez was won by him in
court on April 9, 1998.
Superior Court Judge Reginald Dunn ruled that Gutierrez was
acting with malice, his story was false and the jury subsequently
awarded Jackson $2.7 million in damages (for details please
go to http://www.allbusiness.com/services/motion-pictures/4926892-1.html
However Victor Gutierrez escaped justice too as he quickly fled
to Mexico and filed there for bankruptcy thus managing to avoid
paying the money. According to Chilean fans who wrote in MichaelJackson
forum, immediately after Michaels death Gutierrez appeared
on Chilean TV to announce how happy he was that the singer was
gone and now he was free from the need to pay the millions he
Since Victor Gutierrez is generously quoted in Perettis
film let me remind you that over there he is presented as an
innocent victim of harassment on the part of Michael Jackson
or his people:
Victor Gutierrez fled the US
for ten years as a result of threats against him
If you think that the shame of being caught red-handed telling
malicious lies about Jackson made Victor Gutierrez shut up you
are very wrong indeed.
Veritas Project says that in November 2003, when Jackson was
accused of child molestation the second time, Gutierrez began
giving interviews about the case to Chilean newspapers. He claimed
that the new set of allegations validated the contents of his
book and as a result, it was Jackson who had defamed his character
and now owed him money.
The people who saw him on TV commented that Gutierrez was so
confident they would be able to get rid of Michael Jackson this
time that he even bragged that Jacksons 2,700-acre ranch
would soon be his - evidently in return for some valuable help
rendered to someone otherwise how could such a crazy
idea enter his mind? However with a liar like Victor Gutierrez
you never know
During an interview with La Cuarta, Gutierrez lied
that Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon had contacted
him about being a potential witness in the current case against
Jackson. However a week later, a member of the District Attorneys
office contacted La Cuarta to refute those claims.
Despite the so-called threats to Gutierrez which were announced
in Perettis film and which were supposed to haunt Gutierrez
for ten years after the judges ruling, it didnt
prevent Gutierrez from working for Dateline NBC and getting
from them $25, 000 a month for covering the Jackson case in
2005. He accepted the offer and became a consulting producer
for the news program, as the picture below shows it.
In 2005 Dateline NBC aired a report entitled Inside the
Michael Jackson Case. The credits reveal that Gutierrez
was the consulting producer for the program, says the
Veritas Project. The desire of NBC to have access to a liar
like Gutierrez is easy to understand however the thing I do
not understand is why they didnt make deductions from
Gutierrezs official salary as some form of repayment of
the damages to be paid to Michael Jackson?
For the full story about the fake video tape and the events
that followed please go to this post.
VICTOR GUTIERREZ LIES IN PERETTIS FILM
In the film Jacques Peretti is speaking to Victor Gutierrez
in a car with the face of the man barely discernable in the
dim light. This way the producers of the film are probably trying
to imply that Gutierrez is hiding from Michael Jackson
though at the time of making the film (2007) Michael was not
even in the US. However Victor Gutierrez may have much more
valid reasons for not showing his face to the public in broad
daylight but we will discuss it a little later.
In the meantime lets focus on the lies he is telling to
Peretti and note that despite the darkness enveloping Victor
Gutierrez we can still make out how terribly pleased he is with
himself as he is reciting his fantastic lies about Jordan Chandler
and Michael Jackson:
He fell in love with the boy. Instead
of concerts he was spending time with Jordan. He moved into
his house. He spent a month in the house. Father who was a dentist
went to work. Mother Natalie went to work. Somebody had to take
care of the house and Jackson became the nanny. He did the laundry
He would do the laundry for Jordie. He was folding all the clothing
for Jordie. He was making the bed for Jordie. He was cooking
for him he was like a maid
Jacques Peretti is awestruck by these revelations:
So in 1992 with a 14 year old boy
he spent a month doing the laundry
The lie told by Gutierrez is indeed fantastic and would be laughable
if it were not that tragic. To begin with, both guys are talking
about 1992 and dont know the basic fact that Michael didnt
even see Jordan until 1993 as he was on a tour before that and
it was only in February 1993 that Jordan, his sister Lily and
their mother June Chandler made a completely innocent visit
to Neverland for the first time.
The story of the father and mother going to work while Michael
did laundry for the boy doesnt have a leg to stand on
as the family Victor Gutierrez is talking about is Evan and
Natalie Chandler with whom Michael spent two weekends at the
most with the parents being in full presence and a maid
attending to their needs. All the details are found in the book
by Jordan Chandlers uncle Ray Chandler who by the way
is also so disgusted by Gutierrez that calls him names (sorry
I forgot which ones, but something very derogative).
If you want to know more about Gutierrezs lies and in
whose home Michael really spent several weeks and why please
go to this post.
VICTOR GUTIERREZ LIES IN HIS BOOK
Victor Gutierrez accumulated all his fictional stories about
Michael Jackson and Jordan Chandler in a self-published book
called Michael Jackson was my lover. He claims that
this filthy piece of complete falsehood is based on a diary
allegedly kept by Jordan however it was Jordans
own uncle Ray Chandler who refuted it by saying that no such
diary ever existed.
Roger Friedman has probably read the book and says that it is
much more pornographic than anything the police ever found in
Neverland. He says that Victor Gutierrez is rumoured
to have made up most of the material by stitching together bits
and pieces of speculation from one of the maids who sleuthed
The book was not published in the U.S. because Jackson
won a libel suit against the author. Gutierrezs writing
is much more pornographic than anything the police say they
found at Neverland. Gutierrez, it is rumored, made up a lot
of his material after stitching together bits and pieces of
speculation from the maid who worked for the Chandlers, the
family at the center of the 1993 case against Jacko. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151774,00.html
One of the reviewers of the book was so impressed by the incredible
Gutierrezs lies and his unashamed graphic fantasies about
Jackson that he wrote about his deepest cynicism about
human nature and its innate badness being confirmed rapidly,
uproariously and completely. He called Gutierrezs
manuscript perfect water closet reading for the closet
cases and was so struck by the book that I initially thought
he was praising it until finally realizing that all this praise
was mere sarcasm on the part of the reviewer:
Yippee! Nobody can ever compete. Everyone should at the
very least have this book in their toilet for guests as a matter
of decadent etiquette. Perfect water closet reading for
the closet cases.
Forget the relentless character assassination of Goldmans
Lennon book. Or any Elvis expose. Here we have achieved a nirvana
of the gratuitous. Thank you Victor, Oh, thank you Victor!
All my life I hoped that a book that proclaimed it told you
the whole unexpurgated, shocking story would really
do it. 50 years after my birth, here it is. This is the most
perfectly fabulous and amoral book about the excess and undeserved
privilege accorded the celebrated, successful and rich in America
ever to be inked onto dead trees. Everything it claims to contain
is contained within its hallowed bowels, and more, and more.
Fantastic. I cant believe that its not exposed prominently
in every cornershop Bodega, supermarket and bookstore chain
across America and number one in the best sellers lists everywhere!
As the back says: The Boy Reveals how he got to know Jackson
(and sex); Trips to Foreign countries with Jackson (and sex);
What he saw when Jackson got naked in front of him (and sex);
the sexual games he played with Jackson (and more sex). There
are snapshots, love notes, depositions, even spindly drawings
of Michaels malodorous and smelly penis by
the boy; (oh, the boy, by the way, is Jordie Chandler
who rather surprisingly is credited with having co-written the
screenplay for Robin Hood-Men In Tights with his
father at age 10. Go figure!)
This kind of shameless self-corruption is what made America
great; and I for one am deeply grateful. There is something
calming, and infinitely reassuring about having ones deepest
cynicism about human nature and its innate badness confirmed
so rapidly, uproariously and completely.
I can sleep better now, safe in the knowledge that the poor
scum get banged up, but that the rich and famous scum are, and
will always remain, pillars of the community in any truly democratic,
and free, society. All hail the American dream.
Well, weve also managed to read a few chapters of this
masterpiece and also reaped a generous harvest of lies, delusions
and inventions of Gutierrezs perverse mind. Below is a
report of only some of his lies and please let me remind you
once again that we are talking about the best source of information
Diane Dimond ever had.
GUTIERREZ LIES ABOUT WADE ROBSON
In a chapter devoted to Wade Robson and his mother Joy the author
claims in full earnest that in the summer 1992 he met the family
in the street where Wade was earning a dollar or two by dancing
to the crowd and going rounds with a hat begging for money.
The reason why they found themselves in these dire circumstances
was that the boys mother had allegedly said she didnt
want Michael to sleep with her son and Michael allegedly
got enraged with it and this is how they found themselves in
the street homeless and begging for money to have bread
on the table as Gutierrez puts it!
Quote from the book:
As I approached Joy, Wade ran up
to her and said that he had only got three dollars from his
latest performance. He took two one dollar bills and some coins
out of his hat.
At first, it did not seem that they were poor. But after some
time it became apparent to me that they were homeless. They
once had a rich life with one of the most famous people in the
world. Now they were in the street without money, without friends,
and hoping that Wades dancing would put bread on the table.
If there was something I learned, [said Joy], its
that I shouldnt have gone against Michael. He was enraged.
It was because of this that we left the ranch. He didnt
give us any money. He left it up to us to contact him, but he
never took our calls. We were calling because we needed money.
We didnt want to leave the country
This is why we
are in the street trying to earn money.
Well, when Victor Gutierrez was writing his fiction stories
there was no way of knowing that in 2005 Joy and Wade Robson
would be testifying for Michael Jackson, would still be great
friends with him and would say under oath that they stayed in
Neverland whenever they wanted, as often as they wanted and
usually when Michael wasnt even there. I wish every homeless
family could enjoy such comfort
This is what Joy
Robson said at the trial:
23 Q. Are you still Michael Jacksons friend?
24 A. Absolutely.
10 Q. And do you consider yourselves
11 friends of the family of Mr. Jackson?
12 A. We consider us very good friends, if not
Q. You testified that youve been out at the
6 ranch on an average of about four times?
7 A. Four times a year, but Michael was never
11 Q. Hes never there when you go there?
12 A. Very rarely. I can only remember four times
13 in 14 years that weve been there with him since we
14 have lived here.
20 Q. How many times do you think you visited
21 Neverland when Mr. Jackson wasnt even there?
22 A. Maybe 40, 50 times.
The wildness of Gutierrezs imagination is such that it
makes me even thankful for the trial in 2005 as all the people
mentioned in Gutierrezs fantasy world (excluding the Chandlers
who refused to testify) could tell their real stories at the
trial and thus refute the lies which Gutierrez spread about
Jackson never knowing that there would come a time for checking
Now what about this lie about Joy Robson objecting to
the boy sleeping with MJ? At the trial Joy said that,
firstly, it was her children who insisted on staying with Michael
(and not Michael) and secondly, the only thing she and her husband
were bothered with was whether it would be okay for Michael
if the children stayed with him. They knew Michael well enough
to trust him without any reservation as by that time they had
spoken to him for several years on the phone from Australia:
18 And then it was getting late, and my
19 children said to me, both Chantal and Wade, my
20 daughter, said, Can we stay with Michael.
21 And my husband and I sort of looked at
22 Michael, and said, Well, if thats okay with you
23 And he said, Oh, absolutely. If theyd like to
24 stay, thats fine.
25 Q. And did you allow your son and daughter to
26 stay in his room?
27 A. Yes.
10 Q. Why were you letting Wade spend those
11 evenings with Mr. Jackson?
12 A. Those evenings just happened because they
13 were having fun together. They would play till all
14 hours of the night. They would watch music videos.
15 They would watch cartoons. And theyd basically
16 just go to sleep.
Victor Gutierrez goes on to explain to the reader that Michael
Jackson manipulated Wade Robson and immediately
turns his conclusion into a generalized concept saying that
the same games and manipulations concerned all children
who knew Michael Jackson.
QUOTE from the book:
Joy needed to talk, and she continued
Michael manipulated my son, that was what I didnt
like about him. He always made my son feel guilty if he didnt
do what he wanted.
I interrupted her to ask her the obvious, as I needed to hear
her say it. Manipulate your son? What was it that Michael
wanted with a boy like your son? Joy looked at me. She
was upset and disgusted with what I had asked. She said: I
think that both of us know what were talking about. Michael
was obsessed with my son. When I asked him why he wanted to
sleep with my son, he replied that we would talk about it later.
It never happened.
I didnt press her further for specifics about her
sons friendship with Jackson. I now knew that the statements
taken before from other boys were true. The stories agreed with
Joys. The same games. The same manipulations.
Thank God Joy Robson was cross-examined in 2005 exactly on the
idea of manipulations! If it hadnt been for her true words
said under oath, how on earth could we prove that Gutierrezs
words are complete fabrication? It all sounds so real! By the
way Joy Robson did say she was afraid of manipulation
only it was not on the part of Michael Jackson but on the part
of the police!
28 Q. You felt that your son could be manipulated 9257
2 A. No, but I wasnt going to take that chance.
3 He was ten.
4 Q. You werent concerned about the fact that
5 the defendant in this case, Mr. Jackson, might
6 manipulate your son?
7 A. No concern at all that he would manipulate
8 my son.
9 Q. But two law enforcement officers, you
10 thought they would?
11 A. Possibly. I dont know them. I know Mr.
Ive known Michael for a long time. I
16 know him very well. Ive spent many hours talking
17 to him about everything. I feel like hes a member
18 of my family. I know him very well. I trust him.
19 I trust him with my children.
hes just a very
unique personality. He
25 loves children. And he has a very pure love for
26 children. And to know him is to love him and to
27 trust him.
20 Q. Were you ever concerned about Mr. Jackson
21 manipulating you?
22 A. Never.
23 Q. Did you ever tell anyone you were concerned
24 that Mr. Jackson was manipulating Wade?
25 A. No.
Victor Gutierrez goes on singing his songs and now his tune
is about Michael being interested in boys only.
Michael allegedly spoke to Joy Robson only about boys and got
upset if the conversation turned to another subject.
QUOTE from the book:
Joy told of her experience in trying
to talk to Jackson about subjects other than her son. She spoke
to Jackson about their life and now they were going to reach
their goals. During these conversations, Joy would get upset
because Jackson would turn the conversation to boys.
And this is what Joy Robson really said about it at the 2005
trial and this is how she refuted Gutierrezs lies without
knowing that she was actually doing it:
6 But particularly in the two years when we
7 were living in Australia before we moved here, and I
8 talked to him every day. We had very long
9 conversations about everything that was going on in
10 his life and my life and my childrens lives. And
11 you get to know someone very well when you talk to
12 someone several hours a day over a two-year period.
13 And then once we moved here, too, we
14 continued that. Weve always been able to talk
15 about just about anything.
Joy Robson explains why Wade Robson was so much interested in
Michael Jackson and always stayed by his side he was
learning from him a lot about recording, dancing and entertainment
business. And Michael always supported Wade, often checked on
his progress and advised him on his career:
12 Q. To your knowledge, did your son spend a lot
13 of time with Michael Jackson at recording studios?
14 A. Often, yes.
15 Q. And why was that?
16 A. Because Wade was interested in being a
17 recording artist, he was interested in being a
18 producer. He was learning. He loved to be around
19 that and absorb that. He was like a sponge. And
20 he that was the relationship that he and Michael
21 had. It was a lot of it was a working
22 relationship and Michael was teaching him.
13 Q. Did you allow your son to
14 spend time with Michael Jackson learning the
15 entertainment business?
16 A. Absolutely.
17 Q. Why did you do that?
18 A. Because he was learning from the best.
19 Michael offered to teach him everything he could.
His interest was because he saw Wades potential.
And Wade loved
3 everything that Michael did and wanted to learn as
4 much as he could.
5 Q. Did you ever lose your trust in Michael
6 Jackson during any point in time that your son was
7 with him?
8 A. Never.
23 Q. And to your knowledge, did Mr. Jackson help
24 Wade with his career?
25 A. Yes, hes always very supportive. Hes
26 always very interested in what Wade did with his
27 career. He would check on him. He would ask him to
28 send him keep him in touch and send when he
1 was doing music production, he would ask him to send
2 him demos of the music that he was producing so that
3 he can listen to it and encourage him and teach him
4 what he was doing correctly and not. Always very
5 supportive, always very interested.
So much for the poor homeless family abandoned
by Michael Jackson after some awkward questions
asked by his mother which led to them having to beg for
money in the street
Michaels detractors often call his supporters crazed
Michaels fans. However I dont know who is
crazed here Michaels supporters who believe a testimony
told under oath by the direct participants in the events or
Michaels haters who buy all sorts of dirty pornographic
gossip told by someone completely insane, completely corrupt
and completely fixed on the idea of slandering an innocent person.
For more on Victor Gutierrez lies about Wade Robson please go
to this post.
GUTIERREZ LIES ABOUT LISA-MARIE PRESLEY
In one of the chapters Victor Gutierrez tells unspeakable lies
about Michael Jackson and Lisa-Marie Presley. He naturally presents
himself as the greatest expert on their marriage and propagates
the idea that their relationship was a sham devised with the
only goal of covering up for Michael true interests in
QUOTE from the book:
Jackson and Lisa Marie began to
make public appearances together. The reason? We can imagine.
The press had reported that Jackson had spent a weekend alone
with a minor boy, Wade Robson, who was photographed getting
in a limo which took him to Jacksons ranch. Where was
Lisa Marie? In her house more than 50 miles away living separately
with her two children! On other occasions Lisa Marie was seen
vacationing with her ex-husband.
The fact that Lisa Marie was romantic with her ex-husband and
not with Jackson was becoming more obvious each day. The King
of Pop continued to receive young boys at his ranch, while Lisa
Marie enjoyed the company of her true love.
Frankly, I am lost for words at the audacity with which Victor
Gutierrez speaks of things he hasnt the slightest idea
of. But if I cant say a word here, let Lisa Maria Presley
speak for herself. On the day Michael Jackson died she wrote
in her blog that their marriage was real and that was very much
in love with him:
June 26, 2009
.14 years later I am sitting here watching on the news
an ambulance leaves the driveway of his home, the big gates,
the crowds outside the gates, the coverage, the crowds outside
the hospital, the Cause of death and what may have led up to
it and the memory of this conversation hit me, as did the unstoppable
All of my indifference and detachment that I worked so hard
to achieve over the years has just gone into the bowels of hell
and right now I am gutted.
I am going to say now what I have never said before because
I want the truth out there for once.
Our relationship was not a sham as is being reported
in the press. It was an unusual relationship yes, where two
unusual people who did not live or know a Normal life
found a connection, perhaps with some suspect timing on his
Nonetheless, I do believe he loved me as much as he could love
anyone and I loved him very much.
The hardest decision I have ever had to make, which was
to walk away and let his fate have him, even though I desperately
loved him and tried to stop or reverse it somehow.
After the Divorce, I spent a few years obsessing about him and
what I could have done different, in regret
It later turned out that Lisa Marie Presley was so much in love
with Michael that she chased him round the world in hope that
their marriage would be resumed. She recently admitted to Oprah
that she wanted him back for some 6 years after the divorce.
And Michael Jackson said in his highly confidential conversations
with Rabbi Shmuley that she had written him letters promising
him nine children if he took her back only since she
had already deceived him once on that matter Michael didnt
believe her and had children by his second wife instead.
Poor Gutierrez, I even feel sorry for him. It must be a great
disappointment when the natural course of life refutes the lies
youve taken so much trouble to invent
For more of Gutierrezs lies about LMP please go to this
GUTIERREZ LIES ABOUT LARRY FELDMAN
You wouldnt believe it but Victor Gutierrez couldnt
resist making lies even about the man he sat in the same boat
with Larry Feldman! Larry Feldman was the attorney retained
by the Chandlers in 1993 who filed a civil suit against Jackson
and managed to reach a settlement with him and his lawyers.
In case of Larry Feldman Victor Gutierrezs imagination
takes him so far that he tells us in full earnest that Feldman
couldnt do with Gutierrez so much that he looked for him
through a private investigator for whole three months before
finally making a settlement with Jackson in January 1994.
To refute this piece of sheer craziness let me remind you that
when the allegations against Michael Jackson broke out in 1993
Victor Gutierrez was one of the first to present himself to
the police and therefore there was absolutely no need to look
for him through a private investigator and for three months
too, because Gutierrez was available to anyone who would be
willing to talk to him only no one wanted to, even the
However Gutierrez wants to present himself as someone really
important so his imagination inspires him to tell the following
lie about Larry Feldman:
Tuesday, January 11, 1994 (the date of Jordan Chandlers
birthday) That same afternoon I
met with Jordies attorney Larry Feldman, to find out more
about the status of the case.
What a wonderful statement which is supposed to tell us that
Larry Feldman was freely informing VG about the case. However
who knows? Probably he was
Feldman told me that he had been
looking for me for three months through a private investigator,
Sandra Sutherland (bravo, Gutierrez!). During our conversation,
Feldman expressed to me his uneasiness about the difficulty
of finding more children to testify against Jackson.
Feldman, for his part, said he was ready to end Jacksons
career. You have my word that we will put Jackson behind
bars, he promised, slamming his fist down on the table.
This is a marvelous sample of Gutierrezs lie. The truth
of the matter is that even if Larry Feldman did want to put
Michael Jackson behind bars he couldnt do it because Larry
filed a civil suit against him and civil suits are settled by
money only and it is only the amount which can be the subject
of negotiation between the parties.
Poor Victor Gutierrez doesnt even know that in civil suits
defendants cannot go to prison in principle as civil law does
not presuppose imprisonment as a type of punishment at all (for
details go to this post.
To be able to put a person behind bars one has to take the defendant
to a criminal court but this is exactly what Larry Feldman didnt
want to do as he made every effort to push the civil suit before
the criminal proceedings and his success in doing so was the
major factor that decided the matter in favor of a settlement.
However the muse of invention takes Victor Gutierrez so far
that he tells the following lie about the possibility of a money
When I asked him if Jacksons
lawyers had offered him money to end the civil and criminal
cases, he emphatically responded no one has offered me
a cent to negotiate. He was lying to me, because he was
then negotiating with Jacksons legal advisors to cut a
Oh, I see, so this is why Larry Feldman was so angry
because no one offered him a cent to negotiate and
this was clearly going against all his plans. Money was their
primary goal from the very beginning of the case and Michael
Jackson was stubborn enough not to offer a cent and insist on
criminal proceedings instead.
Well, when the accused is vehemently insisting that the case
should be taken to a criminal court and is willing to take the
risk of being put behind bars instead of quietly closing
the matter by paying money demanded of him by the accuser
anyone will grow angry, I agree.
As to Gutierrezs ramblings about Larry Feldman lying to
Gutierrez and negotiating a deal behind Gutierrezs back,
I dont know whether to laugh or cry here the pathological
lies of Victor Gutierrez would indeed be laughable if it werent
for the people who are ready to believe them. How on earth Diane
Dimond could consider this madman her best source
is absolutely beyond my understanding unless both of
them are slightly gaga, of course?
For more about VGs lies about Larry Feldman please go
Since our reading of Victor Gutierrezs book is not finished
yet, my colleagues and I hope to go on telling his crazy stories
as soon as we are finished with reading this filth.
But now let us turn to Victor Gutierrez himself and have a closer
look at what kind of insect it is.
Our earlier reviewer has already shared some impressions of
Gutierrezs manuscript, saying that everyone
should at the very least have this book in their toilet for
guests as a matter of decadent etiquette and calling the
book perfect water closet reading for the closet cases.
Well, we also noticed a couple of things about Victor Gutierrez
writings though weve read only several chapters of them.
The filthy language he is using, his total obsession with specific
issues like feces, enemas, diarrhea, tampons up the ass and
c#cksucking (I cant believe I am saying this) and all
other details which he under no circumstances could be a witness
to, led us to believe that such things could be told only by
a professional who has first hand information on the subject.
No third party even a very well informed one can
relate details of pedophilia in such a way
THE SECRETS OF VICTOR GUTIERREZ
Gutierrez claims that he has read all those intimate details
in Jordans diary, but we know for a fact that no such
diary ever existed. If it had it would have become number one
evidence in the 1993 case and prosecutors Tom Sneddon and Jill
Garcetti would have never parted with it if they had ever, ever
had access to it.
How comes Victor Gutierrez had something which wasnt available
even to the prosecution? Even if it the police didnt initially
have the diary they would surely have obtained it from Victor
Gutierrez during their criminal investigation in 1993-1994?
The Los Angeles Times of the period when the case was opened
(Aug.28, 1993) says that Victor Gutierrez was interviewed on
two days running but it is clear that the police didnt
believe his stories and surely never got the diary
from him as those interviews ended with nothing as a result.
Victor Gutierrez later even complained that he was a nobody
One of those interviewed was Victor Gutierrez, a Southern California
free-lance journalist who has been working on a book about Jackson
for several years. Gutierrez spoke to LAPD officers for two
hours Thursday and was interviewed again Friday.
He would not disclose what transpired during those sessions,
but he told The Times that he has interviewed for his book some
of the same youngsters being sought for questioning by the LAPD.
No diary is mentioned either by the police or the newspaper,
however what the above article does mention is that Victor Gutierrez
had worked on a book about Michael Jackson for several years
before the first allegations broke out. And to do so he had
interviewed numerous children (and their parents) in Michaels
How did he do it I wonder?
The key to his method of interview is found in Victor Gutierrezs
chapter on Wade Robson. Let us read carefully Gutierrezs
own account of the conversation with Joy Robson and we will
see that he actually admits to telling them what he thought
about Jackson rather than asking them questions about MJ.
Yes, under the cover of a free-lance writer doing research
for a book he was just spreading rumors about Michael and who
knows for how many years he had been doing this subversive work
The way he opened up conversation with people is described by
him as follows:
Quote from the book:
I introduced myself to the mother
[of Wade Robson] 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.
So this was the way he opened a conversation with them! The
first thing he declared about Michael Jackson was that he was
a p-le and this was said with so much confidence
that people could easily think it to be an established fact
When I explained that I was not
from a tabloid or newspaper
. Joy asked me what I wanted
to speak about. I told her that the basic idea of the book was
to speak about Jacksons friendship with minors, and to
listen to all sides and versions regarding this issue. When
I finished speaking Joy exclaimed Its not true!
I told her that the truth was going to come out one day. I asked
her to at least let me explain what I had found out up until
now, and then ask her if there was anything that she wanted
to add. If not, I would understand.
She silently listened as I told her about the cases involving
other young boys and about the several statements made in Hollywood
about Jacksons sexual preferences for boys. I gave details
about how he went about persuading minors. [as if Gutierrez
Now that she knew the details of my investigation, Joy
sat down on the grass and began to confide in me. Wade was reading
a magazine, but was close enough to hear his mothers story.
She expressed her amazement at hearing that other minors had
experienced the same story.
Due to the chance luck of having Joy Robsons and her sons
testimony at the trial in 2005 we know for a fact that Victor
Gutierrez story about Wade Robson is a complete fabrication
but isnt Gutierrezs own account of how he
spread dirt about Michael amazing to say the very least?
Gutierrez persuaded people to listen to him and told them his
fabricated stories the true worth of which we already know by
now. I can imagine what impression an opening statement about
MJ being a p-le could make on Evan Chandler when Victor Gutierrez
was interviewing him in the same manner! And this
makes you wonder if it wasnt Victor Gutierrez who sowed
the first seed of suspicion in Evan Chandlers mind
A PRECIOUS FIND
My co-ed Lynette found an article in the May 2006 issue of British
GQ which took our research of Gutierrezs deeds a great
leap further and provided details which even if we assume
them to be only half-true are still so striking that
this piece of information does indeed turn into a precious gem.
For the sake of analysis Ive retyped it and regrouped
together several pieces in one and the same subject:
Gutierrez began his investigation in 1986 when he went
undercover with the LAPD. While attending a secret conference
held by a suspect organization LA, Gutierrez heard many references
to Michael Jackson. So far as the world knew at the time, Wacko
Jacko was just an eccentric. The fact hat he liked the
company of young boys seemed no more suspicious back then than
his hanging out with a chimp called Bubbles.
The book that Gutierrez finished after the first phase
of his research never came out. Publishers thought it too hot
to handle and although Gutierrez sent a copy to the LAPD they
took no action either. Because I was a nobody, just a
Latino reporter in LA.
The first fact that catches out attention here is a confirmation
of the earlier revealed news that Gutierrez started working
against Michael Jackson long before the first allegations broke
out in 1993 in 1986 or seven years before the events.
The second fact we learn here is that Victor Gutierrez says
he went undercover for the LAPD to make his investigation of
MJ, however later he admits that when the first phase of his
research was over he sent a copy of his report to the LAPD and
they took no action, because he was a nobody to them,
just a Latino reporter in LA.
Over here we face a vivid discrepancy in his stories
first he encourages us to think that he worked undercover for
LAPD and was on their mission and then he says the police did
not pay attention to his findings as he was a nobody to
So which way it was? Was he a nobody to the LAPD or was his
sent on a mission by them? Let us make a mental note of how
uncertain Victor Gutierrez is about whether he did or didnt
do anything for the LAPD
The secret conference held by a suspect organization in LA which
Gutierrez says he attended cant be anything else by the
NAMBLA conference of ped-les as Gutierrez implies they discussed
Michael Jackson and he heard many references to him
This is top important information as:
- firstly, it shows that ped-les were very much interested in
MJ (why, I wonder?) though he was completely disinterested in
them and never associated himself with any of those despicable
- and secondly, because Gutierrezs attendance of the conference
raises questions about the capacity in which he presented himself
there. Oh, we remember, he was working there undercover for
Oh no, he couldnt be on a mission there
as he was nobody to them. So what was he doing there
then? Let us put aside this mind-boggling question for a time
being and proceed with the article as it has a lot more to tell
For the next five years Gutierrez tracked down as many of Jacksons
current and former associates as he could. Being Latino himself
helped it was relatively easy for him to strike up friendships
with Jacksons El Salvadorean maid, Blanca Francia, who
left Jacksons employment in 1991, and the stars
Costa Rican PA, Orietta Murdock, who sued him for unfair dismissal
in 1992. They told of a steady stream of young boy visitors
to the ranch, all of them white, Asian or Latino. Jacksons
staff suspected that his friendships were more than
friendly, not least because young guests to Neverland usually
slept over in Michaels quarters rather than in one of
the 36 guest bedrooms.
As soon as Gutierrezs investigation became known, he received
a visit from one of Jacksons legal representatives who
abused and threatened him. Just before he left Gutierrez
recalls, he said, Well be back. Consider yourself
A pariah in the celebrity- sucking world of freelance entertainment
journalism, Gutierrez was forced to give up his writing and
for a while supported himself by selling satellite dishes. Then,
in 1993, his interest was reawakened when he heard about a boy
called Jordie Chandler with whom Jackson was appearing at huge
media events, such as the World Music Awards in Monaco.
Over here Victor Gutierrez admits that being a Latino it was
easy for him to befriend Michaels maid Blanca Francia
and personal assistant Orietta Murdoch, who are said to have
been suspecting (only suspecting!!!) that Michael was more than
friendly with his young friends.
Blanca Francia left her employment in 1991 well before the Chandlers
allegations started and there was absolutely no talk of any
tickling of her son or seeing Michael in a
shower with a boy at the time no, there was nothing
else but suspicions only
The lie about 36 rooms speaks volumes about the wildness of
Victor Gutierrezs imagination according to Lynettes
plan enclosed with her post
about the GQ article, there were only 4 bedrooms in the two
guest units and 5 bedrooms in the main house at Neverland which
was barely enough for Michael, his family and the nannies -
so 36 rooms is really blowing the facts out of every proportion.
If Gutierrez made such exaggerations over the number of rooms
at Neverland I am afraid even to think what heaps of lies Gutierrez
could tell those Latino women whom he befriended in Michaels
However even despite all Gutierrezs brainwashing effort
the end result of collecting all those testimonies
presented in the form of a manuscript did not interest the police
and Gutierrez was forced to do something else for a living,
allegedly forgetting about Michael Jackson for a time being
which is a statement I dont believe even for a
He never stopped sleuthing on Michael Jackson and Gutierrez
proves it himself by giving the date of his interview with Wade
Robson and his mother he says he met them in summer 1992
or a year before the allegations started, and this means that
Gutierrez never gave up following Michael and spreading dirty
stories about him.
Okay, so now that we have come close to 1993 and the Chandlers
allegations against Michael, how did the events develop according
to Victor Gutierrez?
Thanks to the intervention of somebody 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 Gutierrezs
original manuscript after the Chandlers had come forward with
their allegations in August 1993.
This marvelous piece discloses to us that Victor Gutierrez had
sources not only in Neverland but in the Chandlers
home as well and the apparent candidate for it is the Chandlers
maid. The same fact was mentioned in Roger Friedmans article
which said that Gutierrez had largely made up his material by
stitching together bits and pieces of the speculations of the
maid working for the Chandlers.
The article claims that Gutierrez met Jordan Chandler (probably
he did), obtained a diary from him (impossible, as it never
existed) and got some legal papers from the police, who
the way he describes it supplied him with the documents
instead of taking Jordans diary from him.
It is indeed very strange that the police didnt get interested
in that crucial document if it ever existed of course
It would be clear even for a baby that if the diary had ever
existed, Michael would have been locked up for life then and
there and without any further investigation whatsoever. However
the investigation lasted for about a year and two grand juries
looked into everything presented to them by the police and never
found a reason for Michael Jacksons indictment - so the
diary was clearly not among the evidence presented
With no charges forthcoming after the police investigation
and no moves from Jacksons lawyers against his
book American publishers still didnt want to know.
So, in March 1996, Gutierrez eventually put it out under his
own imprint. Sadly for Gutierrez, his ability to satisfy growing
demand for the book was hampered by his bankruptcy after a court
action in 1997.
Could I remind you at this point that the court action was taken
because of Gutierrezs slander against Michael over the
video tape story and that Gutierrez had to file for bankruptcy
to avoid paying the $2,7 mln. in damages to him?
His reputation in media circles as an expert on Jackson
had secured him regular work with the tabloid TV show, Hard
This surely made you choke his reputation? What reputation
can we talk about in case of Victor Gutierrez? However for some
TV shows of Diane Dimonds standard, for example
the reputation Gutierrez enjoyed was most probably just
the right recommendation they needed to make use of his services
birds of a feather flock together, you know
However the question still remains if they did officially
employ Gutierrez why didnt they deduct part of his earnings
in repayment of the debt to Michael Jackson as they should have?
In the second of his reports for the show Gutierrez referred
to a video tape he had been shown, but not loaned, by the mother
of one of Jacksons other young pals, who was herself negotiating
with Jackson. Jacksons lawyers struck, suing Gutierrez
in a civil action for $110m. Unlike Jordans diary, Gutierrez
couldnt prove the existence of this tape and damages of
$2,7m were awarded. The effect of this judgement was doubly
helpful to the Jackson camp. Not only did it bankrupt the publisher
of a highly unflattering book, it also reinforced the belief
that it was the book, rather than the author, that had fallen
found of the libel laws.
Though somewhat misplaced in time the fabricated story of a
non-existent video tape is already well known to us only
this time it has some additional embellishments like the mother
showing the tape to Gutierrez (but not loaning it)
and her negotiating with Jackson over that tape
while as you remember there was no tape, no negotiations
and no contact between mother of the boy and Victor Gutierrez
Since that case, Gutierrez has mainly returned to investigative
journalism in Chile. His most significant foray back into Jacksons
world came when he was engaged to work on Martin Bashirs
TV interview in 2003.
The new film, Gutierrez says, is like payback time.
He has been dismayed to see chunks of his research recycled,
uncredited, in other books on Jackson. Gutierrez hopes that
in the wake of the movie, he will be able to get his book back
in print. Because in America they only wanna read the
book after theyve seen the movie. But the idea of
sitting around in meeting discussing cuts to his text with latte-sipping
publishers does not appeal. All I really want, he
says, is the credit I deserve. The film is not enough
Well, this is really fantastic news! Victor Gutierrez claims
that he was engaged to work on Martin Bashirs TV interview
in 2003? Lynette even checked Bashirs documentary but
didnt find Gutierrezs credits there, alas. However
they were not obliged to disclose all their sources
and if all this is not mere bragging on Gutierrezs part
the news that Bashir and Gutierrez worked together on the film
or at least knew each other at the time is reason enough to
see the plot thickening around Michael Jackson and all the main
vilifiers grouping together for the final strike Bashir,
Gutierrez and Diane Dimond (as she was Gutierrezs inseparable
part who surfaced each time Gutierrez was around).
I hope you will agree that the news of Bashir and Gutierrez
cooperating on the 2003 film definitely added a new dimension
to that story
VICTOR GUTIERREZ IS A MEMBER OF NAMBLA?
But it is high time we returned to the secret conference of
NAMBLA which Victor Gutierrez attended undercover while allegedly
working for the LAPD. Since later he admitted that he was nobody
for the LAPD this made us wonder in what capacity Victor Gutierrez
could have infiltrated the highly secretive organization of
North American Men-Boy Love Association.
The search for an answer brought us to an incredible find made
by Louise about Victor Gutierrez she found him saying
that he had attended a NAMBLA conference as a reporter.
This fact was published in a German paper Tageszeitung dated
April 2005 (for details of it please go here
Here is the short of the story told by Suzy who translated the
article from German:
Victor Gutierrez obviously lies about why he was at
that NAMBLA conference. Its proven by the fact he changes
his story about that. In the Tageszeitung they say he was sent
by the newspaper he worked for. Or to be more precise they write
this: He quickly finds a job at a Spanish newspaper in
L.A., he becomes a police reporter (ie. a criminal reporter
for the paper, not someone who works for the police, otherwise
they would have said so). In 1986 he reports from a congress
In GQ he claims he was sent by the LAPD. In the Tageszeitung
it isnt even mentioned.
So which one is true?
NAMBLA doesnt welcome journalists to report from their
congresses. And the GQ story is even more ridiculous. Why would
the police send a no-name journalist to spy on NAMBLA? The police
does such actions with their own, trained people, not with outsiders!
And obviously from his Tageszeitung interview Victor Gutierrez
has a big sympathy towards NAMBLA and the pedophile case
so he would never spy on them for the police.
The reason why he lies about why he was there is obvious: because
he was there as a member. Its not only clear from
his lies, but also from the way he talks about man-boy
relationships either in his book or in the Tageszeitung
article and elsewhere.
And the German newspaper (Die Tageszeitung) which conducted
and published the interview with Gutierrez has a history in
advocating pedophilia! Look what I have found about them:
In 2010, an article emerged on
the website Spiegel Online titled The Sexual Revolution
and Children: How the left took things too far.
The article mentions Tageszeitungs promotion of Childrens
sexual liberation during the 1970s. A series in Tageszeitung
titled I Love Boys featured interviews with men
who described how beautiful and liberating sex with preadolescent
boys supposedly was.
The article goes on to mention that those who opposed sexual
experimentation with children, such as the magazines then
editor Gitti Hentschel were accused of being prudish
by others who accused them of inhibiting freedom of expression
and childrens sexuality.
So the Die Tageszeitung newspapers is clearly on a sympathetic
side for pedophiles and it was to this newspaper that Victor
Gutierrez gave his interview in April 2005 (when Michael Jackson
was still on trial). The article is named It was love
and one of its chapters tells us that Victor Gutierrez was allegedly
sent to a NAMBLA conference to report news about it:
He works for a paper in Santiago where he writes about
politics and human rights. He first came to the USA in 1984
as a photographer for the Olympic Games in LA. He didnt
go back to his land where Pinochet ruled. The American
Dream was too attractive, he says. He finds a job at a
Spanish paper in LA and becomes a crime reporter.
In 1986 he reports from a congress of NAMBLA (North
American Man Boy Love Association). NAMBLA was founded in
the 70s. It supports relationships between generations.
It was supported by prominent names like Gore Vidal and Allen
Ginsberg. It got quickly isolated from the rest of the gay movement.
Gutierrez claims he heard at this congress that Jackson
was treated like an idol there, as a hope for social acceptance.
Guiterrez quit his job at the newspaper and started talking
to employees of Jackson and interviewed the first boys. He was
soon out of money, he sold his car, he tried to save money on
Quote: He learns that there are several types of pedophile.
Pedophilia is as old as the human race. Not every game they
play is a terrible crime
In a hundred years maybe such
relationships will be socially accepted, says Gutierrez
(for the full story on that article please go to this post).
The last sentence made me immediately recall that exactly the
same idea was declared by Victor Gutierrez in Perettis
film over there Gutierrez also said that Maybe
in a hundred years such relationships will be socially accepted.
Even when I watched this episode for the first time it sounded
to me as a very strange statement it looked more like
a hope rather than a horror scene every sane person would be
appalled with if any such prospect were looming ahead.
And now he repeats the idea again, in exactly the same wording
and in a conversation with a journalist representing a paper
sympathetic to pedophiles? Oh no, it cant be just a usual
slip of the tongue on the part of Victor Gutierrez it
sounds more like propaganda of this idea and a hope that the
future society will eventually accept it
But the main bombshell the German article provides us with is
the fact which is disclosed by Victor Gutierrez himself
that in the year 1986, which is the year he started following
Michael Jackson, he worked for a newspaper as a criminal reporter
and reported from the congress of NAMBLA.
To see how ludicrous the idea of free reporting from the congress
of NAMBLA is we should get familiar with the way this highly
secretive organization goes about its business.
The covert way NAMBLA arranges its meetings is very well described
in the article published by SanDiego.com
. From this text you will learn that they do not welcome any
reporters to cover their activities at all and it is simply
impossible for anyone who is not one of them to
attend any of their meetings. Each assembly is organized in
the atmosphere of top secrecy and no journalists are ever allowed
to attend it.
The only information known before the conference is the host
city which will be holding the assembly. The venue is not disclosed
to attendees until the very last moment. Even if a journalist
manages to overcome these barriers he will be able to see only
the surface of what they are showing there. And on the surface
they are look like a trade conference or scientific
congress discussing relationship between generations,
for example, problems of upbringing children and other innocent
But real talk and illicit activity begin when they break into
small groups or dine together where each member knows the other
personally. So if Victor Gutierrez actually heard the
NAMBLA attendees treating MJ as their idol and hoping he would
break ice for their future social acceptance it means that Victor
Gutierrez went as far as the closed dining club discussions
and was well accepted in those circles!
The fact that Michael Jacksons name was mentioned at the
conference should not be regarded as a sign of him having anything
to do with these guys. Michael was always disgusted by them,
fought tooth and nail any ped-le allegations against him and
cried out publicly against the attempts to throw him into their
bad class (as he sang in They dont care about us
No, instead of incriminating Michael the news of Gutierrezs
reports from a NAMBLA conference told by Victor Gutierrez himself
proves that it was Gutierrez who is one of the bad class,
because if he werent one of them he would have never been
able to attend any of their meetings!
To see how nearly impossible it is to infiltrate the NAMBLA
circles we need to carefully read the article below.
The FBI has been following this organization for years but since
they are very cautious and are broken into small little-known
groups the FBI was successful to infiltrate their agent into
the organization only recently. This enabled them to make a
few arrests and interfere in their planned criminal activities.
Here is the article in its slightly abridged version:
FBI targets pedophilia advocates
Little-known group promotes benevolent sex
By Onell R. Soto UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
10:08 p.m. February 17, 2005
On its Web site and newsletters, the North American Man/Boy
Love Association advocates sex between men and boys and cites
ancient Greece to justify the practice.
It goes by the acronym NAMBLA, and the FBI has been following
it for years, linking it to pedophilia and recently infiltrating
it with an agent successful enough to be asked to join the groups
Law enforcement officials and mental health professionals say
that while NAMBLAs membership numbers are small, the group
has a dangerous ripple effect through the Internet by sanctioning
the behavior of those who would abuse children.
San Diego police Sgt. Dave Jones, who oversees a group of investigators
working on Internet crimes against children, says NAMBLAs
Web site often pops up in computers on which they find child
A national network
NAMBLA is based in New York City and San Francisco.
The organizations sexual advocacy is protected by the
Everyone has the right to assemble and espouse whatever
belief they want, said Dan Dzwilewski, head of the FBIs
San Diego office.
Dzwilewski said undercover agents got involved not by targeting
NAMBLA, but through a molestation investigation. Later, he said,
we knew we were interfering in planned criminal activity.
On its Web site, NAMBLA says it opposes abuse and coercion of
young people and does not advocate illegal activity.
It also says children should have the right to have sex with
older men and that such relationships are benevolent.
The 26-year-old organization wants to overturn statutory rape
laws and free molesters from prison, and encourages members
to send Christmas cards to jailed molesters.
In California, it is illegal for an adult to have sex with someone
younger than 18, but many other states set the age of sexual
consent at 16.
Critics say NAMBLAs public face hides a network of child
molesters who trade seduction techniques and child pornography
and organize overseas trips for illicit sex.
It is, in fact, a trade school for pedophiles, said
Patrick Gillen, lawyer with the Thomas More Law Center, a Christian
legal advocacy group that has sued the organizations leadership
and made that argument in court.
San Diegos was among eight police departments across the
nation that helped the FBI in last weeks sting, he said.
Jones said local law enforcement gives a high priority to identifying
and prosecuting child molesters and works with federal and international
authorities to find collectors of child pornography, who often
are molesters as well.
Repeated efforts to contact NAMBLAs leaders were unsuccessful.
There is never anyone here who can take your calls,
a mans voice says on the groups New York answering
Membership costs $35 a year, according to the NAMBLA Web site.
Prison inmates can join for free and get a subscription to the
monthly newsletter that includes articles such as Is Harry
Potter Gay? and Letter from a Twelve-Year-Old.
The organization links itself to the gay-rights movement, but
mainstream gay organizations disavow such a parallel.
NAMBLA holds annual national conferences and monthly meetings
around the country. It made headlines in San Francisco 12 years
ago when a television station discovered a local chapter meeting
monthly in a public library.
There are bylaws, a Virginia police detective who
infiltrated the group said. Its just a well-run
Among topics discussed, attorney Gillen said in court papers,
is how to start a relationship with a boy without drawing suspicion
by parents and law enforcement and how to avoid getting caught.
The American Civil Liberties Union
The American Civil Liberties Union has come to the defense of
the groups leaders and publications.
There is nothing in them which is unlawful, which is outside
the bounds of what is normally protected by the First Amendment,
ACLU lawyer John Reinstein said in an interview.
As distasteful as most people find the groups views, those
opinions are protected by the Constitution, he said.
If the standard by which First Amendment protection is
judged is whether enough people agree with it, we would be deprived
of speech which is either controversial or opposed to the majority
view, he said.
Gillen said the ACLU has blocked efforts to get information
about the group. We havent been able to get a firm
fix on how many members, who they are, where they are,
The lawsuit is pending, and the ACLU has asked a judge to toss
it out of court.
About 10 years ago, NAMBLA counted about 1,100 members, said
Fairfax County, Va., detective Tom Polhemus, who went undercover
and joined the organizations governing board.
Polhemus said the group had a San Diego chapter at the time.
Jones, the San Diego police sergeant, said he doesnt know
if one still exists.
A former member of the organizations leadership said in
court papers filed in Boston that in the mid-1990s, the group
discouraged establishing local chapters to avoid police infiltration.
Like a trade conference
The annual meetings, Polhemus said, were hush-hush affairs.
Attendees were told to go to the host city, and the venue was
not disclosed until the last minute.
They dont want press and they dont want the
cops showing up, he said.
After the main sessions, Polhemus said, You break up and
you go into different rooms, . . . like a trade conference.
The networking for illicit activities occurs later, in private
conversations over drinks or dinner, he said.
Thats what happened in November at a conference in Miami,
FBI agents said in court documents.
An undercover agent dined with several NAMBLA members at a burger
joint where they discussed trips abroad to abuse children. After
the convention, he contacted them by telephone and e-mail and
set up the sting by promising the boat trip to Mexico.
The arrests made Saturday, the FBI arrested three NAMBLA members
at Harbor Island as they waited for a boat that undercover agents
told them would sail to Ensenada for a sex retreat over Valentines
Day with boys as young as 9. The FBI said four NAMBLA members
were arrested in a Los Angeles marina where they also planned
to set sail to the bogus rendezvous.
The seven men represent a cross-section of America: a Dallas
dentist, a Pittsburgh special-education teacher, a South Carolina
substitute teacher, a New Mexico handyman, a Chicago flight
attendant who is also a psychologist and two Florida men, a
worker at a paper company and a personal trainer.
A Fullerton chiropractor who was also an assistant pastor at
his church was arrested on child-pornography charges as part
of the sting, and bail was set at $100,000.
He admitted taking an Encinitas boy to Balboa Park and molesting
him, the FBI said in court documents. Prosecutors have not charged
him in connection with those allegations.
Friends, relatives and co-workers of the men expressed shock
at the arrests, but the FBI said in court papers that most of
the men told the undercover agent they had been sexually involved
with children in the past, including boys they met through the
Internet and others abroad.
The FBI says at least one of the men is a member of the groups
national leadership, a second organized the groups national
convention last year and a third said he had been a member since
The NAMBLA investigation is part of a crackdown on people authorities
have termed sex tourists, those who cross state and national
borders for illicit sex.
For the full version of the article please go to: http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20050217-2208-manboy-daily.html
So why is Victor Gutierrez is so evasive about the reason why
he attended a NAMBLA conference? First he says he went there
undercover for the LAPD, then we find they didnt pay attention
to him as he was a nobody to them, and later he admits that
he went there as a reporter of a newspaper to tell the news
of their conference which is an event impossible in principle,
as weve just learned it
The reason why Victor Gutierrez changes his story in each consecutive
article is because he feels the need to explain why he was at
the NAMBLA conference at all. He cant admit that he was
and probably still is a member of it and is therefore freely
experimenting with all these versions knowing that no one will
ever compare them with what he said before.
1) The version of reporting a pedophile congress for a newspaper
is no good as such conferences are arranged in top secrecy and
no journalists are allowed there.
2) The version of being there undercover from the LAPD is no
good either as up till now only professional detectives have
been able to infiltrate the organization. Detectives say that
Its a well-run little organization, There
is never anyone here who can take your calls, and the
group discourages establishing local chapters to avoid police
So in what other capacity could Victor Gutierrez attend
a NAMBLA conference?
Only as a MEMBER of it.
And this strongly suggests that VICTOR GUTIERREZ IS A PED-LE.
He has already told us that he is homosexual though the way
Victor Gutierrez puts it, it is his partners who are gay,
not him but now his unstoppable bragging has revealed
to us that most probably he is a member of the NAMBLA organization
And it was most probably on a mission from NAMBLA that he started
following Michael in the year 1986 and had been weaving a plot
around him for so many years by telling fabricated stories
to anyone who would be willing to listen to his dirt.
The discovery that Victor Gutierrez has a different agenda than
the family of the alleged victim explains why the initial friendship
with the Chandlers was followed by a fall-out with them. Suzy
writes about it:
There are certainly signs in Gutierrezs book
which tell us that he was in contact with the Chandlers and
up until a point they were supportive of his book. Otherwise
they wouldnt have given him pictures of Michael those
were shot by Jordan and also private pictures of Jordan himself.
What made them turn on each other?
Probably that Gutierrez had a different agenda than them. His
story is not that of a victim. His story is a love story
(as much as I want to puke from this idea) that was ruined by
the evil prejudice of society and the greed of the
parents. Gutierrez used them and then went with his own ped-lic
agenda. They didnt like that.
Surely the Chandlers didnt like the news that their chief
consultant and instigator against Michael Jackson turned out
to be a highly suspicious guy himself
I wonder whether Diane Dimond will like the news that
her best source on whom she relied so heavily all
these years is a suspected member of the NAMBLA organization.
And whether she will like the news that the false stories about
Michael prompted to her by Victor Gutierrez were actually the
fruit of imagination of a person whose mind is sick, perverse
and probably insane.
I wish somebody told her that the anti-Jackson fabrications
of a liar and a suspected NAMBLA member Victor Gutierrez were
actually embellished by details Gutierrez most probably derived
from his own activities with boys.
I wish somebody reminded her that a journalist is obliged to
check on her sources of information and should not believe
every word of the ped-lic stuff said by her best source
as if it were Gospel truth.
I hope she dies of shame when she learns that her right-hand
man in her alleged fight against this abominable
crime may be a pedophile himself. However something tells
me that she knows it
I wonder whether those who will be watching Perettis film
will see the true worth of the facts presented there
by the two main characters of the film, now that they know who
they really are.
I hope the viewers will also see the true worth of this Peretti
clown who thinks he had won himself fame by making a film of
the century about MJ while all Peretti has won for himself
is shame, shame and again shame because the film he has made
is nothing but a lie of the century.
However it was this lie which triggered off our little investigation
and enabled us to learn what really happened to Michael
Jackson and who were the people who did it to him .
* You understand that this post is giving only a fraction of
information about Perettis film. For more about the film
please go to Davids post.