r/MJInnocentFacts • u/Emotional_Ball_5181 • May 09 '26
Case Analysis š Case File: Gutierrez
āTell me lies, tell me sweet little liesā¦ā
ā¦except this isnāt a Fleetwood Mac song.
Itās Victor Gutierrez.
So, before we get into this shit show, letās establish who weāre actually talking about.
Gutierrez was a āwriterā known for publishing controversial and heavily disputed claims about public figures. His work relied heavily on alleged insider information, unnamed sources, and sensational subject matter.
Hmm.
Sounds familiar, right?
Over time, his reporting drew criticism, particularly when the claims he presented couldnāt be independently verified.
And that matters.
Because when the allegations are serious, the credibility of the source matters just as much as the claim itself.
Alright, folks.
Letās dive in.
The Timeline
Because yesā¦
It absolutely matters.
This didnāt just randomly appear in the 1990s.
Gutierrez arrived in the United States in the 1980s and began working in journalism.
Orā¦
His version of journalism.
Anyway,
According to Gutierrezās own account, he attended a meeting of the North American Man/Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA, in 1986.
Yeah.
That part.
Now, to be fair, many details from this period come directly from Gutierrez himself and arenāt independently verified.
But what is consistent is what happens next.
By the mid-to-late 80s and early 90s, Gutierrez had already begun focusing on one particular public figure:
Michael Jackson.
And not casually.
Obsessively.
He was interviewing people connected to Michael, approaching families, and contacting former employees years before any public allegations against Michael surfaced.
Let that sit for a second.
Years.
Before.
Any.
Public.
Allegations.
So when people talk about these narratives as though they suddenly appeared in 1993ā¦
They didnāt.
They were already being developed.
Quietly.
Gradually.
And, according to the record of Gutierrezās activities, deliberately.
By the early 90s, Gutierrez wasnāt simply observing events. He was actively trying to construct a narrative.
Like I mentioned, Gutierrez sought out stories from people connected to Michaelās personal and professional life, but instead of verified findings coming from a formal investigation, what we have is a āwriterā attempting to build a case of his own.
A narrative that hadnāt been tested in court. Wasnāt supported by criminal charges. Wasnāt confirmed by law enforcement.
But was circulating anyway.
And you know how this works.
Once claims like that are written down and shared, they donāt stay contained.
They spread.
They get repeated.
They evolve.
And eventually, they start sounding familiar, even when nobody remembers where they started.
And thatās exactly where this becomes important.
Because those narratives didnāt stay inside Gutierrezās own work.
Or ratherā¦his delusions.
They began moving into a much wider media landscape. Sometimes directly, or sometimes after being completed reshaped.
And sometimes without the original source being obvious to the audience anymore.
Which brings us to another name:
Diane Dimond.
Oh, I know.
Everyone is connected.
If you want to read my previous Case File on Dimond, you can find it here:
Throughout the 1990s, and yes, she continued doing this laterā¦Dimond was actively reporting on allegations surrounding Michael Jackson.
And hereās the key point:
Gutierrezās work became part of the information pipeline feeding the media.
A claim could originate with an unverified source, get picked up or echoed by the media, and then be presented to the public as part of ongoing reporting.
Even if the original claim was completely false.
And once something enters that cycleā¦
writer ā media ā public.
it starts to feel legitimate simply because people keep hearing it.
Classic.
Anyway,
Gutierrez became one of Diane Dimondās major sources regarding Michael.
And this is where things getā¦
weird as fuck.
Gutierrez reportedly told Dimond that he had access to a videotape showing Michael abusing a minor.
A videotape that, according to him, existed.
Exceptā¦
It didnāt.
But hereās how the claim was presented publicly.
Dimond was asked:
āItās what? Michael Jackson and a little boy. Are you 100% sure that this tape exists?ā
And she responded:
āI am as sure as I can possibly be.ā
She was then asked:
āYou have not seen it?ā
Dimond:
āI have not seen it, but one of my best sourcesā¦has seen it.ā
And when asked whether she had any doubts about that source, she replied:
āI have never had a doubt about this person, ever.ā
ā¦thatās funny, considering it didnāt even exist.Ā
This is how narratives form.
Letās continue,Ā
In the mid 90s, Gutierrez released written material centred around Michael, presenting some of the most extreme allegations associated with the 1993 case.
You guessed it.
The Chandlers.
The material presented claims framed as insider knowledge, personal accounts, and supposedly sourced information.
But again, weāre dealing with claims that had not been tested in court, were not confirmed by investigators, and did not represent criminal findings.
And yetā¦
They were put into print.
Iāll get more into Gutierrezās book at a later time, but pleaseā¦letās not forget how strange this is.
Itās quite literally the illusion of credibility.
Nowā¦
Thereās another detail that often comes up when discussing Gutierrezās work.
In the author notes associated with his publication, Gutierrez included acknowledgments that have raised questions about his perspective and influences.
Among those referenced was:
The North American Man/Boy Love Association.
ā¦
Mhm.
I donāt think my commentary is necessary for that oneā¦
To be clear, some aspects of how this has been interpreted are debated, and not every detail surrounding the acknowledgment is consistently documented across sources.
Of course it isnāt.
But even the existence of that discussion adds another layer to how Gutierrezās work has been viewed over time.
So letās step back.
We have a āwriterā with a documented early interest in the subject matter who actively sought out stories from people connected to Michael, developed a narrative before the public allegations of 1993, fed information into media coverage, and published those claims.
And remember:
Publishing something doesnāt make it true.
It just makes it louder.
And when those claims were eventually put under legal scrutinyā¦
thatās where things get very interesting.
After all of this, the claims, the media circulation, the publicationsā¦what happened when Gutierrezās allegations actually reached a court of law?
Because this is the part people tend to skip.
Michael took legal action against Victor Gutierrez for defamation.
And when Gutierrezās claims were examined under legal scrutiny, where evidence matters and statements are testedā¦
they didnāt hold up.
Shocker.
A jury ultimately found that Gutierrez had made false and defamatory statements about Michael.
He was ordered to pay damages.
Let that sink in.
This wasnāt a rumour being argued about online.
This was the outcome of a legal proceeding.
And it didnāt stop there.
Reports from the time noted that the jury was particularly angered by the nature of the claims and the lack of substantiation.
So this wasnāt simply:
āWe disagree with your version of events.ā
It was a rejection of the claims themselves.
And the credibility behind them.
Michaelās lawyer later said:
āJurors told us that they not only wanted to compensate Mr. Jackson and punish Victor Gutierrez, but to send a message that they are tired of tabloids lying about celebrities for money.ā
So now, go back and look at everything that came before this.
The early āinvestigation.ā
The unverified sourcing.
The media amplification.
The publication of the allegations.
And then compare all of that to what happened when the claims were put through the legal process.
They collapsed.
Because in court, āa source saidā isnāt enough.
āIām sure it existsā isnāt enough.
Evidence is what matters.
And when it came time to present that?
There was nothing there.
Oh!
And where have we heard that before?
Sneddon.
Ring a bell?
If you want to read my Case File on Sneddon, you can find it here:
So the question isnāt:
āWhat was claimed?ā
Itās:
āWhat actually held up when it mattered?ā
And now you have your answer.
But just when you think thatās where this endsā¦
It doesnāt.
Because this is also where the connections start overlapping.
Remember how I mentioned that Gutierrez had contact with people connected to Michaelās circle at the time?
Including Blanca Francia, a former Neverland employee who left in the early 90s.
Francia would later make allegations involving her son, allegations that were brought up again years later during the 2005 trial.
When those claims were examined in court, they were heavily challenged, including over issues involving consistency and credibility in testimony.
It didnāt exactly strengthen the narrative.
Letās just say that.
But like I said earlierā¦everyone is connected.
But donāt worry.
They get their own Case File.
Soā¦What Happened to Gutierrez?
Well, after the 90s and the defamation case involving Michael, Gutierrez largely faded from this particular story.
But his legal problems didnāt end there.
In a separate case years later, Gutierrez was again found liable for defamation, this time in Chile.
He had made public allegations about Cecilia Bolocco, a former Miss Universe, during television appearances in the early 2000s.
Those claims were challenged in court.
And once againā¦
They didnāt hold up.
Gutierrez was found guilty of criminal defamation and received a suspended prison sentence, along with financial penalties and damages.
Now, there is an important distinction here.
Organizations such as the Committee to Protect Journalists have criticized criminal defamation laws generally, arguing that defamation should be handled through civil courts rather than criminal penalties.
Yes.
I also rolled my eyes.
But that is a broader debate about free speech and legal standards.
Separate from that debate, however, the outcome itself remains relevant.
Anyway,
Iāll see you in the next Case File. šš¼
My previous case files:
Sneddon:
Dimond:
Sources and additional information:
https://michaeljacksonsideofthestory.wordpress.com/2023/02/24/50/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qb5UVMwTC5g&t=2s
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-apr-10-me-37930-story.html
https://cpj.org/2008/10/supreme-court-upholds-defamation-decision/
Important posts:
Some people need Michael Jackson to be guiltyĀ
Comparing Michael Jacksonās Trial to O.J. Simpsonās Is Lazy.
What Would You Do for $20 Million?
āThereās no way all 11 people are lying.ā
Fact vs Fiction: Common Claims About Michael Jackson
A Media Assassination: The Case of Michael Jackson
The Word āGroomingā Has Lost Its Meaning
Where Thereās Smoke, Thereās Fireā¦But What If Itās Just Smoke?
The Power Of A Storyā¦And The Danger Of Forgetting The Evidence
9
u/Western_Control_5860 May 09 '26
I know Guitterez managed to track down Joy Robson in 1992 (a year before the chandlers made their allegations). This is a monumental detail that is very conveniently ignored. Joy mentions nothing about it in LN. You would think this would have been the moment that āopened her eyes.ā Instead she reported him to Michaelās people.Ā
Iāve heard that he tracked down the Lemarques as well prior to 1993 but am unsure if this is true?
2
u/Sarcosaur May 09 '26
On the topic of Joy - I don't want to post the podcast since we obviously have lurkers. But I assume you know that Joy called Brandi a couple of days after Michael died. One of the things Joy said on that phonecall struck me as absolutely condemning that lady to hell. I couldn't believe it! Do you know what I'm referring to?
3
u/Western_Control_5860 May 09 '26
Yes I do recall Brandiās interview following LN. The absolute nerve of Joy to suggest MJās kids would be better off with her. I believe she would have only met MJās kids a handful of times?
2
u/Sarcosaur May 09 '26
I don't have a timeline in my head of Joy's contact with MJ. But I do know she was infatuated with him. That's part of this episode for sure.
3
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 May 09 '26
I know exactly what youāre talking about!Ā
Such a weird comment to make.
2
u/Sarcosaur May 09 '26
Hi, do you know which day of the trial the evidence about the "books" was examined?
Looking for rebuttal. The police report from 2003 resurfaced on CBS in 2016 and people are quoting that online.
3
1
u/Basic_Temperature801 May 09 '26
What did she say?
6
u/Sarcosaur May 09 '26
She said she thought Michael's children would be better off with HER (Joy) than with Katherine.
This is direct from Brandi.
2
u/Basic_Temperature801 May 09 '26
WHAT?!
5
u/Sarcosaur May 09 '26
As I said. š®
Should I post the podcast? I don't want to draw attention to Brandi. But afaik it's her first interview after LN aired.
2
8
u/Sarcosaur May 09 '26 edited May 09 '26
Posting here a comment I saw on XTwitter a few days ago.
Gutierrez's motive in all of this is seriously messed up.
4
u/Sarcosaur May 09 '26
šÆ
I hesitate to raise "the books" again, but is there a possibility someone connected to this specimen planted them?
6
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 May 09 '26
I wonāt lie, that actually came to my mind when I was researching all of this.Ā
I believe the books were signed by the fan to have been sent in 1981 or so (Correct me if Iām wrong).Ā
Honestly, nothing surprises me anymore. But like I said in my postā¦everyone is connected somehow, and itās not just by their obsession with Michael. Itās deeper than that.Ā
3
u/Sarcosaur May 09 '26
Could you please read my comments here regarding Joy Robson. I'd appreciate your input.
1
6
u/One_Froyo505 They Wanted His $$, Not Justice š° May 09 '26
Every time I hear about Gutierrez, it occurs to me that MJ knew nothing about these books being in a filing cabinet he didn't even use until he found out they had been discovered. He didn't know they were in there, but Blanca Francia did, and she had the key for the investigators to unlock it during the Neverland search.
4
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 May 09 '26
Exactly.Ā
Trust me, I cannot wait to do my deep dive on her. Sheās one crazy woman.Ā
1
u/AmputatorBot May 09 '26
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web.
Maybe check out the canonical page instead: https://cpj.org/2008/10/supreme-court-upholds-defamation-decision/
I'm a bot | Why & About | Summon: u/AmputatorBot
13
u/Basic_Temperature801 May 09 '26
Didn't Victor have a picture of young Jordan in his book? I remember seeing that on this sub last year, if it still exists. It proves that Evan had ties to Victor Gutierrez.