Peretti´s main “source” VICTOR GUTIERREZ is a NAMBLA member?

by Helena

March 02 - 2011


Those who will be watching Jacques Peretti’s film ridiculously misnamed “What really happened” should ask themselves a question what kind of people are standing behind its making. This question isn’t an idle one as once they learn who is selling them all this monstrosity their perception of it will surely change.

PERETTI’S FILM

The film was first broadcast by British television station Channel 4 on October 24, 2007 which was well after Michael Jackson’s full acquittal in 2005 and four years after Bashir’s 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 people’s 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 doesn’t 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 Michael’s 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 Jackson’s fan which is a flat lie of course – the goal of the lie is to send the world a message that even Michael’s 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 “It’s 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 Peretti is …

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 Dimond’s 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 Jackson’s 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 Michael’s vilification campaign are and emphasized an inseparable link between the two.

Since everyone knows Diane Dimond’s ludicrous stories about “love letters” never found in Neverland or her delicate methods of reporting like dangling on TV someone’s soiled underwear this post will focus on a less known Victor Gutierrez who has been Diane Dimond’s best source of information for about twenty years since 1993 when the first allegations against Michael Jackson broke out.



DIANE DIMOND’S “BEST SOURCE”

How do we know that Victor Gutierrez was Diane Dimond’s 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 Jackson’s “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 didn’t 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: “It’s 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 people?”

Dimond: “Well, someone close to Michael Jackson found this tape and, in deep concern for the boy involved, gave it to boy’s 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 don’t 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, I’ll split it 50/50 with you and we can get maybe $50 million.”

Dimond: “That could very well be.”

Q: “And he gave it to the mother of the boy?”

Dimond: “Correct.”

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 don’t 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 Michael Jackson?”

Dimond: “By Michael Jackson. . .

Later that evening, “Hard Copy” showed a report where Dimond’s 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 Dimond’s 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 isn’t happening that way. Hard Copy has learned that there is now a renewed police investigation into the entertainer’s relationship with young boys. This time, authorities are hot on the trail of an explicit video tape they believe could make their case. Michael Jackson’s 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 it’s 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 office.”

… “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 Jackson’s 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 they’ve been waiting for. If they had the tape, that’s 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 entertainer’s relationship with various boys. Gutierrez has talked with this young boy’s 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, it’s 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, Jackson’s 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. . .”

Source

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 boy’s 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 Jackson’s 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. “There’s 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 wasn’t true, of course, and that I wanted the story stopped in its tracks.

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. Dimond’s 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. I’d never met the man. There was no tape. Michael never paid me for my silence. He had never molested Jeremy. Period.”
Source

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 Michael’s 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 owed him.

Since Victor Gutierrez is generously quoted in Peretti’s 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 Jackson’s 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 Attorney’s office contacted “La Cuarta” to refute those claims. Source

Despite the so-called threats to Gutierrez which were announced in Peretti’s film and which were supposed to haunt Gutierrez for ten years after the judge’s ruling, it didn’t 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 didn’t make deductions from Gutierrez’s 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 PERETTI’S 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 let’s 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 don’t know the basic fact that Michael didn’t 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 doesn’t 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 Chandler’s 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 Gutierrez’s 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 Jordan’s 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 on Jackson:

“The book was not published in the U.S. because Jackson won a libel suit against the author. Gutierrez’s writing is much more pornographic than anything the police say they found at Neverland. Gutierrez, it is rumored, made up a lot of his material after stitching together bits and pieces of speculation from the maid who worked for the Chandlers, the family at the center of the 1993 case against Jacko.” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151774,00.html

One of the reviewers of the book was so impressed by the incredible Gutierrez’s 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 Gutierrez’s 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 Goldman’s 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 can’t believe that it’s 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 Michael’s 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.

Genesis P-Orridge

Well, we’ve also managed to read a few chapters of this masterpiece and also reaped a generous harvest of lies, delusions and inventions of Gutierrez’s 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 boy’s mother had allegedly said she didn’t 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 Wade’s dancing would put bread on the table.”

“If there was something I learned, [said Joy], it’s that I shouldn’t have gone against Michael. He was enraged. It was because of this that we left the ranch. He didn’t 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 didn’t 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 wasn’t 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 Jackson’s 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

13 family.

Q. You testified that you’ve been out at the

6 ranch on an average of about four times?

7 A. Four times a year, but Michael was never

8 there.

11 Q. He’s never there when you go there?

12 A. Very rarely. I can only remember four times

13 in 14 years that we’ve 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 wasn’t even there?

22 A. Maybe 40, 50 times.

The wildness of Gutierrez’s imagination is such that it makes me even thankful for the trial in 2005 as all the people mentioned in Gutierrez’s 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 them up.

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 that’s okay with you ‘.

23 And he said, Oh, absolutely. If they’d like to

24 stay, that’s 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 they’d 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 didn’t like about him. He always made my son feel guilty if he didn’t 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 we’re 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 didn’t press her further for specifics about her son’s friendship with Jackson. I now knew that the statements taken before from other boys were true. The stories agreed with Joy’s. The same games. The same manipulations.”

Thank God Joy Robson was cross-examined in 2005 exactly on the idea of manipulations! If it hadn’t been for her true words said under oath, how on earth could we prove that Gutierrez’s 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

1 easily?

2 A. No, but I wasn’t going to take that chance.

3 He was ten.

4 Q. You weren’t 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 don’t know them. I know Mr.

12 Jackson. …I’ve known Michael for a long time. I

16 know him very well. I’ve spent many hours talking

17 to him about everything. I feel like he’s a member

18 of my family. I know him very well. I trust him.

19 I trust him with my children. …he’s 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 Gutierrez’s 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 children’s 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. We’ve 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 Wade’s 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, he’s always very supportive. He’s

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 9281

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….

Michael’s detractors often call his supporters “crazed Michael’s fans”. However I don’t know who is crazed here – Michael’s supporters who believe a testimony told under oath by the direct participants in the events or Michael’s 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 boys”.

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 Jackson’s 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 hasn’t the slightest idea of. But if I can’t 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 tears.

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 part.

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…….. LMP

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 didn’t 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 you’ve taken so much trouble to invent…

For more of Gutierrez’s lies about LMP please go to this post.

GUTIERREZ LIES ABOUT LARRY FELDMAN

You wouldn’t believe it but Victor Gutierrez couldn’t 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 Gutierrez’s imagination takes him so far that he tells us in full earnest that Feldman couldn’t 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 police …

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 Chandler’s birthday) “That same afternoon I met with Jordie’s 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 Jackson’s 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 Gutierrez’s lie. The truth of the matter is that even if Larry Feldman did want to put Michael Jackson behind bars he couldn’t 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 doesn’t 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. please).

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 didn’t 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 settlement:

“When I asked him if Jackson’s 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 Jackson’s legal advisors to cut a deal”.

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 Gutierrez’s ramblings about Larry Feldman lying to Gutierrez and negotiating a deal behind Gutierrez’s back, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry here – the pathological lies of Victor Gutierrez would indeed be laughable if it weren’t 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 VG’s lies about Larry Feldman please go here.

Since our reading of Victor Gutierrez’s 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 Gutierrez’s 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 we’ve 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 can’t 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 Jordan’s 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 wasn’t available even to the prosecution? Even if it the police didn’t 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 didn’t 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 to them”:

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.

Source: http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/la-times-article-august-28th-1993-enter-victor-gutierrez/

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 Michael’s surrounding.

How did he do it I wonder?

The key to his method of interview is found in Victor Gutierrez’s chapter on Wade Robson. Let us read carefully Gutierrez’s 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 against Jackson?

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 Jackson’s friendship with minors, and to listen to all sides and versions regarding this issue. When I finished speaking Joy exclaimed “It’s not true!”

I told her that the truth was going to come out one day. I asked her to at least let me explain what I had found out up until now, and then ask her if there was anything that she wanted to add. If not, I would understand.
She silently listened as I told her about the cases involving other young boys and about the several statements made in Hollywood about Jackson’s sexual preferences for boys. I gave details about how he went about persuading minors. ”[as if Gutierrez knew it].

“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 mother’s story. She expressed her amazement at hearing that other minors had experienced the same story”.

Due to the chance luck of having Joy Robson’s and her son’s testimony at the trial in 2005 we know for a fact that Victor Gutierrez story about Wade Robson is a complete fabrication – but isn’t Gutierrez’s 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 wasn’t Victor Gutierrez who sowed the first seed of suspicion in Evan Chandler’s mind…

A PRECIOUS FIND

My co-ed Lynette found an article in the May 2006 issue of British GQ which took our research of Gutierrez’s 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 I’ve 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 them”.

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 didn’t do anything for the LAPD….

The secret conference held by a suspect organization in LA which Gutierrez says he attended can’t be anything else by the NAMBLA conference of ped-les as Gutierrez implies they discussed Michael Jackson and he “heard many references to him” there.

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 creatures,

- and secondly, because Gutierrez’s attendance of the conference raises questions about the capacity in which he presented himself there. Oh, we remember, he was working there undercover for the LAPD… Oh no, he couldn’t 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 us.



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

As soon as Gutierrez’s investigation became known, he received a visit from one of Jackson’s legal representatives who abused and threatened him. “Just before he left” Gutierrez recalls, “he said, “We’ll be back. Consider yourself dead”.

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 Michael’s 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 Gutierrez’s imagination – according to Lynette’s 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 Michael’s home.

However even despite all Gutierrez’s 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 don’t believe even for a second.

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 Gutierrez’s 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 Friedman’s 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 “Jordan’s diary” from him. It is indeed very strange that the police didn’t 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 Jackson’s indictment - so the “diary” was clearly not among the evidence presented…

“With no charges forthcoming after the police investigation – and no moves from Jackson’s lawyers against his book – American publishers still didn’t 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 Gutierrez’s 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 Copy”.

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 Dimond’s 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 didn’t 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 Jackson’s other young pals, who was herself negotiating with Jackson. Jackson’s lawyers struck, suing Gutierrez in a civil action for $110m. Unlike Jordan’s diary, Gutierrez couldn’t 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 whatsoever.



“Since that case, Gutierrez has mainly returned to investigative journalism in Chile. His most significant foray back into Jackson’s world came when he was engaged to work on Martin Bashir’s 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 they’ve 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 for me”.

Well, this is really fantastic news! Victor Gutierrez claims that he was engaged to work on Martin Bashir’s TV interview in 2003? Lynette even checked Bashir’s documentary but didn’t find Gutierrez’s credits there, alas. However they were not obliged to disclose all their “sources” and if all this is not mere bragging on Gutierrez’s 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 Gutierrez’s 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. It’s 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 of NAMBLA.”

In GQ he claims he was sent by the LAPD. In the Tageszeitung it isn’t even mentioned.

So which one is true?

NAMBLA doesn’t 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. It’s 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 Tageszeitung’s promotion of Children’s 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 magazine’s then editor Gitti Hentschel were accused of being “prudish” by others who accused them of inhibiting freedom of expression and children’s 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 didn’t 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 food.

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 Peretti’s 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 can’t 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 issues.

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 Jackson’s 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 don’t care about us” song).

No, instead of incriminating Michael the news of Gutierrez’s 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 weren’t 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 group’s steering committee.

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

San Diego police Sgt. Dave Jones, who oversees a group of investigators working on Internet crimes against children, says NAMBLA’s Web site often pops up in computers on which they find child pornography.

A national network
NAMBLA is based in New York City and San Francisco.

The organization’s sexual advocacy is protected by the First Amendment.

“Everyone has the right to assemble and espouse whatever belief they want,” said Dan Dzwilewski, head of the FBI’s 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 NAMBLA’s 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 organization’s leadership and made that argument in court.

San Diego’s was among eight police departments across the nation that helped the FBI in last week’s 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 NAMBLA’s leaders were unsuccessful.

“There is never anyone here who can take your calls,” a man’s voice says on the group’s New York answering machine.

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. “It’s just a well-run little organization.”

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 group’s 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 group’s 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 haven’t been able to get a firm fix on how many members, who they are, where they are,” he said.

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 organization’s governing board.

Polhemus said the group had a San Diego chapter at the time. Jones, the San Diego police sergeant, said he doesn’t know if one still exists.

A former member of the organization’s 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 don’t want press and they don’t want the cops showing up,” he said.

After the main sessions, Polhemus said, “You break up and you go into different rooms, . . . like a trade conference.”

The networking for illicit activities occurs later, in private conversations over drinks or dinner, he said.

That’s what happened in November at a conference in Miami, FBI agents said in court documents.

An undercover agent dined with several NAMBLA members at a burger joint where they discussed trips abroad to abuse children. After the convention, he contacted them by telephone and e-mail and set up the sting by promising the boat trip to Mexico.

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 Valentine’s 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 group’s national leadership, a second organized the group’s national convention last year and a third said he had been a member since the 1980s.

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 didn’t 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 we’ve 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 can’t 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 “It’s 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 infiltration.”

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 too.

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 Gutierrez’s 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 wouldn’t 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 didn’t like that”.

Surely the Chandlers didn’t 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 Peretti’s 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 Peretti’s film. For more about the film please go to David’s post.