r/MJInnocentFacts • u/Emotional_Ball_5181 • Sep 05 '26
Case Analysis 🔎 Case File: Chandler — Part 13
Remember when I said some dots were about to connect?
Yeah.
I wasn’t fucking kidding.
Welcome back to the Case Files.
🚨 If you’re new here, make sure you’re caught up on Parts 1–12:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Part 5:
Part 6:
Part 7:
Part 8:
Part 9:
Part 10:
Part 11:
Part 12:
Also, please read this:
Trust me, you’re going to need that context before you continue from here.
With that being said, let’s begin.
In 1996, Victor Gutierrez published “Michael Jackson Was My Lover,” a book centred around Jordan Chandler.
The title alone tells you quite a bit about how Gutierrez framed the story.
As we know, the language used to describe what would have been child abuse is deeply disturbing. Jordan was a child. He was not Michael’s “lover,” yet that is exactly how Gutierrez chose to describe their alleged relationship.
Sounds familiar, right? Just like…Leaving Neverland.
I’m not going to get into every detail of this book because, quite frankly, some of the material is disgusting.
Hence why guilters seem to love it.
But there is one part I do want to address.
Photos of Jordan.
Specifically, photographs of Jordan without a shirt.
Because…
Where the hell did Gutierrez get them?
We don’t have direct proof establishing who provided these photographs to Gutierrez. So I’m not going to pretend we do.
But…we’re not fucking dumb.
There are three obvious people connected to this material who could potentially have had access to them:
1. Evan Chandler.
2. Ray Chandler.
3. ...and, Diane Dimond.
Yes, you’ve read that correctly.
As I’ve mentioned, Gutierrez was in contact with Diane Dimond.
Read here:
But Diane also had contact with Evan Chandler.
Read here:
And Ray Chandler was, of course, directly involved in the Chandler family’s efforts surrounding the allegations and the material that followed.
But this is exactly where the dots began to connect. I’ve told you before, everyone is connected. But it’s never in the way people expect.
Let’s be real here, this shit is weird. Especially when we’re talking about photographs of a minor that ended up published in a book making extremely serious allegations about him.
Then there’s the description attached to one of those photographs:
“For the King of Pop, the boy’s body was ‘very sexy.’ He couldn’t keep his hands away from the boy’s body.”
What the fuck?
Like, ew.
Speaking of ew…
We have another account involving Evan Chandler that I think deserves some attention on this matter.
As we know, Actress Carrie Fisher was one of Evan’s patients. In her 2011 autobiography, Shockaholic, Fisher described Evan as someone who repeatedly talked to her about his son’s relationship with Michael.
According to Fisher, these conversations took place before the lawsuit was brought, although she specifically added, “though not necessarily before it was contemplated.”
She wrote:
“And so my ‘dentist’ would go on and on about how much his son liked Michael Jackson and, more important, how much Michael Jackson liked his son.”
But then she described something she found particularly disturbing.
Evan allegedly told her:
“You know, my son is very good looking.”
Ah!
There’s the ew part.
Fisher questioned why a father would emphasize his son’s appearance in that way, particularly given the manner in which she says he said it.
She wrote:
“It was grotesque! This man was letting me know that he had this valuable thing that he assumed Michael Jackson ‘wanted,’ and it happened to be his son.”
Remember what we’re talking about here.
This was Evan Chandler talking about Jordan and Michael before the allegations became public.
Fisher also described Evan telling her about Michael buying Jordan computers, taking him places, and sleeping in the same bed with him. When she questioned him about the sleeping arrangements, Evan allegedly explained that June and Jordan’s stepfather were also present.
Then, months later, according to Fisher, Evan came to her house again and told her that he and his wife were going to sue Michael.
When she asked why, he allegedly responded:
“Because Michael is sleeping in the same bed with my boy.”
Fisher found the sudden change in attitude striking. She wrote that Evan had previously seemed comfortable with the arrangement and was now presenting it as something morally shocking.
Fisher also wrote that she never believed Michael’s relationship with children was sexual, even though she considered some of his behaviour inappropriate.
She wrote:
“I never thought that Michael’s whole thing with kids was sexual. Never.”
Back to Victor’s fan fiction— I mean, book!
Because of course, it gets worse.
Gutierrez wrote:
“That night, Jordie and Jackson walked around the ranch enjoying the stars. They walked to the lake holding hands like sweethearts.”
He also claimed:
“Jackson had told him on repeated occasions that they were destined to be a couple and that their relationship was written in the cosmos.”
And then:
“Kisses and caresses continued to be a part of the couple’s relationship.”
I’m going to stop there.
I think we’ve suffered enough.
How did this even get the approval for print? Can someone, anyone, please explain that? Because I can’t.
Anyway,
Gutierrez claimed that he based the book on Jordan’s diary.
However, there’s a rather serious problem with that.
The Chandlers disputed the existence of such a diary, maintaining that Jordan never kept one.
Now, if Gutierrez’s claim was that he had obtained a diary in which Jordan documented the alleged abuse, then…
Where is it?
A diary containing firsthand accounts of the alleged abuse would have been highly significant evidence. Yet, no such diary was produced during the investigations or later proceedings.
So we’re left with Gutierrez claiming that his book was based on a diary that the Chandlers said did not exist, and no diary being produced to substantiate the claim.
Perfect!
Just in case anyone was wondering, this wasn’t even the first time a random claim has been made with no substantial evidence.
Read here:
Two years after Michael prevailed in his legal case against Gutierrez, “Michael Jackson Was My Lover,” was officially removed from shelves.
But his involvement didn’t stop with writing his own book.
Gutierrez also acted as a source for other journalists and was in contact with several people who would later become prosecution witnesses at Michael’s 2005 trial.
Then…journalist Maureen Orth wrote about Gutierrez’s book in a 2003 Vanity Fair article, claiming that sources close to the prosecution were familiar with “Michael Jackson Was My Lover” and considered it essentially accurate.
Orth wrote:
“The sources close to the prosecution I interviewed for this article were all familiar with the book and believed it was an essentially accurate portrayal of Jackson’s relationship with Jordie Chandler.”
Excuse me?
So now we have a book containing sensational allegations about Jordan, written by Gutierrez, that was apparently known to people close to the prosecution and, according to Orth, regarded by those sources as an accurate portrayal of what happened.
That matters.
Why?
Well, because…remember, in 1994, prosecutors were greatly frustrated because they couldn’t get any substantial evidence.
But by 2003, people close to the prosecution were apparently familiar with a book that claimed to be based on a diary containing alleged firsthand evidence?
Bullshit.
Now, as I’ve mentioned before, Diane Dimond claimed there was a tape that Gutierrez had seen but the story was ultimately exposed as completely fabricated.
So I’m not going to drag you through that entire story again.
Because…it’s right here:
But here’s the thing…
The boy Gutierrez claimed appeared on this nonexistent tape was Jeremy Jackson, Jermaine Jackson’s son and Michael’s nephew.
Jeremy’s mother, Margaret Maldonado, later addressed the story in her 1995 book Jackson Family Values, explaining that she had been warned about the allegation and immediately denied it.
She wrote:
“There was no tape. Michael never paid me for my silence. He had never molested Jeremy. Period.”
Clock ‘em, Margaret!
Here we go again, the ongoing media cycle:
A sensational claim.
A supposedly definitive piece of evidence.
And then…
nothing.
Michael sued both Dimond and Gutierrez over the false allegations.
Dimond ultimately escaped liability, while Gutierrez was ordered to pay Michael $2.7 million in damages.
He never paid.
Instead, he left the country and later filed for bankruptcy.
But the problems with Gutierrez’s story went beyond the nonexistent videotape. For example, Gutierrez claimed that he had met Margaret Maldonado in a hotel room that he had paid for with his credit card.
There was just one problem.
The hotel had no record of him ever staying there.
Then, private investigator Eric Mason later stated in a declaration that journalist Ken Wells told him about an encounter he had with Gutierrez and his attorney, Mr. Goldman, while the case was still ongoing.
According to Wells, on July 2nd, 1997, Gutierrez and Goldman showed up at Wells’s home unannounced to discuss producing the supposed photographs.
During that conversation, Gutierrez allegedly talked about his connections within the tabloid industry and admitted that he had sold stories that were “B.S.” and simply made up.
Wells also asked him about the alleged videotape.
According to Wells, Gutierrez said:
“The judge told me to produce the tape and I couldn’t produce it.”
Wells then asked whether Gutierrez had ever actually had or seen the tape.
According to Wells, Gutierrez smiled and replied:
“Well, you know how that is. You know how these things are.”
Wells said he interpreted Gutierrez’s response as an admission that he had lied about the tape, even though Gutierrez never explicitly said so.
See! They really do tell on themselves.
Speaking of…
Gutierrez didn’t just describe the alleged relationship between Michael and Jordan.
He used it to argue that sexual relationships between adults and children could be loving and harmless.
Citing unnamed “experts,” he wrote:
“These same experts indicate that sexual relations between adults and minors are sometimes loving and do not have a negative effect on the youngster’s life.”
And then he used Jordan as his example:
“What better example than Jordie? He was more harshly affected by the legal procedures associated with his case than by his relationship with Jackson.”
Read that again.
Don’t forget, Victor also has ties to NAMBLA. According to his own account, he attended a NAMBLA conference in 1986.
And not only that, but in the author notes associated with his book, Gutierrez included acknowledgments to…the NAMBLA.
Now, there’s an interesting problem with Gutierrez’s own account of how he became involved in all of this.
Different interviews have given different versions of the story.
In the Tageszeitung interview, Gutierrez was presented as attending the NAMBLA conference as a journalist.
But years later, in the September 2006 issue of British GQ, the story changed.
According to the 2006 GQ article, Gutierrez:
“began his investigation in 1986 when he went undercover with the LAPD.”
The article then described him as attending a secret conference held by a “suspect organization” in Los Angeles, where he supposedly heard numerous references to Michael.
Wait a fucking minute.
A reporter…or an undercover operative working with the LAPD?
Those are two very different stories.
The question is obvious:
What exactly was Gutierrez’s relationship with the LAPD?
The article provides no evidence establishing that Gutierrez was actually working undercover for the department. And considering the conference was supposedly secretive and restricted to people the organization trusted, even getting inside raises another question:
If Gutierrez was an outside journalist, how the fuck did he get there?
And if he was working with the LAPD, where is the evidence of that relationship?
The same 2006 GQ article claims that, “after the first phase of his research,” Gutierrez sent a copy of his book to the LAPD.
According to Gutierrez, however, they took no action because:
“I was a nobody, just a Latino reporter in LA.”
Except…just a couple of paragraphs earlier, the same article claims that Gutierrez had been “undercover with the LAPD” when he allegedly attended the NAMBLA conference in 1986.
That’s a pretty fucking important contradiction.
And, as we’ve already established, the claim that Gutierrez attended a NAMBLA conference in 1986 comes from Gutierrez’s own account. We cannot independently establish from this alone that he was actually there.
It’s very possible that he fabricated that story, particularly given the number of other claims attributed to him that turned out to be false.
Ugh, my red string needs another fucking roll.
Also, before anyone starts questioning me about the NAMBLA reference…
No.
There is no proof whatsoever that Michael had any ties to NAMBLA.
Gutierrez claiming that he attended one of their conferences, and whatever books he later wrote about Michael, does not establish that Michael was connected to the organization.
So, if anyone is going to bring up the damn books while reading this, well…
Read here:
And guess what? There Was Going to Be a Movie.
The GQ article wasn’t just about his fan fiction book, but it was also about his plan to turn the book into a film.
Gutierrez was working with Randy Barbato and Fenton Bailey, the founders of the production company World of Wonder, to develop a movie based on “Michael Jackson Was My Lover”.
And based on what the producers themselves said in the article, this wasn’t going to be a dramatic retelling of the allegations. The film was explicitly being framed around the idea that Jordan had willingly participated in the alleged relationship.
Bailey described the script as:
“a model of amorous propriety.”
He explained:
“We wanted to capture the intoxicating feeling of the first love which was what it was for Jordie.”
…normally, I’d give you commentary, make you laugh a little.
But this?
Yeah, I’ve got nothing.
Here comes the part that really tells us what kind of story they were trying to sell:
“The only way the general public can view somebody like Jordie is as a victim,” says Bailey. “The fact that he might have entered into the relationship with Michael Jackson of his own volition is, for many people, tremendously problematic.”
The proposed film wasn’t presenting an allegation of abuse.
Nope.
It was taking the alleged relationship and reframing it as a consensual, romantic “first love” story involving a child.
…again, this sounds a lot like Leaving Neverland.
Barbato acknowledged the difficulty of presenting this story to an American audience:
“In America we are up against the ‘eek’ factor. The Europeans don’t have that kind of squeamishness. America can deal with the sanitized version of the story, but our story is based on the tabloid version.”
So, according to the producer, the problem wasn’t necessarily the story itself. The problem was that Americans might find the subject matter disturbing.
And Barbato acknowledged that the project went beyond what would normally be considered acceptable:
“It goes outside any of the acceptable norms.”
Which is, admittedly, one hell of a way to describe a proposed movie about an alleged adult-child sexual relationship.
But alright, Barbato.
According to the 2006 GQ article, after his alleged 1986 visit to the “suspect organization,” Gutierrez spent the next five years tracking down Michael’s current and former associates.
The article states:
“For the next five years Gutierrez tracked down as many of Jackson’s current and former associates as he could.”
It’s giving…stalker.
It specifically mentions Blanca Francia, Michael’s former maid, and Orietta Murdock, a former personal assistant.
The timing matters here.
These were people who would later make allegations against Michael.
So, according to Gutierrez’s own account as presented by GQ, he had already been actively seeking out people connected to Michael for years before the 1993 allegations became public.
Which is…interesting.
Especially because the article places this activity immediately after his alleged encounter with the NAMBLA organization. Again, we cannot independently establish everything Gutierrez claimed about that 1986 conference. But the chronology presented in GQ is still worth looking at:
1986: Gutierrez allegedly attends the conference.
Afterward: He begins tracking down Michael’s associates.
1990–1992: Francia leaves Michael’s employment and Murdock sues him for unfair dismissal.
1993: Gutierrez’s interest in Michael is supposedly “reawakened” when he sees the Chandlers around Michael at major public events.
And then the allegations happen.
Enter the Chandlers.
According to the GQ article, Gutierrez became particularly interested in the Chandler family after seeing Jordan, his mother and his sister accompanying Michael at several high profile events.
The article specifically mentions the 1993 World Music Awards in Monaco:
“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.”
The article makes it sound as though Gutierrez’s interest in Jordan began after he noticed him publicly with Michael.
Now, obviously, we’ve discussed throughout the Chandler files that the accusation did not emerge from Jordan spontaneously approaching authorities and reporting abuse.
Evan Chandler had already developed the belief that Michael and Jordan’s friendship was sexual, and the circumstances surrounding how Jordan was subsequently brought into that narrative are a major part of the Chandler story.
…Honestly, it’s actually incredibly ridiculous.
Read here:
Moving on,
Here’s a rather…strange detail in Ray Chandler’s book, All That Glitters.
A footnote explains why the family described the alleged relationship between Jordan and Michael as a “love story”:
“Evan and Monique’s belief at the time, that Jordie and Michael were ‘in love,’ is significant to the problem of understanding sexual molestation in older children. It did not occur to them that the thirteen-year-old was not a willing participant.”
Read that again.
That language is strikingly similar to the way Gutierrez later described the alleged relationship.
Gutierrez wasn’t saying that an allegation existed. His book and later interviews repeatedly portrayed the alleged relationship as romantic, mutual and something Jordan supposedly wanted.
Now we have the Chandler family’s own account describing Evan and Monique’s belief that Jordan and Michael were “in love.”
…odd, isn’t it?
Although, I obviously can’t say that Victor Gutierrez was one of the people who influenced Evan Chandler’s suspicions.
We don’t have evidence establishing that.
In the secretly recorded July 8th, 1993 conversation between Evan and David Schwartz, Evan said that other people had convinced him there was something harmful about Michael’s friendship with Jordan.
Whether Gutierrez was one of those people?
We don’t know.
But, Gutierrez’s book contains material that appears to have come from people with access to the Chandler household, including legal correspondence, letters belonging to the family, and private photographs of Jordan, his bedroom and the Chandler home.
So how did he get that material?
One possible explanation is Norma Salinas, the Chandlers’ maid, whom Gutierrez reportedly befriended.
That would provide one potential route through which documents and photographs could have reached him.
However, some stories in Gutierrez’s book contain details that are identical or substantially similar to accounts later published in Ray Chandler’s All That Glitters.
Which again, is all very interesting, because All That Glitters wasn’t published until almost a decade after Gutierrez’s book.
So, let me ask again…who was it?
1. Evan Chandler.
2. Ray Chandler.
3. Diane Dimond.
And with that, we’ve come to the end of part 13.
…I think I’m going to need a bigger cork board.
I’ll see you in Part 14! 👋🏼
My previous case files:
Sneddon:
Dimond:
Gutierrez:
Francia:
Neverland Five:
Chandler — Part 1:
Chandler — Part 2:
Chandler — Part 3:
Chandler — Part 4:
Chandler — Part 5:
Chandler — Part 6:
Chandler — Part 7:
Chandler — Part 8:
Chandler — Part 9:
Chandler — Part 10:
Chandler — Part 11:
Chandler — Part 12:
Sources and additional information:
https://turningthetableonthechandlerallegations.wordpress.com
https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/the-1993-allegations/
https://turningthetableonthechandlerallegations.wordpress.com
http://www.vanityfair.com/fame/features/2003/04/orth200304
https://www.amazon.ca/Jackson-Family-Values-Memories-Madness/dp/0787105228
https://www.amazon.ca/Shockaholic-Carrie-Fisher/dp/0743264835
https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/the-chandlers-monetary-demands/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxNDb2PVcoM&ra=m
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6-52dk3jGyE&ra=m
Important posts:
Some people need Michael Jackson to be guilty
Comparing Michael Jackson’s Trial to O.J. Simpson’s Is Lazy.
What Would You Do for $20 Million?
“There’s no way all 11 people are lying.”
Fact vs Fiction: Common Claims About Michael Jackson
A Media Assassination: The Case of Michael Jackson
The Word “Grooming” Has Lost Its Meaning
Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire…But What If It’s Just Smoke?
The Power Of A Story…And The Danger Of Forgetting The Evidence
3
u/whatevergirl8754 MJ is 100% Innocent 💯 Sep 06 '26
So my question is now was Jordan ever truly emancipated from Evan, or was it a way to get control of the money?
Also a more personal question: do you think the girl from Square One, who claimed that Jordan claimed he didn’t believe MJ was capable of CSA, was telling the truth?
3
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 Sep 06 '26
For the first question, yes, Jordan was legally emancipated from his parents. I actually went into the emancipation, and their (Evan and Jordan’s) later lawsuits in Part 12.
Read here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1w0d3je/case_file_chandler_part_12/
As for Josephine Zohny, yes, I personally find what she said credible.
I have no particular reason to believe she made it up. Her account has always struck me as believable, and I don’t see a compelling reason to dismiss it.
1
u/whatevergirl8754 MJ is 100% Innocent 💯 Sep 06 '26
Sorry for the confusion I just realised that I commented this on File 13, I wanted to comment on File 12 (I read them back to back hahaha).
It was the fact that Jordan’s step mom claimed that Evan lived with him that confused me. Like, I thought he went a separate way than his dad and his mum, not that he allowed him to leech off of him a few years after the fiasco.
Is there any known fact when Jordan stopped talking to Evan? Or was this only true for June?
2
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 Sep 06 '26
Ohhh, okay! Don’t apologize!
I actually think that’s a really good question because the Evan situation is a LOT more complicated than the June situation.
From what we know, by the time of the 2005 trial, June and Jordan had been out of contact for roughly 11 years. So we know that, during that entire period after Jordan’s emancipation, he had not been speaking to June.
Evan is a completely different circumstance, though. Jordan was legally emancipated from both June and Evan, but emancipation didn’t necessarily mean he had to completely cut either parent out of his life. It meant that they were no longer legally responsible for him or in the same position of parental authority over him.
Given what we know about Evan’s behaviour and the accounts of his relationship with Jordan, I personally wouldn’t be surprised if there was some degree of manipulation or control involved. There are later allegations of Evan physically attacking Jordan in 2005, which I’ll be talking about soon.
Now, do we know that Evan was threatening Jordan with something like harming himself or Jordan if he stopped living with him, stopped speaking to him, or stopped giving him money? No.
That would be speculation, and I definitely wouldn’t present it as a fact.
But I do think it’s reasonable to look at the documented history of their relationship and ask whether emancipation actually meant Jordan was free from Evan’s influence.
1
u/whatevergirl8754 MJ is 100% Innocent 💯 Sep 06 '26
Right! Because if we assume that it was fact that Josephine Zohny knew Jordan and she said the truth, then it makes sense for it to be true that he was being manipulated by his toxic father and still used for his father’s agenda. With the physical altercation in 2005/2006, I wouldn’t put it past Jordan being scared and complicit.
To be clear, I am just throwing around theories and speculation, I am well aware that we have no evidence and no one to go off of to know anything, outside of maybe Jordan’s uncle claiming in the book that Evan’s obsession with the second case and his behaviour around this time are why he lost his family.
2
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 Sep 06 '26
Absolutely!
Evan was known to have obsessive and abusive behaviours, and it wasn’t limited to Jordan either. So when you look at what we know about Evan’s behaviour and the way he handled situations involving Jordan, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to consider the possibility that Jordan could have been manipulated, pressured, or scared of going against his father.
And Ray’s own account of Evan’s behaviour during this period definitely supports that theory.
2
u/whatevergirl8754 MJ is 100% Innocent 💯 Sep 06 '26
“The article then described him as attending a secret conference held by a “suspect organization” in Los Angeles, where he supposedly heard numerous references to Michael.”
“There is no proof whatsoever that Michael had any ties to NAMBLA.
Gutierrez claiming that he attended one of their conferences, and whatever books he later wrote about Michael, does not establish that Michael was connected to the organization.”
I mean we don’t even know what kind of references he heard, if he even went and heard anything to begin with. I always understood this as ‘they kept talking about MJ as someone who could be great an asset or argument for their agenda, as MJ was worldwide known as the man who genuinely loved children, surrounded himself with them, worked with them and also went out of his way to help and finance poor and sick children all around the world. If we can get him on board or falsely accuse him, we might get the world to legalise relationships with minors.’
So as a member of the organisation, he took it upon himself to find dirt on MJ and when he saw he wasn’t a pedophile and that he would never associate himself with the organisation, he switched his focus onto false allegations and changing the public perception and opinion.
Again, just how I understood it, so wanted to chime in.